The "What is an Assault Rifle?" thread

[Que]

It is so funny when gun lovers say that these are merely accessories, and hardly worthy of attention. But threaten to take them away, and they suddenly become critical hardware that they can't do without.

Remember your brilliant idea to "ban triggers"?

Now that was funny!

 

[mark_j]

I went back and edited the post to reflect the actual term used.

It's nice that you corrected the original post, but it still doesn't negate the fact that you were technically incorrect.

Details are important...

However, that doesn't mean that the intent behind the post was incorrect or a failure.

Intent doesn't mean shit if you get the details wrong.

The post points out that the attempts to classify an AR based upon what accessories it has is STUPID.

Yes it is. But that is what the 1994 legislative definition projects and everyone knows that the definition is not based on function but on whether it looks "scary".

That I originally wrote "rifle" rather than "weapon" means little to that discussion.

Actually it means everything as it is an important distinction. The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". The media and everyone else for that matter, should be able to differentiate between "assault rifles," which are capable of fully automatic firing and restricted under NFA regulations, and "assault weapons," which are semi-automatic and "not synonymous with an assault rifle," and operate no differently than any other semi-automatic firearm.

Unfortunately, those who are not familiar with firearms don't understand the difference and can only equate the terminology with what the media and Hollywood shows them. A black scary rifle capable of mowing down a whole platoon of bad guys in a matter of seconds.

The first post about this different topic talks about full auto, and then this post trying to prove a non existent point, is beyond the intent here. Which makes YOUR post...

I'll state it again, details matter. Especially when you present a treatise on the subject in an attempt to educate others.

 

[BobBalouski]

No agreement on human life = human life means no agreement about much of anything...

Welcome to the doublethink world of the United Socialist State of America today.

 

[KimGordon67]

So the assumption here seems to be that it's necessary to have a fairly in-depth knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order to have a position on gun control?

I'm assuming that means that the anti-abortion advocates who contribute to these threads ... like, say, Coach ... have a thorough knowledge of the female reproductive system and a good working grasp of the stages of development of an embryo? Because, y'know, it's important to be thoroughly educated about the thing you're attempt to control.

 

[RoryN]

So the assumption here seems to be that it's necessary to have a fairly in-depth knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order to have a position on gun control?

I'm assuming that means that the anti-abortion advocates who contribute to these threads ... like, say, Coach ... have a thorough knowledge of the female reproductive system and a good working grasp of the stages of development of an embryo? Because, y'know, it's important to be thoroughly educated about the thing you're attempt to control.

They get their knowledge of the wimmins directly from the men at InfoWars.

 

[phrodeau]

No agreement on human life = human life means no agreement about much of anything...

Welcome to the doublethink world of the United Socialist State of America today.

So when there's a red spot on your egg, we can say you're eating cock?

 

[KimGordon67]

They get their knowledge of the wimmins directly from the men at InfoWars.

That's pretty much my go-to source when I'm not sure what's going on with my lady parts.

 

[richard_daily]

So the assumption here seems to be that it's necessary to have a fairly in-depth knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order to have a position on gun control?

The issue with not having knowledge of what you're trying to ban, is you claim something you're banning does one thing, when in fact is does something else.

If you can't be bothered to even learn basic terminology, which there are plenty of people here willing to help you with, you look ignorant and your argument is reduced to:

"They look scary!"

Which is fine with me. An ignorant anti-gun argument is one that will never turn into to effective legislation.

Enjoy your emotional outpouring. It's about as effective as "hopes and prayers".

 

[coachdb18]

So the assumption here seems to be that it's necessary to have a fairly in-depth knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order to have a position on gun control?

I'm assuming that means that the anti-abortion advocates who contribute to these threads ... like, say, Coach ... have a thorough knowledge of the female reproductive system and a good working grasp of the stages of development of an embryo? Because, y'know, it's important to be thoroughly educated about the thing you're attempt to control.

We'll leave it be said that you know nothing of my background or training, making only assumptions based on nothing. In point of fact, I'm well educated in the topics I speak on, including anatomy and physiology, with plenty of practical experience and appropriate board registration. Likewise I have both military and civilian firearms background. You now know what you need to know about me to simply STFU.

 

[KimGordon67]

We'll leave it be said that you know nothing of my background or training, making only assumptions based on nothing. In point of fact, I'm well educated in the topics I speak on, including anatomy and physiology, with plenty of practical experience and appropriate board registration. Likewise I have both military and civilian firearms background. You now know what you need to know about me to simply STFU.

An obstetrician AND a pilot! What are the odds?

 

[KimGordon67]

The issue with not having knowledge of what you're trying to ban, is you claim something you're banning does one thing, when in fact is does something else.

If you can't be bothered to even learn basic terminology, which there are plenty of people here willing to help you with, you look ignorant and your argument is reduced to:

"They look scary!"

