This thread from 2 years ago needs to be reposted.

[garybeck]

I'm already seeming rightwing memes saying there is "no such thing" as an assault rifle. I tried to kick this thread from 2 years ago but i guess it is too old so I provide a link and a copy/paste:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210410678

What is an "assault rifle," he asked sarcastically.

When, inevitably, some gun collector snarkily asks me to tell them what an "assault rifle" is, I like to respond with this:

An assault rifle is a weapon that cowards use in the commission of mass murder to kill the most human beings possible, in the shortest time possible. An assault rifle is a weapon that killed 17 high school students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in unders 6 minutes, it is a weapon that killed 20 elementary school children and 6 teachers in Newtown in under 5 minutes. An assault rifle is a weapon that killed 49 people and wounded 58 at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, most were killed or wounded in the first 7 minutes. Assault rifles are weapons that killed 16 people and wounded 22 in under 3 minutes at a San Bernardino Christmas party. Assault rifles with a still legally obtainable bumpstock ($250 online) are weapons that killed 58 people and wounded 851 in under 10 minutes at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas

An assault rifle is a weapon of war, slightly modified for civilian use that has the capability of putting enough firepower in the hands of physically and mentally weak people to give them a capability they otherwise would not have; the ability to kill and wound dozens or even hundreds of people in a few minutes.

It is a weapon amazingly similar to the rifle I carried in the US Army, except mine had a 20 round magazine instead of 30, 50, or 100, and could fire automatic 3 round bursts, the civilian model can be legally modified to fire fully automatic 100 round drum magazines. It fires the exact same high velocity round as my military issued rifle, designed to tumble upon impact with human flesh causing the maximum tissue damage and lethality possible. It is weapons like the AR (ArmarLite Rifle), which was designed specifically for military infantryman to be able to carry more ammunition into war. It is any weapon that has the capability of firing multiple .223 or 5.56 (bullets designed for weapons of war during Vietnam) rounds at an extremely high velocity, with minimal reloading, for the primary purpose of killing human beings quickly and by those with nominal firearms training, proficiency or precision. They are for sale to anyone over 18 who can pass a simple background check, in a dozen stores near you. They are available most weekends in gunshow parking lots or from people on the internet with no background check at all. They are legally available to mentally ill people and subjects on the terrorist watch list. They are the preferred weapon of mass shooters who use them more frequently and with more lethal efficiency, every year since the assault weapons ban, staunchly opposed by the NRA, was allowed to lapse by a Republican President and Congress on September 13th, 2004.

An assault rifle is the weapon of choice of mass murderers who want to slay as many defenseless men, women, and children as possible.

Any more questions?

[Budi]

1. K & R for most accurate description of Assault Rifle in weapons' history

"An assault rifle is a weapon that cowards use in the commission of mass murder to kill the most human beings possible, in the shortest time possible. "
More...

[Karadeniz]

2. Thanks for the repost...

[Hekate]

3. KnR

[Maraya1969]

4. And AR stands for "Assault rifle" right? I never knew that until yesterday

[Whatthe_Firetruck]

7. Or did they mean this?

"It is weapons like the AR (ArmarLite Rifle)"

[Aristus]

12. No.

It's is short for ARmalite, the company founded by the designer of the AR-15/M-16, Eugene Stoner.

Thinking that AR stands for "Assault Rifle" is one of the ways gun-crazed repukes try to change the conversation on mass murder. "You don't even know what AR stands for, so you're not qualified to talk about firearms". That kind of thing.

[StClone]

31. If you don't know the name of every part of my SIG Sauer

And able to disassemble it in less than five minutes, and reassemble it correctly, you have no right to discuss which end of the barrel kills people.

[Aristus]

32. Exactly.

Although they'd better not try that one with me. I got out of the Army nearly 30 years ago, but I'm convinced I could still field-strip an M-16 blindfolded in under a minute.

The training stays with you. We stripped and re-assembled our rifles hundreds of times in Basic Training. It became reflexive after a while, which was the entire point of the training.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. K & R. Thanks for posting.

[3catwoman3]

6. I have no patience for those who try...

...to obfuscate by focusing on technical minutiae.

Everybody knows what these kinds of guns are designed for, no matter what label they carry.

Enough bullshit!

[Tommymac]

25. This.

[Kaleva]

52. It's impossible to create good law without a knowledge of the details

this is why it was so easy to get around the AWB. Change the name of the gun and make a few cosmetic changes and you still have a legal to build, sell, and own killing device that can be fitted with still legal to buy and own high capacity magazines.

