General Discussion

Deep13

(39,157 posts)

51. yes and no

Sun May 12, 2013, 10:23 PM

May 2013

It ultimately depends on statutory language.

It usually means a high capacity, military-pattern, semi-auto rifle or any high-capacity, semi-auto pistol.

Most of those gadgets don't do much. The large, detachable magazines are significant. No one uses bayonet mounts. When was the last time there was a bayonet fatality in this country? 1865? Flash suppressors? Well, you should not be shooting at night.

Frankly, instead of inventing the term "assault weapon" and then figuring out what it, we ought to figure out what's dangerous and work on that.

How about this: No semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine or which stores more than ten rounds, exclusive of the chamber, shall be manufactured, sold, or possessed.

Or this: No detachable magazine for a semi-automatic pistol, capable of storing in excess of ten rounds, shall be manufactured, sold, or possessed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are attributes of different "assault weapons" merely cosmetic? [View all] jazzimov May 2013 OP

I've seen more of an issue with the term assault weapon being applied to a semi-auto. Megalo_Man May 2013 #1

I've never seen anyone use assault-weapon and "semi-auto" interchangeably. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #2

but they are gejohnston May 2013 #9

No they are not. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #12

they are not what? gejohnston May 2013 #19

Semi-automatic and assault weapon are not interchangeable terms. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #20

did you read the links? gejohnston May 2013 #21

Yeah I did. And the links don't support your argument. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #28

Then I misunderstood what you were talking about gejohnston May 2013 #29

"Assault Weapon" is a made up term, to confuse with "Assault Rifle". Hell, your MOUTH can be an .... Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #65

I always find it funny that gun nuts immediately go to the .22LR. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #72

I find it funny that anti-gunners go straight to name-calling, right anti-gun NUT?? Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #108

Thank you. Because in your slightly disturbing level of rage you have proved my point. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #109

No rage at all, dude, I just don't like people, especially strangers, making assumptions about me... Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #121

I know what anger looks like. And you are angry. Really over something completely trivial. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #127

Awww, look!! Internet Psychology 101! Have you gotten to the chapter on "Projection" yet?? Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #132

No one who gloats about owning assault weapons cares about peace. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #133

Apparently reading comprehension isn't at the top of your skill set, just like debate tactics aren't Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #137

Put anyone who indulges in that sort of juvenile nonsense on Ignore. Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #123

That is sort of a confused definition. 1-Old-Man May 2013 #6

A fully-auto weapon is a Type II weapon, which is jazzimov May 2013 #10

Wrong term. ManiacJoe May 2013 #17

Actually, there is a lot of discussion about the origin jazzimov May 2013 #23

Wrong term here too? ManiacJoe May 2013 #25

Previous thread from February: ManiacJoe May 2013 #3

You are right. Those supposed cosmetic changes significantly alter the firearm's capability. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #4

You missed the point. Jenoch May 2013 #5

No, you missed the point. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #7

You have that wrong. ManiacJoe May 2013 #8

Wrong again. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #11

You are obviously confused about the subject at hand. ManiacJoe May 2013 #13

It would seem that you are the one confused about jazzimov May 2013 #15

Gotta love the newbies. ManiacJoe May 2013 #18

Thanks! But I've been visiting this site jazzimov May 2013 #22

I know more than enough about the subject under discussion. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #16

Question TnDem May 2013 #118

Actually, many of the functions jazzimov May 2013 #14

What about the rifles Jenoch May 2013 #26

That's the reason for limiting the magazine capacity, jazzimov May 2013 #30

They never can Duckhunter935 May 2013 #31

I just did. nt jazzimov May 2013 #34

Huh? Jenoch May 2013 #38

Oh please, the gun industry and the NRA are responsible. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #43

The gun industry is Jenoch May 2013 #60

They are NRA talking points regardless of whether or not you are conscious of that fact. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #66

You have to explain to me Jenoch May 2013 #77

Are you joking? You've never even shot an assault weapon and you're on here lecturing... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #80

I have never fired an 'assault weapon'. Jenoch May 2013 #84

What exactly did the AR-15 that you fired lack that would otherwise make it an assault weapon? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #85

It was made during the AWB. Jenoch May 2013 #90

I've never seen an AR-15 that lacked a pistol grip. You sure it was an AR-15? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #98

See post #100. There are alternatives to pistol grips. n/t X_Digger May 2013 #101

Are you not aware that there were Jenoch May 2013 #106

Are you not aware pistol grips were legal under the ban? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #107

I am aware that there Jenoch May 2013 #110

I did last week if a AR10 is also considered one newmember May 2013 #91

An AR-10 is an assault weapon. It's just chambered in 7.62. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #94

Actually it's because gun cultists are attracted tp the most lethal and menacing weapons Hoyt May 2013 #61

Have you ever seen people at the range with "zombie" AR-15s? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #73

There's a gun store in Georgia that does video ads about best guns for zombies and Hoyt May 2013 #76

Even when I was really into firearms, I always thought those people were dumbasses. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #78

We are similar in that respect. Brought up around guns, but detested the yahoos Hoyt May 2013 #83

They don't alter the performance Abq_Sarah May 2013 #134

I've already the ".22 argument" up thread. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #135