Which is fine with me. An ignorant anti-gun argument is one that will never turn into to effective legislation.

Enjoy your emotional outpouring. It's about as effective as "hopes and prayers".

But it's OK to post stats that say the US doesn't have a gun control problem because it's 92nd in the global homicide tables, and imply that the other 91 above the US are 'gun free countries'? That's some of the most egregious use of 'evidence' to 'support' an 'argument' I've seen in here in some while.

 

[richard_daily]

But it's OK to post stats that say the US doesn't have a gun control problem because it's 92nd in the global homicide tables, and imply that the other 91 above the US are 'gun free countries'? That's some of the most egregious use of 'evidence' to 'support' an 'argument' I've seen in here in some while.

91 countries which don't have as many firearms as the US have higher per capita murder rates.

You claim that guns cause murder.

They don't.

 

[KimGordon67]

91 countries which don't have as many firearms as the US have higher per capita murder rates.

You claim that guns cause murder.

They don't.

When did I claim that guns cause murder?

And you called them 'gun free countries', not countries that have lower rates of firearm ownership than the US.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So the assumption here seems to be that it's necessary to have a fairly in-depth knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order to have a position on gun control?

No, it's necessary to have a fairly basic knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order discuss the details of gun control policy without looking like a total fuckin' fool.

You can say things like "I support tighter restrictions on who has access to guns!" and that's a perfectly valid position. So is outright, "I hate guns I want them all banned." also totally valid.

But if you say something like "I support an assault weapons ban" without being able to say why you think some semi-auto's are so much more dangerous than other semi-autos then you don't even understand what you're saying when you say "assault weapon". It's like an idiot flag verifying you're just on a buzzword bandwagon.

How are you supporting a ban on something when you don't even know what it is???

They don't want to know, they just want it because it pisses gun owners off and anything to get shit on the other teams shoes is all they are really after.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, it's necessary to have a fairly basic knowledge of the differences between various types of firearms in order discuss the details of gun control policy without looking like a total fuckin' fool.

You can say things like "I support tighter restrictions on who has access to guns!" and that's a perfectly valid position. So is outright, "I hate guns I want them all banned." also totally valid.

But if you say something like "I support an assault weapons ban" without being able to say why you think some semi-auto's are so much more dangerous than other semi-autos then you don't even understand what you're saying when you say "assault weapon". It's like an idiot flag verifying you're just on a buzzword bandwagon.

How are you supporting a ban on something when you don't even know what it is???

They don't even understand they aren't actually even banning AR15's...just some of their accessories.

Fair call ... I don't really engage in that distinction. I can't see the point of any of them.

I guess Coach can identify at exactly which point after conception something stops being a collection of cells and becomes a human being.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Fair call ... I don't really engage in that distinction. I can't see the point of any of them.

I totally agree...."assault weapon" is a bullshit term that is used to fear monger and bullshit with people.

There is only really 4 kinds of guns and they are all grouped by how they function.

Single action, semi-auto, full auto and select fire.

Those are the only really meaningful classifiers when you are discussing firearms.

All that "assault weapon" , "huntin' rifle", "sporting rifle" and all the other bullshit names they come up with are bullshit.

I guess Coach can identify at exactly which point after conception something stops being a collection of cells and becomes a human being.

As a biologist I can see arguments for both conception and at the point the fetus is able to sustain it's own basic life support functions separate from the mother.

Though much like guns I find most people way too emotionally invested for whatever reason to discuss the topic in a rational objective manner.

 

[WoundedKnee]

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle." It is every bit as political a term as "trickle-down economics." The key to the tactic is that if you accept the term and compromise with the Progressive movement and accept limitations on the AR15, then with each successive shooting (because an "assault rifle" ban is not the root cause of the violence) the Socialists can then call for expanding the limitations and adding additional weapons to the list of "assault weapons." All they want, for now, is the camel's nose. But you know how SJW causes go. They never have an end and when they achieve their goals, they just change their "targeting."

 

[WoundedKnee]

Fair call ... I don't really engage in that distinction. I can't see the point of any of them.

I guess Coach can identify at exactly which point after conception something stops being a collection of cells and becomes a human being.

Conception. It's not going to turn into a kitten.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem is not "What is an Assault Rifle" but how do legislators prevent or reduce multiple shootings at schools and other places.

When considering any legislation, definitions are vitally important if the law(s) are to be effective in achieving the object.

But the discussions taking place on the General Board are useless because those who should be considering what regulations - if any - should be put on the sale, purchase and ownership of guns cannot agree. Until there is agreement among politicians nothing will change.

