DescentBB

This topic is an off-shoot of Ammunition Accountability Legislation.

What is an Assault Rifle? This is kind of a dual topic, because I would guess that the legal definition and the common-sense definition come at least in very different forms, and while I'm more interested in the later I suppose the former will be just as pertinent to a complete discussion.

woodchip in [url=http://www.descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=14932&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30#234586]Ammunition Accountability Legislation[/url] wrote:There is a misconception that needs to be cleared up. I know those of you who are brain damaged by the liberal press and are now incompetent to question anything you read on the Huffington Post or Media Matters, I'm going to impart this one liner in hopes it jump starts your brain to start working again:

"Just because it looks like a assault weapon does not mean that it is".

Now go do some googling to clear out the calcification the anti-gunners have inflicted your cranial space with.

I admit up front that I'm no gun expert. I've had some exposure to guns and interest in guns (being a male ) throughout my life, but I really don't have a great deal of experience. That being said I think I disagree with you, Woody, on your statement that "Just because it looks like a assault weapon does not mean that it is," from a certain perspective. It may be that people mistakenly recognize certain aspects of firearms as indications that they are assault weapons, but at the same time I believe that assault weapons are designed for assault, and for that reason they will have certain obvious characteristics. A question I would ask would be, "what are they if they are not assault weapons?", and I mean that in a very straight-forward way--if a firearm was built for assault, then it is an assault weapon.

Firearm categories that I am aware of:
Hunting,
Sport,
Personal Defense,
Assault (includes Long-Range Assault)

Now where any firearm is effective for assault it is equally as effective (not to mention conceivably necessary) for defense, and that's why I say that every American should be allowed to own assault weapons, otherwise we're guilty of retarding the 2nd Amendment. Also some smaller-scale assault weapons could be perfectly useful for hunting and sport.

Am I mistaken?

I own an SKS. You could consider this an assault weapon--but I carry this on my back when I hunt, because the 30-o6 I'm shouldering won't kill a bear or a pissed off moose. And woodchip is completely right, and vis-a-vis at the same time. To an (idiot), a 30-30 with a frame composite stock would look alien and militaristic. It's used on deer. A shiny clean desert eagle would just look like a big pistol to this person. I'd much much rather be shot with a 30-30...

People who don't know anything about guns should leave the gun talking to the gun knowers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon : a firearm with a pistol grip and magazine, which fires one shot per trigger pull. These are generally NOT suitable for military operations, and hunters usually use them for small game (rabbits and the like; not deer or elk.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle : a firearm with shoulder fire and magazine, medium power, which can fire one or multiple shots per trigger pull. These are generally suitable for military operations.

IMO, a lot of people's support for banning \"assault weapons\" comes from confusing the two. You hear someone say \"assault weapon ban\" and you think \"yeah, we shouldn't let people walk around with AK-47's\", but what's actually being banned are essentially pistols with large clips.

Don't expect \"gun control advocates\" to clear that confusion up any time soon.

Lets start with Lothars first link. To clear the air, the term \"assault weapon\" as defined by the 1994 Fed. assault. Weap. Ban is a artificial set of identifiers as promulagated by the Democrats in charge and certain anti gun groups. The terminology was devised to make it seem like a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip, a detachable box magazine, a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug were somehow more dangerous than other semi-automatic rifles. Thus they should be banned. The curious thing was, with the detachable box magazine and two of the remaining three item, your rifle would be a assault weapon.
With good mental skills, as everyone here posses, you have to ask your self why would such a combo of characteristics make any sense. You could have a rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip only and not be considered a assault weapon. So there were still millions of AR-15's being sold that had no flash suppressors or bayonet lugs. Logically there was no intelligent methodology in assigning such identifiers as they were easily worked around and thus the whole 1994 ban was a hideously poor piece of legislation. I guess the bright side was that the gun banners were mollified for a few years.

So even today, idiot people try to tack the term \"Assault\" onto a whole range of firearms that are in reality only good for hunting, target shooting or home defense. No one in his right mind would use one to assault a defended position as that is what assault rifles (as defined by wiki.) were designed for. Thank your typically uninformed liberal gun hater and their representatives for fostering such a confusing term.

The gun haters are both conservatives and liberals woody, don't think everyone on your side is really on your side. Regardless of where you stand relative to the isle you will find plenty of anti-gun fanatical morons around you if you look for them.

I think virtually all gun control laws are either asinine and easy to circumvent, or just plain idiotic and dangerous when you carefully review them. The gun haters and their laws are always trying to chip away at the constitution and the liberty it protects. These gun laws may be masterpieces of carefully worded legal text, with brilliant speeches and well voiced arguments behind them. But at the core, they are nothing but fear mongering, attempts to destroy liberty in the name of safety, and just plain cowardice. Safety at the expense of liberty cannot be called safety, it is more dangerous than any force that has ever walked upon this world.

