Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[BotanyBoy]

just like obscenity


The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2][3] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:

Defining an assault weapon is the same as defining obscenity

Yea, it's subjective bullshit, based entirely on how a weapon looks.

If it's scary looking it's an "assault weapon" if it looks like pee-pawz "huntin" rifle it's not...even if pee-pawz piece from an objective mathematically proven fact based perspective is packing the EXACT same or even 2-3x the firepower it's "safer" because feels.

That will fly over his head like a home run

I'm not the one pretending subjective feels > objective facts here.

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Yea, it's subjective bullshit, based entirely on how a weapon looks.

If it's scary looking it's an "assault weapon" if it looks like pee-pawz "huntin" rifle it's not...even if pee-pawz piece from an objective mathematically proven fact based perspective is packing the EXACT same or even 2-3x the firepower it's "safer" because feels.





I'm not the one pretending subjective feels > objective facts here.

Yes, it was a mistake for me to think that you were capable of honesty.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Yes, it was a mistake for me to think that you were capable of honesty.

The mistake you made was taking him seriously. He is a clown best suited for amusement.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, it was a mistake for me to think that you were capable of honesty.

Where exactly was I dishonest??

*expecting more deflections if not outright name calling*



Speaking of....

The mistake you made was taking him seriously. He is a clown best suited for amusement.

Did you ever figure out a way to back up your original statements about "assault weapons" or are you still bullshitting??

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Where exactly was I dishonest??

*expecting more deflections if not outright name calling*



Speaking of....



Did you ever figure out a way to back up your original statements about "assault weapons" or are you still bullshitting??

I concluded a long time ago that no one could be as stupid as you project yourself to be. You just like to argue with libs because in your mind they want to take away sex toys.

 

[oggbashan]

I think there could be a very simple definition:

It is an assault weapon if someone else is pointing it AT you. It is a defensive weapon if YOU are pointing it at someone else.

 

[phrodeau]

Yea, it's subjective bullshit, based entirely on how a weapon looks.

If it's scary looking it's an "assault weapon" if it looks like pee-pawz "huntin" rifle it's not...even if pee-pawz piece from an objective mathematically proven fact based perspective is packing the EXACT same or even 2-3x the firepower it's "safer" because feels.





I'm not the one pretending subjective feels > objective facts here.

Two or three times the firepower? Maybe you can try to define exactly what that means.

Is a magazine detachable or not? Can it hold ten or more bullets? These are not subjective questions.

Is there a forward grip or a stock that can change in length? These are not subjective questions.

"Cosmetic" accessories are marketed and sold as if they improve weapons in ways that aren't merely cosmetic. If you've bought an accessory that doesn't do anything to your weapon but make it look different, maybe you're using it wrong.

 

[Hypoxia]

That will fly over his head like a home run

The OP question should be rephrased:

What civilian NEEDS to carry a military-class firearm when not at a shooting range?​

I'll let others closely define "military-class firearm" but IMHO clues include a long barrel and rapid auto or semi-auto fire, and extended clips ('magazines' to word nazis here). Do armor-piercing rounds have much civilian application outside rhino hunts? Some ammo restrictions make sense, too.

An "assault rifle" is generally anything marketed as such. It's a sales image for suckers. Who NEEDS such in their private life?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I think there could be a very simple definition:

It is an assault weapon if someone else is pointing it AT you. It is a defensive weapon if YOU are pointing it at someone else.

There's no question in my mind that reasonable people can examine each available firearm and determine which classify as assault weapons. Those reasonable people would make their determination on performance NOT appearance.

 

[coachdb18]

........

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The OP question should be rephrased:

What civilian NEEDS to carry a military-class firearm when not at a shooting range?​

I'll let others closely define "military-class firearm" but IMHO clues include a long barrel and rapid auto or semi-auto fire, and extended clips ('magazines' to word nazis here). Do armor-piercing rounds have much civilian application outside rhino hunts? Some ammo restrictions make sense, too.

An "assault rifle" is generally anything marketed as such. It's a sales image for suckers. Who NEEDS such in their private life?