[Dial H For Hero]

61. Any time one tries to explain why a given proposal would be impossible to implement,

it will be dismissed as "gunsplaining".

(edited to add)

And if only 1 out of 10 posters on a thread are pro-gun rights, the thread has been "gunswarmed".

[Kaleva]

64. I think many mean well but they are doomed to failure.

Partly because they don't know the basics.

[Kingofalldems]

66. It looks like 20+ posts in this thread gunsplaining DU.

I call that Gunswarming.

[Kaleva]

69. Maybe but i do think that people ought to know at least the basics.

The OP itself contains several factual errors.

[ShazzieB]

82. So why don't you tell us what those "factual errors" are?

Either they matter or they don't. If they matter, why not set the record straight? If they don't matter, why even mention them?

[Straw Man]

87. Here's one.

the civilian model can be legally modified to fire fully automatic 100 round drum magazines

Not since 1986, unless you're licensed or authorized to construct machine guns for a government entity.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-unlicensed-person-make-machine-gun

If they're referring to bump stocks, then the National Firearms Act needs revision of its definition of "machine gun."

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0

[Kaleva]

101. The biggest is using the term 'assault rifle"

Last edited Sat Mar 27, 2021, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)

"What is an "assault rifle," he asked sarcastically."

he goes on to say:

"An assault rifle is the weapon of choice of mass murderers who want to slay as many defenseless men, women, and children as possible."

Not true at all. Assault rifles are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act and since the registry was closed in 1986, assault rifles are hard to get as there are only so many of them in the country and thus are extremely expensive for the average citizen, costing around $20,000 or more, and there are only a relative few gun dealers in the country licensed to sell them and that's only when a current owner decides to sell. Because it has been illegal to import assault rifles into the country since 1986 and to manufacture assault rifles in this country for sale to civilians since 1986.

" the civilian model can be legally modified to fire fully automatic 100 round drum magazines."

Not true unless one is able to purchase a registered sear pin manufactured prior to 1986 and these alone can cost $20 grand. Plus to have it, there is paperwork to do, a tax to pay and the background check can take months to complete and that has to be done prior to getting the sear pin.

"It fires the exact same high velocity round as my military issued rifle, designed to tumble upon impact with human flesh causing the maximum tissue damage and lethality possible. It is weapons like the AR (ArmarLite Rifle), which was designed specifically for military infantryman to be able to carry more ammunition into war. It is any weapon that has the capability of firing multiple .223 or 5.56 "

The .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO are not exactly the same. While one can safely fire a .223 Remington in a rifle chambered for the 5.56mm NATO, the reverse is not advised as the 5.56mm NATO is a more powerful round and could damage the gun chambered for the .223 Remington and possibly injure the shooter. While dozens of militaries around the world use the 5.56mm NATO, I'm unaware of any that use the .223 Remington. An indication that they are not the same.

"An assault rifle is a weapon of war,"

I think most everyone would agree with that. Most, and possibly all, armies in the world are armed with assault rifles. But then he goes on to say this:

"slightly modified for civilian use that has the capability of putting enough firepower in the hands of physically and mentally weak people to give them a capability they otherwise would not have; the ability to kill and wound dozens or even hundreds of people in a few minutes."

Author is confusing assault rifles with the so-called assault weapon. He clearly doesn't know the difference and it's a very important one.

"They are the preferred weapon of mass shooters who use them more frequently and with more lethal efficiency, every year since the assault weapons ban, staunchly opposed by the NRA, was allowed to lapse by a Republican President and Congress on September 13th, 2004."

The AWB had nothing to do with assault rifles which are regulated by the National Firearms Act passed back in 1934 and is still in effect.

"When, inevitably, some gun collector snarkily asks me to tell them what an "assault rifle" is, I like to respond with this:"

Author shouldn't respond at all as he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ms liberty]

8. KR& Bookmarked. This might be the best explanation ever. n/t

[SergeStorms]

9. They're certainly not used for hunting.

And for "self defense", unless you're being attacked by dozens of people coming at you from all directions at the same time, a shotgun is still best for protecting yourself from an attacker.
Nope, these weapons are modified military weapons, designed to inflict the maximum damage on the enemy in the shortest period of time. That's all.

[EX500rider]

76. Google hunting with an AR-15. Nt

[SergeStorms]

79. Yeah, right.

Those are "hunters" trying to prove a point after the fact. Those weapons weren't designed for hunting and you know it. At least you should.