I don't want to be forced legislated into being a sheep in a pasture surrounded by wolves and a fence designed only to keep us in. The stricter they try to control guns, the more guns will end up ONLY in the hands of criminals and I don't like that one bit. I think many gun laws totally fly in the face of the concept of \"Innocent until proven guilty.\" that is one of the key parts of our legal system. They are just plain WRONG and these anti-gun people need to realize that before we end up staring down the wrong end of a gun held by a real criminal with nobody and nothing to protect us.

I think there should be a law to force guns and training on how to properly handle them on the entire law abiding general public. It would help get rid of much of the stigma attached to guns by so many of the haters, and it would be a real improvement to gun safety at the same time. I imagine you would see a lot less random shootings if it was expected that the shooter would receive a hundred fold return fire. If something like that was law, the criminals would be the ones running scared rather than the law abiding citizens just going about their business.

The legal definition of assault weapon is a moot point.

It shouldn't matter that people own a specific firearm.

What should matter, and what the point should be, is if the firearm is used illegally.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong, immoral, or unsafe about \"assault weapons\".

First off I'm not against guns and heck I love shooting them, but I don't feel the need for one because of the gun laws in Canada. I'm more worried about a dude with a knife anyway, it can get rather nasty real quick. If the person knows how to use one a gun wont stop him because by the time you see the knife its too late to remove your weapon from its holster, draw, aim, and shoot... your on the ground bleeding. And don't try and tell me your some kind of superhuman with Chuck Norris reflexes... I've been in and seen knife fights first hand and it happens far too fast period.

Krom

I think there should be a law to force guns and training on how to properly handle them on the entire law abiding general public

Why should anyone be forced to have a gun if they don't want one? What an absolutely arrogant statement... do you honestly believe this? What gives anyone the right to force this on another? Truly unbelievable Krom.

I think if you want a gun you should have to apply at a Police Station, take a standardized test administered by a certified instructor, and pass all safety courses and background tests. Some states have these laws, others don't and therein lies a huge problem with no consistency and confusing regulations regarding gun ownership. Its still far too easy to get a gun in the USA today.

While researching the varying gun laws of each state and reading the statements on many related forums, I have come to the conclusion the overall IQ of the average American is really quite low while the violence factor is quite high. A perfect recipe for responsible gun ownership

Oh and assault weapons belong on a battlefield not on a hunting trip or in a home in a City. I have bears and cougar literally crapping on my lawn and I don't feel the need to shoot them repeatedly, then again I am Canadian and have learned to cope without a gun. Guns seem like soothers for some of you.

I think Krom just mistyped...and I agree with what he was trying to say. All people should be required to take arms training (Not required to own one).

I know a few people who when you mention a gun, they get all pale and scared. We went camping one time and I pushed one of these types to shoot my 9mm. Finally got him to do it. Now he has three of his own.

I may have worded it a little clumsy, but is it all that different from saying \"You will pay roughly half of all the money you earn to the government.\"? What if you could get a sizable tax break for doing it? (Also assuming that in order to get the tax break, you have to re-take and pass the gun training courses once every year or two.)

Once every year or two?! Screw that!

Our laws need to have respect for the citizens, and checking in on a man's ability to responsibly and capably carry a firearm every year or two is far too frequent for that, in my opinion.

Definitely overboard. Once every decade, maybe. Once every 5 years after they turn 70 or something, maybe...

I would think that retesting for a drivers license would be much, much more important (Especially after 50, yearly tests after 60)

If you're going to test someones ability to responsibly carry a firearm, what about mental stability and mental capacity testing? How far do you go? Most shootings are a result of mental defect or instability, or just plain anger. We had some idiot walk up to people standing outside of a nightclub in Portland the other night, pull out a pistol and randomly kill several people, including himself when he was done. No reason found yet for a motive.

I meant if you want the tax break... You could still carry a weapon without taking anything just you wouldn't be able to take the tax break. Although on that token, we have 8 year driver licenses so spacing it out that much would work just as well I suppose. And I'm not thinking of hugely long classes, something you could get done in a couple weekends or evenings worth of spare time would be preferable. Or something like a main class and a refresher class for people that have done it before.

Or you could just forget the whole hairbrained idea in the first place.

It's not totally a hairbrained idea. You have to have a license to drive a car, which shows that you know the rules of the road and how to operate the car. A car is just as good of a weapon as a gun. It can be used to kill a lot of people when put into the wrong hands.

