What exactly makes an Assault Weapon an Assault Weapon in the first place?

[GeeMack]

Not all assault weapons are assault riffles [...]

Then when the question is "what exactly makes an assault weapon an assault weapon", describing and/or defining an assault rifle is not a reasonable response, and is actually pretty much irrelevant to the question.

 

[jimbob]

Pretending that assault weapons are actually hunting weapons is required in the gun industry. When outdoor writer Jim Zumbo^WP dared to speak out against this practice back in 2007, he got fired.

ETA: The popularity of these seemed to go way up after the AWB expired in 2004. Guys started thinking now that it's legal I gotta get me one of those guns. Then they had to figure out what they needed it for. It's not appropriate for big game hunting, and overkill for just about anything else. You don't need 30 rounds to hunt coyotes. Using it to vaporize prairie dogs or other small critters is a rather sick form of entertainment. What you really have is a device for blowing your ammunition budget as quickly as possible. Or killing a lot of people as quickly as possible.

People mentioned the 1911 Colt. Automatic pistols tend to lack the accuracy at range that assault rifles have. I'd guess that might be the reason why submachine guns could be considered as suitable assault weapons, but not assault rifles.

I agree entirely with Chuck Guiteau's point about it being more effective to severely wound on a battlefield than to kill. Especially if that means you can use slightly smaller rounds and carry more.

This is one reason why I can't see the suitability of semiautomatic versions of assault rifles for hunting. If hunting, surely you want to have as high a chance of a clean kill as possible. You rarely want to take as many animals out of a fight in as short a time as possible.

 

[tyr_13]

Not all assault weapons are assault riffles but all assault riffles are by definition assault weapons.

Which doesn't tell us much of anything of the term 'assault weapon'. How does that mean that 'assault weapons' isn't a political term? That something falls in it doesn't mean a thing one way or the other.

I'm sorry you don't like that. I'm sorry that you have pinned so much hope on a "gotcha".

It isn't a gotcha. You're simply wrong about how the terms are used. 'Assault weapon' isn't used the way you claim.

The terms are in the lexicon and all of your assertions won't change that. Sure, you can find discrepancy and controversy but I've never denied that. If you think the discrepancy and controversy demonstrate that you are correct then you are sadly mistaken.

But 'assault weapon' isn't used the way you claim it is. That's it. You claim it is, but then point to examples using assault rifle. That's not evidence.

You claim it's one thing in the lexicon but it isn't. Your own sources say it isn't. Your examples don't even reference the term you're trying to describe, they reference a different term. It's only consistent in the way you've constructed it in your head. Rifle's a weapon, assault rifle's a term, so assault weapon is a descriptive category outside of political constructs.

A mouse is a mammal. A Tit mouse has mouse in it. Titmouse is a mammal.

Let me point out one more time that I don't have any confirmation bias. I love guns and if what you are saying had any validity I would happily agree with you. I don't want to ban any guns and I most certainly think the nature of the law makes it all but impossible for there to be an effective legal definition for either assault riffle or assault weapon.

What kind of logic is that? 'I'm unbaised, therefore I'm right. If I wasn't right I'd agree with you.' EDIT: I see you say 'if they had validity'.

Stop waiting for traps and gotchas. This isn't a gun argument, it's a language argument.

I'm not saying don't use the term, but recognize it for what it is. It's so contextual and broad that it can apply to even lever action guns (see your wiki link). If someone says 'assault weapon' then they are almost invariably talking about politics or legislation and not the weapons themselves unless they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[RandFan]

IYou claim it's one thing in the lexicon but it isn't. Your own sources say it isn't. Your examples don't even reference the term you're trying to describe, they reference a different term. It's only consistent in the way you've constructed it in your head. Rifle's a weapon, assault rifle's a term, so assault weapon is a descriptive category outside of political constructs.

First, you go on an on with your assertion. I reject your assertions as being nothing but ad hoc rationalization. I'm not playing that game. If you have some factual basis to say that a a rifle is a weapon but an assault riffle isn't an assault weapon", then cite the source. I'm happy to acknowledge the source, it might even change my mind but that is very unlikely.

I have more than adequately demonstrated my position. I have provided links and sources. In the face of you droning on and on with assertion after assertion it's a waste for me to continue this.

So, I will summarize one more time.

An assault riffle is an assault weapon. It could NOT be something other than an assault weapon. All assault riffles are assault weapons but not all assault weapons are assault riffles.