Some of us were able to watch action movies and realize that they're just movies. Others have grown to expect a zombie apocalypse.

 

[coachdb18]

I'm not the one pretending subjective feels > objective facts here.

The lefties have taken a new line against guns by trying to minimize their usefulness as a defensive tool. They're actually trying to state that the threat is so small, they'd rather just be gunless, claiming that more defensive guns actually decreases their chances of survival.

Other than the fact that the first thing they or anyone else does when faced with a violent crime is call for 'a man with a gun' (cop), it begs a question. If the threat is statistically so small, why all the screaming and crying about guns at all. They're perfectly willing to accept the risk from the bad guys with guns as 'too small to worry about', so why scream and whine about 'taking away the legal right (sounds like such a foreign concept, a government trying to take away a basic human right) to own guns that form a tiny fraction of that amount of harm.

 

[KimGordon67]

Whatever you require of one right to exercise it, you should expect to be required the same for all. Do you seriously expect to require everyone to be fingerprinted, safety classed, background checked and examined for mental illness before they can speak freely? Assemble? Partake or not partake in their religion? Etc etc I hope you’ll soon realize the government does not, and cannot dispense the rights they have, they are pre-existing conditions of every American, and the government has simply promised not to infringe on them.

This is one of the dumbest things I've seen in a while - you seriously can't tell the difference between 'a gun' and 'speech'? Surely you're not arguing for the access to guns to be exactly the same as the access to free speech etc? Because the logic of this response is pretty much that you are.

 

[KimGordon67]

just like obscenity


The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2][3] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:

Defining an assault weapon is the same as defining obscenity

I'm not sure this is really a winning argument. This 'test' for obscenity (which has subsequently been mobilised for porn in various situations) is pretty problematic, as it's entirely based on subjective opinion. I wouldn't support banning certain types of porn on the basis of a 'I know it when I see it' test for unacceptability. Porn is a tricky area, because of the difference between what's happening when it's made vs what's being represented on the screen. I think there are some clear boundaries we can draw - e.g. no one who either is or is represented as underage, no one who either is or is represented as being killed in the act ... but even if you veer into 'no one being injured' it become difficult. I have sex that some might define as 'being injured', but that's not how I see it, and were I watching similar stuff happening in porn, I wouldn't see it as 'injurious'.

Weaponry isn't porn or sex though. You should be able to settle on an objective and readily applied definition for the type of weapon you're wanting to ban/regulate, and it shouldn't be a definition that susceptible to be flouted with work-arounds. If you can't, then your policy is pretty problematic.

Lest I suddenly sound like I'm pro-gun, I'm not - personally, I think they should just all be gone except in extenuating circumstances. But somehow in the US you've ended up in this 'some are OK but others aren't' situation that I just find puzzling.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I concluded a long time ago that no one could be as stupid as you project yourself to be. You just like to argue with libs because in your mind they want to take away sex toys.

Oh look no proof or even attempted reasoning...just more shit talk because you.

BTW I'm liberal, I just don't jump behind every "sounds good!" idea proposed that infringes on our rights without thinking about what it actually means or how it's practical application will effect things.

There's no question in my mind that reasonable people can examine each available firearm and determine which classify as assault weapons. Those reasonable people would make their determination on performance NOT appearance.

So then you think the past and current standards for what constitutes an "assault weapon" are totally bunk then?

You don't consider any semi-automatic (the actual performance/functional determination) to be an "assault weapon" then?? Not even the AR-15??

What standard do you think should define "assault weapon" then?

Or are you just leaving that out in the "reasonable people" judging things based upon appearance/feelings nether?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think there could be a very simple definition:

It is an assault weapon if someone else is pointing it AT you. It is a defensive weapon if YOU are pointing it at someone else.

That would make sense though and poo's on their prohibitionist positions though.

Weaponry isn't porn or sex though. You should be able to settle on an objective and readily applied definition for the type of weapon you're wanting to ban/regulate, and it shouldn't be a definition that susceptible to be flouted with work-arounds. If you can't, then your policy is pretty problematic.