If the politicians think those who elect them would vote for someone else BECAUSE OF LACK OF GUN CONTROL then they might try to do something. But the indications are that those who vote for politicians aren't changing. Those for current access to guns are still for that. Those against the current access are still against that. All that has happened is that those on either side have become more entrenched in their opinions.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Ogg, the vast, overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are not a problem. Our problem is the mentally ill and those who do not care about the law (as well as a former administration who sent a large parcel of guns to Mexico to prove some sort of exoteric point about the availability of guns which only lead to the deaths of Mexicans and American Law Enforcement).

 

[bellisarius]

The problem is not "What is an Assault Rifle" but how do legislators prevent or reduce multiple shootings at schools and other places.

When considering any legislation, definitions are vitally important if the law(s) are to be effective in achieving the object.

But the discussions taking place on the General Board are useless because those who should be considering what regulations - if any - should be put on the sale, purchase and ownership of guns cannot agree. Until there is agreement among politicians nothing will change.

If the politicians think those who elect them would vote for someone else BECAUSE OF LACK OF GUN CONTROL then they might try to do something. But the indications are that those who vote for politicians aren't changing. Those for current access to guns are still for that. Those against the current access are still against that. All that has happened is that those on either side have become more entrenched in their opinions.

Ogg, the discussion is divided into two broad categories.

Those that want the existing laws enforced and adhered to re. background checks and reporting. This group is primarily made up of firearm owners. We have seen far too many of these shooting were the results of failures on the part of various law enforcement agencies, from Federal all the way down to local. The laws and the tools are in place, they just have to be used by the various agencies and the courts.

Then there are those that merely want to pile on more laws including either banning or confiscation. They make these demands either ignoring the fact that without enforcement the law is meaningless, or in the callous awareness that their palliative notions will not prevent anything and that when there is another shooting of these sorts, and there will be, they can move the ball a little further towards and out and out ban on firearms altogether. This group is headed by coldly calculating politicians with a host of followers who think that pieces of paper will stop madmen.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Ogg, the discussion is divided into two broad categories.

Those that want the existing laws enforced and adhered to re. background checks and reporting. This group is primarily made up of firearm owners. We have seen far too many of these shooting were the results of failures on the part of various law enforcement agencies, from Federal all the way down to local. The laws and the tools are in place, they just have to be used by the various agencies and the courts.

Then there are those that merely want to pile on more laws including either banning or confiscation. They make these demands either ignoring the fact that without enforcement the law is meaningless, or in the callous awareness that their palliative notions will not prevent anything and that when there is another shooting of these sorts, and there will be, they can move the ball a little further towards and out and out ban on firearms altogether. This group is headed by coldly calculating politicians with a host of followers who think that pieces of paper will stop madmen.

As to paragraph two, I've already said much the same thing in another thread this morning. It feels good to wave that piece of paper when you step off the plane.

 

[Weird Harold]

But the discussions taking place on the General Board are useless because those who should be considering what regulations - if any - should be put on the sale, purchase and ownership of guns cannot agree. Until there is agreement among politicians nothing will change.

If the two sides can't even agree on terminology, how can they agree on anything?

There is a difference of opinion on what constitutes an "Assault Weapon," but there is also what constitutes a "mass shooting" or "gun crime." Each group has their own set of definitions and dismiss anyone else's definitions; nobody is willing to even consider a definition that doesn't support their prejudgement.

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, the vast, overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are not a problem. Our problem is the mentally ill and those who do not care about the law (as well as a former administration who sent a large parcel of guns to Mexico to prove some sort of exoteric point about the availability of guns which only lead to the deaths of Mexicans and American Law Enforcement).

That is what makes any proposed legislation difficult.

In the UK obviously we don't have the US constitution but we still have a problem with mentally ill people and guns. It is a tiny problem compared with the US. Our Police have the right to remove even shotguns from someone who is considered a danger to themselves or others because of mental illness.

However, getting a medical professional to certify that someone is a danger is very difficult. If they do, it might be time-limited for a crisis. Once that crisis is over the gun owner can get their gun(s) back.

A worse problem is vehicle drivers. Relatives may be extremely worried that someone with poor eyesight, mental illness or senility is continuing to drive. Getting the individual to stop driving when they don't want to can be very difficult. Even a doctor's opinion might not be enough and family arguments can occur.

The number of deaths in the UK caused by mentally ill people having access to guns is tiny.

The number of deaths in the UK caused by drivers who are physically or mentally incapable is also tiny. It is far outnumbered by drivers who have caused death by driving when impaired by using alcohol and drugs.

We have legislation to prevent those who are mentally ill having access to guns.

We have legislation to prevent those who are physically or mentally incapable from driving vehicles.

Time and time again there are incidents when the legislation has failed to prevent an incident.

We can ban drivers for months or years. Police arrests and court records show that some people will just ignore the ban. In the UK banned drivers cause more deaths than mentally ill people with guns or incapable drivers continuing to drive.

Devising legislation is going to be very difficult.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Again, patiently, like the term "trickle-down economics," there is no such fucking thing as an "assault rifle." It is purely a political term.