Now, if you have something other than baseless assertions and silly appeals I'm happy to hear it. If all you have is the same bald assertions then I'm just going to repeat my summary.

 

[Delvo]

they are very real terms and your insistence that they are only used in a political way is demonstrably untrue... if the most people who know anything about guns can easily communicate by using the term assault rifles then why would you assert to mudcat that the term has no real meaning or it is only political?

The claim you're trying to counter is not that "assault rifle" is a purely political and otherwise meaningless term, or that both it and "assault weapon" are; it's that "assault weapon" is. But you have not produced a single argument specific to the use of the phrase "assault weapon" at all. You merely produce arguments on the use of "assault rifle", which counter nothing that anybody else has actually said. Your continued insistence on pretending that these terms are exactly the same thing will not magically make it so.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, riffles are in fact weapons.

A riffle is weapon. An assault rifle is an assault weapon.

Not all assault weapons are assault riffles but all assault riffles are by definition assault weapons.

One F.

And from your repeated assertions of a link between the meanings of "assault rifle" and "assault weapon", your case appears to be entirely a linguistic inference. But linguistic inferences can be wrong. What you're doing here is roughly equivalent to popular false etymology, in which people come up with explanations for where words came from that seem to make sense but aren't based on historical reality, such as that "isle" and "island" are related.

More specific to your case, when a compound term includes a word for something that's a member of a larger category, the name of that larger category can NOT necessarily be substituted into the term and still indicate a real thing or even make sense at all. An oak tree is a plant, but "white oak", "black oak", and "red oak" are not white, black, or red plants. An otter is a mammal and some otters are river otters, but there's no such phrase as "river mammal". A van and a jet are vehicles, but a minivan is not a minivehicle and "fighter vehicle" is meaningless. A couch is furniture and some couches are folding couches, but "folding furniture" isn't anything.

Worse yet, your own attempt to do the equivalent to the above in this case gives itself away as utter nonsense the instant anybody takes the next step from it to trying to find other kinds of "assault weapons" that aren't rifles. When was the last time you heard of an assault pistol, assault knife, assault shotgun, or assault grenade? I can even name and describe a sword that would be a rough counterpart to assault rifles for a lower-technology era, being designed for group assaults on artificial structures consisting of a set of small enclosed spaces/rooms, and point out specific traits it has which it was given for that specific purpose, but it would never be called an "assault sword"; it's called a "cutlass". The word "assault" simply is not a description you can tack onto a weapon's name.

Worse yet, the specifics traits a gun must have in order to be an "assault rifle" are completely different from the ones that law-makers made up for the "assault weapon" ban, so just the technical traits alone give away the fact that there's no connection between the two phrases, because there really isn't one between the guns they're applied to.

 

[RandFan]

Worse yet, the specifics traits a gun must have in order to be an "assault rifle" are completely different from the ones that law-makers made up for the "assault weapon" ban, so just the technical traits alone give away the fact that there's no connection between the two phrases, because there really isn't one between the guns they're applied to.

I don't see anything your post worth responding to. It's more of the baseless assertions. Again, you done on and on with your arguments, which by itself is fine (if not tedious), but the arguments are composed of argument by assertion. You've done absolutely nothing to support any of your assertions.

 

[RandFan]

Assault weapon - Merriam-Webster Online

assault weapon noun

Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle

Please to note that according to Merriam Webster assault weapon means "especially assault rifle".

Assault Weapon Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.

Please to note that according to wiki most assault weapons are rifles.

Folks, if you want to be taken seriously (I'm not talking being assumed right just taken seriously) then please for the love of god pony up something other than droning on and on with assertions. Since you folks don't know. Argument by assertion is simply a fallacy.

 

[Delvo]

Automatic pistols tend to lack the accuracy at range that assault rifles have...

...This is one reason why I can't see the suitability of semiautomatic versions of assault rifles for hunting. If hunting, surely you want to have as high a chance of a clean kill as possible. You rarely want to take as many animals out of a fight in as short a time as possible.

You not only wouldn't want to fire lots of bullets at a time, but also would put a higher priority on accuracy, and for that, I'm told that bolt action is better than semi-automatic or automatic, and longer barrels are better than medium/short, so that's two ways in which an assault rifle would be worse than ideal for hunting, even before taking into account the extra mechanical complexity and its costs and maintenance/repair complications.

I reject your assertions as being nothing but ad hoc rationalization.