KimGordon making head shots on the dummies....

 

[WandaGrabowski]

I'm not sure this is really a winning argument. This 'test' for obscenity (which has subsequently been mobilised for porn in various situations) is pretty problematic, as it's entirely based on subjective opinion. I wouldn't support banning certain types of porn on the basis of a 'I know it when I see it' test for unacceptability. Porn is a tricky area, because of the difference between what's happening when it's made vs what's being represented on the screen. I think there are some clear boundaries we can draw - e.g. no one who either is or is represented as underage, no one who either is or is represented as being killed in the act ... but even if you veer into 'no one being injured' it become difficult. I have sex that some might define as 'being injured', but that's not how I see it, and were I watching similar stuff happening in porn, I wouldn't see it as 'injurious'.

Weaponry isn't porn or sex though. You should be able to settle on an objective and readily applied definition for the type of weapon you're wanting to ban/regulate, and it shouldn't be a definition that susceptible to be flouted with work-arounds. If you can't, then your policy is pretty problematic.

Lest I suddenly sound like I'm pro-gun, I'm not - personally, I think they should just all be gone except in extenuating circumstances. But somehow in the US you've ended up in this 'some are OK but others aren't' situation that I just find puzzling.

I accept your point. I was trying to cut through the bullshit that no one should argue against assault weapons since they have not been sufficiently defined.

 

[KimGordon67]

I accept your point. I was trying to cut through the bullshit that no one should argue against assault weapons since they have not been sufficiently defined.

Then someone should come up with a sufficient definition, if regulating on the basis of categorisation is what you're arguing for. Creating policy on the basis of how things 'seem' is very risky - in all areas, not just weaponry, but especially in those areas that are subject to moral differences (which, somehow, guns seem to be).

 

[Hypoxia]

Weaponry isn't porn or sex though. You should be able to settle on an objective and readily applied definition for the type of weapon you're wanting to ban/regulate, and it shouldn't be a definition that susceptible to be flouted with work-arounds. If you can't, then your policy is pretty problematic.

Pr0n CAN be quantified. Badly. And ingenious loopholes WILL be found, as the Japanese showing-penetration ban generated bukkake images.

Weapons characteristics can be quantified more tightly. Note the caliber, barrel length, round capacity, firing action, etc of firearms; details of their ammo; blade length, edges, mechanisms if any, etc of edged weapons; and measured details of crossbows, morningstars, maces, flails, halberds, etc.

I suppose weaponized rockets, drones, catapults, kites, and nailguns fit in here somewhere but I'm too tired to fuck with those right now. But hey, we can add the question: Who NEEDS to possess a weaponized drone?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I accept your point. I was trying to cut through the bullshit that no one should argue against assault weapons since they have not been sufficiently defined.

Why not just say so then?

Can you tell me why anyone SHOULD be arguing in favor of banning something they can't define?

How is that in any way productive?

 

[KimGordon67]

Pr0n CAN be quantified. Badly. And ingenious loopholes WILL be found, as the Japanese showing-penetration ban generated bukkake images.

Weapons characteristics can be quantified more tightly. Note the caliber, barrel length, round capacity, firing action, etc of firearms; details of their ammo; blade length, edges, mechanisms if any, etc of edged weapons; and measured details of crossbows, morningstars, maces, flails, halberds, etc.

I suppose weaponized rockets, drones, catapults, kites, and nailguns fit in here somewhere but I'm too tired to fuck with those right now.

I know weapons can be more readily quantified ... but it seems like there's a lot of vagueness around that at the moment (or am I missing something?).

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You would think so.

Bitter Boy is right about some things, though, UNFORTUNATELY. The federal gov't can't ban all and any guns which can produce the kind of damage we see in mass shootings. If they did, they would end up banning MOST of the guns out there.

Been reading up on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. It's complicated. He's right it does not say "Ban all Semi-Automatics." It only bans "Assault Weapons," so defined, which is a limited ban that the weapons industry and NRA found plenty of ways to get around.