[EX500rider]

80. If you can mount a scope to it and it fires a powerful enough round you can hunt with any gun.

I really doubt the Field & Stream has any point to make other then some people want the same rifle for home defense and hunting.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/best-ar-style-rifles-hunting-personal-defense/
AR-15 standard round is too weak for large game but fine for small.

[SergeStorms]

81. You still don't seem to grasp my point.

This weapon was not manufactured as a hunting rifle! After the weapon was attacked as being a "weapon of mass destruction" (which it is) hunters, Field and Stream Magazine, and gun zealots everywhere were determined to show that, yes, the AR-15 could be used for hunting, and it could be very effective as a hunting rifle with modifications.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject. Have a nice day.

[Dial H For Hero]

85. A rifle is not a "weapon of mass destruction" by definition.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd

Definition of WMD

A WMD is defined by U.S. law as any of the following:

A destructive device, such as an explosive or incendiary bomb, rocket, or grenade;
A weapon that is designed to cause death or serious injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals;
A weapon that contains a biological agent or toxin; or
A weapon that is designed to release dangerous levels of radiation or radioactivity.

[Straw Man]

89. Here's an ad from 1964, before the Army had adopted the M16 as its service rifle.

[EX500rider]

98. People hunt with lots of rifles that were designed for military use initially:

Old bolt action Mausers and Mosin Nagants with scopes are both used for hunting with the right round, neither were originally designed for hunting, so what? ANY rifle with a scope (or open sights if you are both good and close enough) and the correct ammo is a hunting rifle.

[CatWoman]

10. K; R

[SYFROYH]

11. I think more people are shot/killed in mass shootings that involve semi-auto handguns than rifles.

Yes, so-called assault weapon rifles, are involved with many of the largest mass shootings, but the largest school is still Virgina Tech which was completed with two semi-auto handguns -- a 10-round 22 lr and a 15 round 9mm.

Even if we confiscate every semiauto rifles, mass shootings will continue at the same rate which potentially the same number of dead people. It's not really about the rifle.

[boston bean]

13. Mass killings are almost exclusively AR 15 type rifles. Not hand guns.

[SYFROYH]

22. It depends on how you aggregate the data.

Shooting vs killings, 3 people shot v 4 people shot v 5 people shot

There are a lot of handgun shooting that involve 3 people. But you're point about the largest killings is true that most are completed with AR15s. Although it is also true that the largest school shooting (VA Tech) and the third largest mass killing was completed with a 10 round 22 lr pistol and a 15 round 9mm.

Take this graphic from Mother Jones that only goes up to 2012. Weird that they don't update it.

[ShazzieB]

84. What is your point?

Are you saying that these things should not be banned? That they're not lethal killing machines that don't belong i the hands of civilians? If so, say so.

[SYFROYH]

86. I made the point I needed to make, but I'll answer your questions.

I don't think they should be banned from civilian possession. But they can be regulated more -- semi-auto sales to people 25+ or 30+ years or maybe some kind of analogous, but low-cost NFA registration which has been successful with actual machine guns.

[paleotn]

14. And you would be highly wrong.

The deadliest mass shootings have one thing in common....a semi-auto rifle chambered for .226 or 5.56 NATO. Firepower and casualties are proportional. That's the whole point of firepower....how many rounds can be sent down range in the shortest amount of time.

So....if we can't find a "magical solution" that solves all our problems in one big sweep, we do what then?.....nothing? And innocent people continue to be murdered by nuts with cheap, steel manhood. Banning assault rifles is an incremental step that saves lives. It's a start.

[hack89]

27. The VA tech shooter killed 32 with two handguns.. nt

[paleotn]

38. Point?

[hack89]

47. If AR-15s magically disappeared there would still be mass shootings.

With no significant reduction in deaths. Handguns are the killer in America - for every one person killed by an assault weapon 9 are killed by handguns. That is the real problem to be solved.

[paleotn]

67. Complete BS.

So we're stuck with mass murder, because some poor, lost souls can't give up their cold, steel manhood, be it an assault rifle or a semi-auto pistol? I'd pity them if they weren't such nasty, little creatures.

Oh....and the worst killing sprees in America? All with assault rifles. Google is your friend.

[hack89]

72. VA tech was the second worse mass shooting in American history - 32 dead

More than Sandy Hook. So explain to me if killers only have handguns why are we are safer? How do you stop the next VA tech?

[3catwoman3]

30. "Cheap, steel manhood."