What in the world else could "rifles are weapons, so assault rifles are assault weapons" itself be?!

 

[RandFan]

What in the world else could "rifles are weapons, so assault rifles are assault weapons" itself be?!

Correct. It could only be correct. If a riffle is a weapon then it only follows that an assault riffle would be an assault weapon.

Not only is that obviously logical but Merriam Webster and Wiki agree (see post 267).

I've seen no logic from you as to why that is not true and more importantly I've seen zero evidence. No sources. No links. No citations. Just assertion after assertion.

 

[Delvo]

I have more than adequately demonstrated my position. I have provided links and sources.

Your links and sources show something different from what you assert. Other than them, all you have is an attempt at linguistic logic which fails on the "being logical" front (for reasons you say you've deemed unworthy of a response: argument by sanctimony).

 

[tyr_13]

First, you go on an on with your assertion. I reject your assertions as being nothing but ad hoc rationalization. I'm not playing that game. If you have some factual basis to say that a a rifle is a weapon but an assault riffle isn't an assault weapon", then cite the source. I'm happy to acknowledge the source, it might even change my mind but that is very unlikely.

I have more than adequately demonstrated my position. I have provided links and sources. In the face of you droning on and on with assertion after assertion it's a waste for me to continue this.

So, I will summarize one more time.

An assault riffle is an assault weapon. It could NOT be something other than an assault weapon. All assault riffles are assault weapons but not all assault weapons are assault riffles.

Now, if you have something other than baseless assertions and silly appeals I'm happy to hear it. If all you have is the same bald assertions then I'm just going to repeat my summary.

Your sources disagree. You keep switching out 'assault weapon' with 'assault rifle'.

If I wanted to prove that the common usage of 'station wagon' meant it was an 'SUV', I'd have to cite sources that used the term 'station wagon'. I couldn't simply cite sources using the term 'SUV'. 'See my friend says he works on SUVs all the time and shoppers search for SUVs and here is a source which has an entire section explaining the difference and pointing out the confusion, so they're the same'.

We'll have to disagree because I see the distinction as an important one.

EDIT: I see from your cites above that you're not even attempting to argue the point of contention but have a different one in mind. No one has argued that assault rifles aren't assault weapons. The discussion is centered around them 1, not being interchangeable, and 2 one being a technical description and one being a political (or legally invented) category.

______________________________________

On the OP and my summary, I'd say the Wikipedia article on this is actually pretty good and advise that people use the term that means what the mean to say which, in my view, regulates 'assault weapon' to the political sphere. Know that many gun clubs see the term as a pejorative.

 

[RandFan]

Your links and sources show something different from what you assert. Other than them, all you have is an attempt at linguistic logic which fails on the "being logical" front (for reasons you say you've deemed unworthy of a response: argument by sanctimony).

What the hell are you talking about?

RandFan: An assault riffle is an assault weapon.
Merriam Webster: Assault weapons are various semiautomatic firearms especially rifles.

 

[GeeMack]

An assault riffle is an assault weapon.

Sure.

It could NOT be something other than an assault weapon.

Nonsense. That is unequivocally a patently false statement. Something could be an assault weapon as well as being any of many other things.

All assault riffles are assault weapons but not all assault weapons are assault riffles.

So when asked what exactly makes an assault weapon an assault weapon, all this distraction about assault rifles is actually irrelevant and borders on being off topic. The question from the OP, which all the blather about assault rifles has failed to address, was this: What exactly makes an Assault Weapon an Assault Weapon in the first place?

 

[RandFan]

I have been very clear. I have asserted that an assault rifle is an assault weapon. For purposes of clarity, I've tried to show to mudcat one example of an assault weapon, the assault riffle, as it is an excellent example and what most people think of when they hear the words "assault weapon".

 

[lomiller]

Randfan, you're using circular logic. You say you don't accept the distinction between assault weapon and assault rifle, despite assault rifle requiring select fire or automatic only, because gun enthusiast use the term assault rifle. But you support assault rifle and assault weapon being the same by gun enthusiast (marketing departments actually) using the term 'assault rifle'.

Umm just so you know, while selective fire is a common feature of assault rifles it is not their defining feature.

The primary feature of an assault rifle is the use of a mid sized round, which unlocks a range of useful capabilities for combat. Rather than simply outlaw mid sized rounds it seems lawmakers are targeting those capabilities instead.