Okay... Abq_Sarah May 2013 #136

I would say the answer is both 'yes' and 'no' petronius May 2013 #24

Magazine capacity may depend on the length of the cartridge FarCenter May 2013 #27

The Sandy Hook rifle was approved for ownership under the 1994 AWB ban aikoaiko May 2013 #32

This is true. HooptieWagon May 2013 #33

Uh, no. It was an AR-15 which was specifically banned. jazzimov May 2013 #36

By name AR15 was banned, but that wasn't the name of the Sandy Hook rifle. aikoaiko May 2013 #40

Although it was a Bushmaster, it was an AR-15 clone jazzimov May 2013 #67

AR-15 clones were not banned during the "ban". X_Digger May 2013 #82

No it wasn't. Its hard to accept, but that is just how flawed the AWB was. aikoaiko May 2013 #89

Yes, ban them all... HooptieWagon May 2013 #35

Which one of those "increase gun safety"? nt jazzimov May 2013 #37

Pistol grip, heat shield, adjustable stock, HooptieWagon May 2013 #129

So your point is to ban all semi auto ? newmember May 2013 #39

The point of the OP was to point out jazzimov May 2013 #44

Other than mag capacity and being a semiauto , the rest is all fluff newmember May 2013 #46

"The rest is all fluff" - the OP disproves that. Which was the point. jazzimov May 2013 #53

If you want to think so newmember May 2013 #57

Said. That would all but stop proliferation of guns. Gun cultists don't get all excited Hoyt May 2013 #62

That's what's bothering me about the OP point newmember May 2013 #71

The fascination is created by marketeers who pander to baser instincts of gun culture. Hoyt May 2013 #74

Yes I have seen the bushmaster add in threads here. newmember May 2013 #79

I hear you, but anyone who would vote for a Republican over guns is not much of a Dem. Hoyt May 2013 #81

I guess I agree but I've seen members here almost come out and say I won't newmember May 2013 #99

You seem to be a tad late to the party derby378 May 2013 #41

In answer to the question posed by the OP Crepuscular May 2013 #42

Then there's no need for them. If they're banned, you won't miss them. jazzimov May 2013 #47

They have no impact on the lethality of the firearms X_Digger May 2013 #49

Pretty much all of them where such features were used. jazzimov May 2013 #54

That's a non-answer. X_Digger May 2013 #75

A tactical or "pistol grip" stock would increase potential lethality. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #86

As compared to a thumbhole (non-pistol-gripped) stock? Bullshit. n/t X_Digger May 2013 #87

Now you're just blatantly moving the goal posts. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #92

Read post #49 again. I moved nothing. X_Digger May 2013 #93

Still trying to move those posts. Respond to what I said not what you wanted me to say. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #95

The fact that you didn't notice me mentioning thumbhole stocks isn't my problem, it's yours. X_Digger May 2013 #100

When gun industry pricks try to sneak around it, just amend the goddamn law. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #102

They are all *not* pistol grips. X_Digger May 2013 #104

Ha ha... TnDem May 2013 #120

Thumbhole TnDem May 2013 #96

I'm not arguing the efficacy of the 94 AWB. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #97

Untrue TnDem May 2013 #103

Yep, no functional difference... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #105

It's obvious... TnDem May 2013 #116

So you would ban thumbhole stocks? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #111

Silly conclusion and certainly not justification for banning them. Crepuscular May 2013 #50

"Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun before?" jazzimov May 2013 #58

It seems to be the case that gun control advocates in here know more about firearms. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #88

What about this video TnDem May 2013 #119

No, I'm sorry but it's not a false statement Crepuscular May 2013 #126

Any ergonomic feature of any firarm is intended to make it more effective. rrneck May 2013 #45

Thank you. That is a discussion we should be having. nt jazzimov May 2013 #48

a more relevant question might be Crepuscular May 2013 #52

Then why pay for them? jazzimov May 2013 #55

Do any of those features come with a premium? Recursion May 2013 #114

For the same reason Crepuscular May 2013 #124

Gun culture loves to shoot all day without reloading while relaxing in recliner. Hoyt May 2013 #63

Arrogant assholes like to shoot off their mouths with computer keyboards without thinking about it. rrneck May 2013 #68

Anger and guns don't mix well. Better lock yours up for awhile. Hoyt May 2013 #69

If I were angry you'd know it. rrneck May 2013 #70

I was wondering how many posts it would take for you... Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #122

yes and no Deep13 May 2013 #51

If they're only cosmetic, why are gun nuts so gung-ho for them? Hugabear May 2013 #56

For the AR platform it's ergonomics... Deep13 May 2013 #59

Don't forget it's what a generation of vets trained on Recursion May 2013 #115

Good point. Gun marketers know what excites the yahoos that covet lethal weapons. Hoyt May 2013 #64

Well, the pistol grip makes a rifle safer, which is why I think they should be mandated if anything Recursion May 2013 #113

Some make the gun safer and more accurate; others are entirely unused Recursion May 2013 #112

Finally.... TnDem May 2013 #117

If the features that make them "assault weapons" are functional, they should be regulated. baldguy May 2013 #125

What would be the point of regulating them? ManiacJoe May 2013 #128

of all those, the collapsible stocks are the most useful ileus May 2013 #130

this thread shows how emotional the debate over gun control is 0rganism May 2013 #131