What a masterful turn of phrase.

[AverageOldGuy]

15. No.

Mass shootings involve the AR-15 in almost every case. It's probable, if we count everyone shot to death, more will be shot with pistols because the total number of firearms deaths includes suicides, drive-by, boyfriend shoots girlfriend, rival gangs, and the like where an easily concealed pistol is the weapon of choice.

However, for mass shootings -- schools, churches, synagogues, stores, malls -- the AR-15 is the weapon of choice because:
-- 20 round magazine; eject and load new mag in 1-2 seconds
-- high velocity round almost guarantees a kill (muzzle velocity: 5.56 mm, 62 gr bullet, 3,000-3,200 fps; 9mm , 5-in barrel, 90 gr bullet, 1,500 FPS)

[Straw Man]

91. Mass shootings are only a very small part of overall gun deaths.

In 2019, there were 15,208 gun deaths that were "willful, malicious, accidental" (IOW, excluding suicides).

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Of these, 211 occurred in mass shootings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50936575

[EX500rider]

95. Apparently 41 people shot to death a day in separate locations is not tragic enough for some reason.

I don't think if you magically got rid of all rifles it would make any difference, the mass murderer could just take a couple Glocks with 17 round mags and do the same damage.

Focusing on the how rather then the why will never solve the problem, there are a myriad of ways to kill a large amount of people, we are luckily they tend to use rifles in the US instead of rental trucks like in Nice:

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

It's more a culture war then anything else, if preventing tragic possibly preventable deaths was actually the driving reason I would start with the 180 people a day who die from unintentional poisoning or the 108 a day who die in accidental falls or the 103 a day who die in auto crashes. I bet cutting those number down is a easier task.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

[Ka-Dinh Oy]

16. Let's not forget the asswipes who claim they use them for hunting.

The only Hunting they can do with those are to just mutilate whatever animal or human they want. Do not try to claim you hunt for meat with those guns.

[hack89]

29. You would be wrong

first off, most states limit the number of rounds you can hunt with. Secondly, the round they shoot is much less powerful than the typical 30 caliber bullet deer hunters use - in some states it is illegal to use AR-15s with 5.56 rounds because they are not lethal enough to kill large game.

In any case, so called assault weapons are used to hunt all the time - 10 minutes on Google will show you that.

[USALiberal]

54. Lol, expected you! Nt

[hack89]

57. Here's your chance to actually refute me

Or is lol the limit of your knowledge?

[USALiberal]

70. Works for you! Nt

[hack89]

71. If anyone ever asks me why gun control is a smoking wreck

I will point to people like you as the reason. You make it so easy.

[USALiberal]

73. Nice try! Nt

[Dial H For Hero]

34. They're quite popular for hunting, actually.

When chambered in a cartridge such as 6.8 SPC, an AR-15 is quite suitable to hunt (for example) deer. An AR-10 in .308 is perfect for elk. It shoots the same bullet at the same velocity as any other .308 hunting rifle. It would have to be equipped with a 5 round magazine to comply with game laws, of course....but there's no practical difference between using either of these to rifles for hunting, each of which is a .300 magnum:





The one on top won't mutilate the animal and ruin the meat just because it's black and has a pistol grip.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Why are you posting gun porn here?

[Dial H For Hero]

39. I posted the pictures because they're germane to the discussion at hand.

They illustrate that the differences between the "assault weapon" and the more traditional hunting rifle are, when using magazines of similar capacity, merely cosmetic, thus showing that the "assault weapon" is perfectly suitable for hunting.

"Gun porn"? Really?

[BGBD]

96. a .308

or .300 would be fine for deer. The .223 versions wouldn't be, just too small of a round for bigger game. They'd be ideal for coyotes though.

I don't think that banning ARs would do much of anything to curb gun violence. They represent a very small portion of weapons used in gun crimes and we have seen that a 9mm pistol can cause the same type of carnage in a mass shooting than an AR can.

I kind of doubt banning hi-caps would do much either considering there are already literally millions of them circulating in the general public with absolutely no way to track. They'd never even be able to confiscate more than a small percentage of them and anyone who was willing to carry out mass murder wouldn't blink at also violating a weapons law to do it. Violent crime has fallen dramatically over the past decades, all while ownership of "assault weapons" has steadily risen. I don't think one has anything to do with the other, but for anyone to argue that those guns are a significant lynchpin in violent crime is just not something that is supported.