The logic behind a mid sized round is:

It's still accurate to ~200-300m. A sub-caliber round which are not usually accurate beyond 50-100 feet (sometimes by design, see below). While a full sized round can be accurate at much greater distances, it turns out that most combat takes place within that 300m range and in cases where it doesn't simply having lots of people firing lots of bullets can still kill the target.

It's smaller and lighter than a full sized round so you can have larger magazine capacities and carry more ammunition.

It has less recoil so you can fire a lot more rounds with high accuracy than you could with a full sized round. Even so in bursts over 3 round recoil is still going to have you firing well over your targets head. 50+ accurately fire rounds per min is probably within the capabilities of most assault rifles, though most marksmen can't approach that.


While semi-auto is pretty much a must, a full auto or burst setting isn't, but is usually included to allow for suppression fire and emergency use in very close quarter combat. Other weapons are preferable for the latter, but it's nice not to have to carry more than one.

Fully automatic weapons typically have a different job than an assault rifle. They are designed to spray massive numbers of bullets in the general direction of a target. In these weapons, accuracy is actually a disadvantage. They fire so many bullets nearly everything in it's kill zone is likely to be hit, but the more accurate it is the smaller this zone. The point isn't to hit the same target as many times as possible it's to hit everything in an area.

A machine gun would be such a weapon that uses a full sized round, while a sub-machine gun uses a pistol round and is typically intended for 1 person use in close quarters combat. While it would kill more people than an assault rifle in crowded area, the way most shooting sprees play out someone with a sub machine gun would run out of ammo long before someone with an assault rifle stopped killing people.

Neither are really good choices for other application. Both lack the accuracy and range to be really good hunting rifles, and their propensity to spray bullets around the neighborhood makes them irresponsible to use for self defense. I tend to agree with the people above who say that the main appeal of these weapons is to stoke the gun fantasies of their owners rather than practical application.

 

[tyr_13]

Umm just so you know, while selective fire is a common feature of assault rifles it is not their defining feature.

The primary feature of an assault rifle is the use of a mid sized round, which unlocks a range of useful capabilities for combat. Rather than simply outlaw mid sized rounds it seems lawmakers are targeting those capabilities instead.

SNIPPED

While semi-auto is pretty much a must, a full auto or burst setting isn't, but is usually included to allow for suppression fire and emergency use in very close quarter combat. Other weapons are preferable for the latter, but it's nice not to have to carry more than one.

Thanks for the good description of why assault rifles are designed like they are.

While it isn't the only feature of an assault rifle, I had always been told, and read, that select fire was what made it different from simply a carbine. Britannica as well as Wikipedia says so, as does the relevant US law (linked to up thread).

I was under the impression that 'assault rifles' were mid sized cartridges, able to accept interchangeable magazines, with select or automatic fire, designed for military use.

I'm willing to be wrong here and it doesn't change the argument much. It just means that some people who I thought were applying the term a little broadly were being accurate.

SNIPPED AGAIN

Neither are really good choices for other application. Both lack the accuracy and range to be really good hunting rifles, and their propensity to spray bullets around the neighborhood makes them irresponsible to use for self defense. I tend to agree with the people above who say that the main appeal of these weapons is to stoke the gun fantasies of their owners rather than practical application.

Yes, that's why the BAR is a machine gun and not an assault rifle. Sub-machine guns, say the Thompson, like wise are not assault rifles. I'm betting that most people would let them fall into the category of 'assault weapons' without protest.

Yes, the stock versions of those weapons wouldn't be good for hunting, or at least any I can think of, or self defense. There are versions that look a lot like them that are however. Do those count as assault weapons? Beats me, you'd have to ask whoever is using the term at the time.

I agree they are mostly good for 'gun fantasies' like a lot of cars are good for fantasy as well. I feel compelled to note that such fantasies are very often of the range fun type, not that I think you were implying anything by saying 'fantasy'.

 

[Delvo]

I have been very clear.

Yes, which is why it's been easy to watch your goalposts moving. This started with the fact that "assault weapon" is a term from the political world rather than the gun world and has no particular meaning in the latter. You tried to counter this by showing that "assault rifle" is a term the gun world really uses. Only after having it repeatedly pointed out to you for a while that that doesn't make any sense, because evidence of the use of one term has no relevance at all to another term, did you drop the "but the gun world uses 'assault rifle' all the time" stuff and start trying to shift over from treating the two terms as exactly equivalent to treating one of them as a special case of the other.