Where I disagree with him is when he says it doesn't ban "guns." Yes, it did. Some guns.

It makes me worried for the Parkland Students, though, because I don't think they understand the shitstorm they're walking into with this. They say "Assault Weapons" and they're going to get nickel and dime'd to death by the gun lobbies again.

If they truly want to ban ANY gun with the firepower and damage performance we all know we're talking about they're in for a huge problem. And Bitter Boy is right that as long as we have the shit 2nd Amendment, it will probably be impossible.

There's no question in my mind that reasonable people can examine each available firearm and determine which classify as assault weapons. Those reasonable people would make their determination on performance NOT appearance.

 

[Hypoxia]

I know weapons can be more readily quantified ... but it seems like there's a lot of vagueness around that at the moment (or am I missing something?).

That's why I emphasized measurements. Hardware can be measured and regulated. Carry illegal hardware: get punished. Stay legal: no problem. Saw your shotgun barrel off to 18.5 inches, no shorter. But have a damn good reason to carry it in public.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Two or three times the firepower? Maybe you can try to define exactly what that means.

The total amount of kinetic force the weapon is able to apply to targets.

Is a magazine detachable or not? Can it hold ten or more bullets? These are not subjective questions.

Is there a forward grip or a stock that can change in length? These are not subjective questions.

They are also features, not weapons.

Again..this is how weapons manufacturers continue to skirt these feature bans and despite their best efforts you can still buy AR15's in every state with an "assault weapons" ban.

"Cosmetic" accessories are marketed and sold as if they improve weapons in ways that aren't merely cosmetic. If you've bought an accessory that doesn't do anything to your weapon but make it look different, maybe you're using it wrong.

It's improves ergonomics.

They make the weapon more comfortable/adjustable/lighter weight.

They don't increase the weapons performance or function....they are still semi-automatic rifles.

Which is why I keep posting the 2 AR15's, one *NOT* an assault weapon, one is...even though they fire the same ammo just as fast, both equally capable of killing just as many just as fast.

Yet you seem to think the one with the adjustable stock and pistol grips is somehow MORE dangerous than the one without...and way more dangerous than the guns that account for 90% of gun violence in the US, handguns.

But you nor any of the others who support the idea that one AR15 is more dangerous than the other because of the kinds of grips it has can explain why exactly.

 

[KimGordon67]

You would think so.

Bitter Boy is right about some things, though, UNFORTUNATELY. The federal gov't can't ban all and any guns which can produce the kind of damage we see in mass shootings. If they did, they would end up banning MOST of the guns out there.

Been reading up on the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. It's complicated. He's right it does not say "Ban all Semi-Automatics." It only bans "Assault Weapons," so defined, which is a limited ban that the weapons industry and NRA found plenty of ways to get around.

Where I disagree with him is when he says it doesn't ban "guns." Yes, it did. Some guns.

It makes me worried for the Parkland Students, though, because I don't think they understand the shitstorm they're walking into with this. They say "Assault Weapons" and they're going to get nickel and dime'd to death by the gun lobbies again.

If they truly want to ban ANY gun with the firepower and damage performance we all know we're talking about they're in for a huge problem. And Bitter Boy is right that as long as we have the shit 2nd Amendment, it will probably be impossible.

This is my concern too. I'm OK with having experts in the field (NOT random people on Lit) define what an 'assault weapon' is, and that to be the definition from now on, once it's legally enshrined, but at the moment, if it's just a term that's being thrown around because of the emotive connotations it has, that's a problem.
Of course, it's an emotive issue, but even in response to emotive issues, someone needs to get to a point of clarity if you're seriously proposing legislative change.

We had a similar situation here a while back where legislation said it was OK to use 'reasonable force' when disciplining a child ... WTF is the definition of 'reasonable'? Unsurprisingly, it was used to defend cases that were really fundamentally 'abuse'. Ultimately, that bit of legislation got repealed, and now you're not allowed to whack kids in the same way as you're not allowed to whack adults.

I don't think the law is a place for vagueness.