On the other hand. I find it disconcerting that as liberals we could sit and watch the events of the past years, including armed fascists storming the seat of our democracy, marching in the streets, and openly talking about their desire to kill us and think that disarming ourselves is a good idea. I'm stocking up on as much guns and ammo as I could get, because I kind of expect that I'm going to need it eventually to keep literal nazis from killing me.

[Straw Man]

94. Right.

Don't you know that guns are dirty and everyone who looks at pictures of them is going to Hell?

[Dial H For Hero]

97. I stand corrected.

[USALiberal]

56. lol, photos??? Nf

[SYFROYH]

75. Ask me how I know you've never seen a deer or hog killed with a 5.56 round out of an AR.

If you google images for AR deer hunting or AR hog hunting you'll see that you're very wrong.

The standard AR round makes a small hole going in and at most a baseball size wound going out if it comes out.

Just like most hunting rounds of similar terminal ballistics.

[Ka-Dinh Oy]

78. You are right, I have never seen.one of those used.

I have only seen and used a 30-06, a 30-30, and a 22.

OK, OK, I am wrong but I was under the impression these bullets go in small and out big. It just seems like a waste to me. It has been a very long time since I butchered or hunted so there probably is a lot I forgot.

[bigtime]

17. I have a veteran friend who

I have a veteran friend who calls those weapons “room brooms”. They were designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible in a confined space. Not a hunting weapon, not an ordinary military rifle, but a weapon designed for mass killing of people in urban combat. Why are these for sale to the general public? Why can’t I buy bazookas? Howitzers? Tanks?

[BarbD]

18. These weapons literally rip bodies apart.

How Sandy Hook parents survived seeing their children's bodies mutilated by bullets is beyond me. Here in Connecticut, despite the pain suffered, the PTSD experienced by first responders, still we continue to fight for basic gun regulation. I don't get it.

Our Senator, Chris Murphy, has written an excellent book, "The Violence Inside Us". We have to keep pressing for change.

I'm surprised these gun nuts don't want a tank in their front yard. That would give them some firepower.

[Kaleva]

59. Especially an AR15 style 12 gauge shotgun

[BobTheSubgenius]

19. He might have become aroused if you included the origin of the term.

Hitler coined the term Sturmgewehr as a replacement for MP 43, so the new weapon became Sturmgewehr 44.

It translates directly into English as "assault rifle."

[MustLoveBeagles]

20. K&R

[hunter]

21. Let me repeat it here.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[Tommymac]

26. And insanely obscene. nt

[crickets]

23. Thank you for reposting this, garybeck. K&R for the post and the discussion.

[Journeyman]

24. K & R . . .

Very thoughtful.

[Wounded Bear]

28. Corollary to Godwin's Law...

Any discussion regarding gun safety regulation will rapidly devolve into a semantic argument about the definition of weapons categories.

[MFGsunny]

33. BRILLIANT! simply brilliant ... should be re-posted a 1,000,000 times. n/t

[JackHughes]

35. Assault Rifles . . .

Rapid-fire, high-capacity, semi-automatic civilian versions of infantry weapons, aka "modern sporting rifles," aka mass-murder machines.

[Kaleva]

62. Assault rifles are what the military use.

You are probably thinking of assault weapons. A semi-auto only version of an assault rifle.

[Kingofalldems]

37. That thread was 'gunswarmed'.

Just like this one. People obsessed with owning guns.

[Dial H For Hero]

40. That must be your shorthand for "A small fraction of the posts in the thread disagree with me".

[Kingofalldems]

41. No I meant the linked thread was gunswarmed by NRA apologists.

And now this one. I think you understood though.

So I really don't get your response with your little emoji.


Is that shorthand enough for you?

[Dial H For Hero]

42. What fraction of the posters in each thread are pro-gun rights?

In this thread, it's 3 posters out of 34. How exactly does that constitute a "swarm"? Please explain.

[Kingofalldems]

43. Didn't count.

NRA supporters are traitors though, don't you think?

[Dial H For Hero]

45. I did. 3 posters out of.34. Does that consitute a "swarm"?

And no, supporting the NRA does not meet the legal definition of treason.

[Kingofalldems]

48. One poster spouting NRA talking points

and then posting gun porn is swarming in my book.

Too bad you don't like it.

[Dial H For Hero]

53. What a silly defintion.

Too bad you don't like it.

You'll have to trust me on this...words canniot express my utter lack of concern for your opinion on this manner outside of the amusement that I had in pointing out the absurdity of your term.

