assault rifles gettting some more play time. Been a busy two years!

[gejohnston]

19. nice rant

To what should we attribute the design differences in weapons like those? Would someone looking to kill a large number of people in a short time, in a small area, not have a preference, unless they had a lot of silly ideas about what some keep calling "cosmetic" features of weapons?

Because they don't. That is the reality

Why does the pro-gun side of the "assault weapons" argument pretend that there isn't a people-killing design element to weapons the firearms industry first started calling "assault weapons?" Why do they deliberately avoid the basic point some weapons -- which we keep hearing are "tools" are, like all tools, function specific. You don't bring a phillips-head screwdriver to pound a nail. Are we actually all supposed to pretend all weapons are the same?

No, the industry did not start using the term. Antis did hence "assault weapon" instead of assault weapon.

"Assault weapon" is not an "anti" term, right? It's a marketing term. Are the gun manufacturers lying when they suggest that certain design components make a gun a better choice for combat than hunting?

It is an "anti" propaganda buzz term created by Josh Sugarmann. His exact quote:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

The depth to which these silly rhetorical notions have been ingrained in some people is confounding. It's "irrational" and shows "ignorance of firearms" to note that certain weapons have design components focused on killing, vs. hunting, or even simple defense? If that's the case, why don't cops carry .22 target pistols? Why don't soldiers carry single-shot hunting rifles (anymore)?

Actually, no. It is simply a progression from "tactical to practical". Functionally, there is no difference between an AR and a semi automatic rifle with a wooden stock or a semi automatic skeet gun. Since your knowledge of guns etc seems to be nonexistent, you have no business telling me what "I need".

The basic discussion is as simple as this: Does the public have a legitimate interest in regulating types of weapons on the basis of their design application? Do we have the right to be more concerned about someone stocking up on weapons with a combat focus vs. hunting, target-shooting, etc.?

We have been regulating firearms, on the federal level, based on their design application since 1934. No, you can not buy machine guns at gun shows or Wal Mart. A leading Criminologist put it best when he said "the issue is not how many guns, the issue is who has them." Someone "stocking up" legally is not the danger to society. Most murderers have criminal records. Google "myth of virgin killer"

Either point of view may be legitimate. But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.

And semi auto rifles based on ARs that are designed for hunting? They exist. Regardless, the more important discussion is how they are used. These rifles are rarely used in violent crime. Much less than bare hands. It is more important to deal with real issues and causes instead of wasting time and energy on theater.