Unfortunately, this new position you've fallen back to doesn't work either... not only because it's far enough from the original goalpost position to no longer have anything to do with the subject you were originally arguing, which was the meaning, origin, and use of "assault weapon", which is unaffected by whether it includes "assault rifles" or not... but also because your basis for it is a simpleminded linguistic principle which everybody knows doesn't really work. (...and which has already been shown by example in this thread not to work, which you tried to get away from by declaring the examples unworthy of having the light of your gloriousness shine upon them.)

 

[RandFan]

Yes, which is why it's been easy to watch your goalposts moving. This started with the fact that "assault weapon" is a term from the political world rather than the gun world and has no particular meaning in the latter. You tried to counter this by showing that "assault rifle" is a term the gun world really uses. Only after having it repeatedly pointed out to you for a while that that doesn't make any sense, because evidence of the use of one term has no relevance at all to another term, did you drop the "but the gun world uses 'assault rifle' all the time" stuff and start trying to shift over from treating the two terms as exactly equivalent to treating one of them as a special case of the other.

Unfortunately, this new position you've fallen back to doesn't work either... not only because it's far enough from the original goalpost position to no longer have anything to do with the subject you were originally arguing, which was the meaning, origin, and use of "assault weapon", which is unaffected by whether it includes "assault rifles" or not... but also because your basis for it is a simpleminded linguistic principle which everybody knows doesn't really work. (...and which has already been shown by example in this thread not to work, which you tried to get away from by declaring the examples unworthy of having the light of your gloriousness shine upon them.)

So, again with the droning on and on of assertions without citations. No sources. No links. Nothing. Nada. Zip. You ignore my very simply and consistent position and the links and sources that back me up and then give us.....



Care to try again only this time address what I'm saying and then back up your assertions with facts? Trust me, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What, they didn't issue you semi-auto .22LR as your primary weapon in the military?

Well, actually, I was USAF in the mid '80's so yes.

We were each given an opportunity to shoot one (1) 50-round box of .22LR in converted rifles in basic training.

This was after a day of classroom time. Summary:
Hour 1: How to insert magazine into rifle
Hour 2: How to remove magazine from rifle
Hour 3: How to look through iron sights.

I had a teacher in college say "you were in the armed forces, weren't you?" I answered "no, I was in the Air Force. I had rubber stamps that said "top secret".

 

[lomiller]

Thanks for the good description of why assault rifles are designed like they are.

While it isn't the only feature of an assault rifle, I had always been told, and read, that select fire was what made it different from simply a carbine. Britannica as well as Wikipedia says so, as does the relevant US law (linked to up thread).

I was under the impression that 'assault rifles' were mid sized cartridges, able to accept interchangeable magazines, with select or automatic fire, designed for military use.

That's probably a good descriptor for the modern carbine, but modern military carbines use the same ammunition as assault rifles. In a sense both have their origins in the WWII Germany even though carbines as shorter variations of other military rifles had been around for a lot longer.

There are other features like large changeable magazines and semi-automatic fire that fall naturally out of what the mid size cartridge helps you achieve, but these existed before in other weapons it was really the assault rifle using the innovation of the mid sized cartridge that pulled them together.

Yes, that's why the BAR is a machine gun and not an assault rifle. Sub-machine guns, say the Thompson, like wise are not assault rifles. I'm betting that most people would let them fall into the category of 'assault weapons' without protest.

TBH the fulls sized machine gun is the least worrisome of the three because it's not very portable. If someone decided to shoot up their whole neighborhood it would be bad though.

The sub machine gun could be extremely nasty in some cases the assault rifle almost as bad and worse in others. Since neither is a really practical legal use outside the military it seems reasonable to me to set the bar to include these weapons.

Yes, the stock versions of those weapons wouldn't be good for hunting, or at least any I can think of, or self defense. There are versions that look a lot like them that are however. Do those count as assault weapons? Beats me, you'd have to ask whoever is using the term at the time.

I agree. Just saying no full automatic works for sub machine guns but going after assault rifles by targeting their cartridge size is a bad idea because it would end up hitting perfectly good hunting rifles as well. The challenge becomes targeting the bundle of features that come together to make the assault rifle without impacting similar features in perfectly legitimate rifles.

IMO this is quite possible, but leads to complaints of "but it's not clear what you are trying to ban" because you are trying to eliminate the package without putting a hard limit on any of the specific features. I find this complain disingenuous because the reason for it is to not impact acceptable rifles but it's portrayed as making the rules broader.