[Kingofalldems]

63. I don't trust NRA supporters on anything frankly.

And for someone lacking concern for my definition you sure did take time for multiple responses.

[Dial H For Hero]

65. That's nice.

I'm retired and have some time to kill. This banter is mildly entertaining.

[ShazzieB]

88. I count at least 3, many of them posting multiple times.

Seems pretty swarmy to me. Also pretty disturbing and distasteful.

[Dial H For Hero]

90. Versus at least 3 dozen other posters in favor of gun control, many of them posting multiple times.

Does that mean you would classify this thread as having been "swarmed" by gun control advocates?

Also pretty disturbing and distasteful.

How so? Granted, my opinion on this matter is in the minority among Democrats, but is this not an issue about which Democrats can respectfully disagree?

[BannonsLiver]

44. Interesting to look back

And see all the gunners still bringing the tiny dick energy 3 years later.

[Dial H For Hero]

50. And the obsession that many of those in the gun control camp have with the genitalia of gun owners

is illustrated yet again....

[BannonsLiver]

51. Boo hoo

[Dial H For Hero]

55. You didn't disagree, I would note.

[BannonsLiver]

58. I couldn't help but note you didn't specifically disagree either

[Dial H For Hero]

60. Why would I disagree with my own assertion regarding how ubiquitous such posts are whenever

the subject of gun ownership comes up?

[USALiberal]

74. What does your name mean??? Nt

[Dial H For Hero]

77. It's a (deservedly) obscure superhero series from the 1960's.

First appearance: House of Mystery #156 (Jan 1966). It featured a rather silly character, even by the standards of the day. But it was fun. And it was set in Colorado (where's I've lived almost all my life). I started collecting comics around the time it came out, to the point that I had many thousands of them in the 1990's. I sold them all off on Ebay around 20 years ago.

When I signed up on DU I had to come up with a handle, and I noticed the collected stories (trade paperback) on my bookshelf, shrugged, and picked it.

[Kaleva]

49. The label "assault rifle" is an accepted term that's been around for a long time

"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44, a development of the earlier Mkb 42.[6][7][8] Though other Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Besides the StG 44, examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

A AR15 style rifle, being capable of semi-automatic fire only is not , by accepted definition, an assault rifle.

[Kaleva]

68. Assault rifles have been strictly regulated since they first appeared in WWII

It's the National Firearms Act of 1934 that regulates assault rifles.

The Assault Weapons Ban had nothing to do with assault rifles.

It's legal to own an assault rifle but there are some pretty strict conditions and another issue is that they are extremely expensive for the average person. They can go for $20,000.00 or more. Plus there are only a relative few gun shops in the country that are licensed to sell assault rifles.

[Mosby]

83. Police call them patrol rifles.

So let's ban patrol rifles.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we call them.

[Dial H For Hero]

92. How you define what you're trying to ban matters.

Examples I have seen many calls for banning any ammunition capable of penetrating the type of body armor typically worn by law enforcement. That would result in virtually all rifle ammunition being banned. Similarly, a call to ban "any gun which can kill a bunch of people in a minute" would ban the great majority of firearms. Such over the top proposals don't have the slightest chance of becoming law.

[Straw Man]

93. Call them what you will ...

... but it's important to define what you're banning and why. The refusal to engage in technical discussions leads to legislation that is not only excessive restrictive but also ineffectual. The "shoulder thing that goes up" is case in point: trying to defend the ban of a feature when the legislator in question had no idea with that feature actually is or does.

[Mosby]

99. We can define them by their characteristics.

Like removable magazines.

Construction materials.

Grip.

Etc.

[Straw Man]

100. OK.

Last edited Sat Mar 27, 2021, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Like removable magazines.

So are all rifles with removable magazines to be classified as "assault weapons"?

Construction materials.

Really? Why? Are rifles with polymer stocks deadlier than ones with wooden stocks? Or is it the receiver and barrel you're after? Which is deadlier: aluminum or steel?

Grip.

Are you an adherent of the "ergonomics enhance lethality" credo? If so, how about mandating that all rifles stocks be made of lead embedded with ground glass?

Etc.

Go ahead.

This isn't as simple as some people apparently think. What am I to make of the fact, for example, that the UK exempts .22 rimfire rifles from their assault weapons ban but NY State doesn't? That California allows (or used to, anyway) a detachable magazine that can be released with a pointy object but not with a finger, while NY doesn't allow any that can be released without disassembling the rifle?

It's not as if some rifles come out of the factory with a big label saying "assault weapon" and all you have to do is ban those.