But the people who kill really aren't the ones who would be out looking for a license. It's not even their gun!

That's why all this restriction and crap simply does not work.

I don't like this mandatory gun classes crap; no one should be forced to do ANYTHING. No forced gun training/ownership.

Dakatsu wrote:I don't like this mandatory gun classes crap; no one should be forced to do ANYTHING. No forced gun training/ownership.

I disagree. I see to many youg pups who grab up a gun and just point it with there finger on the trigger without checking to see if its loaded. I dang neer poop myself every time.

I don't know for a fact, but isn't every male in Switzerland armed to the teeth?

Cuda68 wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I don't like this mandatory gun classes crap; no one should be forced to do ANYTHING. No forced gun training/ownership.

I disagree. I see to many youg pups who grab up a gun and just point it with there finger on the trigger without checking to see if its loaded. I dang neer poop myself every time.

If you want to own/use a gun, yes, you should take the test. If you don't want to get a gun, guess what, you don't have to take it!

Cuda68 wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I don't like this mandatory gun classes crap; no one should be forced to do ANYTHING. No forced gun training/ownership.

I disagree. I see to many youg pups who grab up a gun and just point it with there finger on the trigger without checking to see if its loaded. I dang neer poop myself every time.

Cuda you are so right... mandatory gun courses if you WANT to own a gun are a very good thing. My Dad wanted a gun for our cabin as safety and for protection and I agreed it would be a good idea, its very remote there... however my Mother would have nothing to do with it, she grew up in a logging Town where guns 'n alcohol were prevalent and refused to see any good side to gun ownership, as she was exposed to the negative side of it far more than positive side.

Upon perusing this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... ution#Text

I conclude that there are numerous INTERPRETATIONS of the second amendment. Gun control nuts interpret it from their bias. However the courts always stress the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms is a separate and protected right. Shall not be infringed! I reject the imposition of licenses and permits as an infringement of a persons individual rights. There are plenty of laws to regulate the possession and use of firearms should they be used in an unlawful manner.

\"Civilian usage meaning\"

\"The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs, and others.[41] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from \"bearing\" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[42] Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them,[43] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.[44]\"

In this modern day and age, Licensing, permitting etc. is dangerous. If a government becomes oppressive the database WILL be misused.

Yes, I am biased towards freedom and responsibility.

VV, don't forget well regulated militias.

When these laws were made everyone at the time had their father teach them to use a gun, its what put meat on the table... a part of life. Plus it took minutes to reload a musket. They had no idea we would be dealing with semi-automatic pistols and this generation;
http://www.fugly.com/videos/6982/kid-ac ... s-gun.html

No one is taking away rights to own guns, just trying to properly train them and weed out the stupid gene.

I enter this discussion based on the fact I grew up in ranchland and I did in fact learn to shoot a gun from my father and I still do bring meat to the table with it....not everywhere is urban, my friend. I know literally about 40 people that make their own ammo every season, and what's this going to do to them (and myself, I buy ammunition from one of my friends who forges it? What would be the reprecussions, financially, of having to adhere to these laws, and legally, should we keep manufacturing our own bullets?

This is an assault rifle to me. Something that is capable of a high rate of fire, whereas ANY semi-automatic requires a deliberate pull of the trigger for each shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Vo-D5OZc0

Man I hardly see that happening in Canada. So sad... and I do remember watching this hearing on TV.

It can happen anywhere don't you think?

Just don't see it here sorry, just like you cant imagine not.

You're telling us you've never had mass killings in Canada?

EDIT: I don't mean absolutely NEVER, because ancient history does not really apply, but within the last 20-30 years or so.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but do a search in the news and you'll find hardly anything.

The answer to the question of What is an assault weapon? is:
A Trojan Horse.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

Here plug in the numbers, its sad.

An assault weapon is designed to throw as much lead as it can down range, penetrate body armor, and kill a man. You can bump fire semi-autos pretty effectively if you practice.

Say its good for hunting deer and I'll slap you, the thing will end up looking like a dishrag. Say its good for bear protection... Took 5 10 gauge slugs to the head at practically 10' to kill a bear mauling some guy at a parking lot a few years back.

Talked to the RCMP officer shooting it. He said it didn't matter what you hit it with, pistol, (45 Glocks here), or rifle, the bear continued the attack like it was on autopilot. He thought perhaps it was dead by slug #3 but wanted to make sure it really was by then. So it seems to me a fast moving .556 is just going to p888 it off more and may even just ricochet off its skull. Any way, assault weapons belong on the battlefield or Gun Range in my neighborhood and that's the way I like it.

Canuck wrote:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

Here plug in the numbers, its sad.

An assault weapon is designed to throw as much lead as it can down range, penetrate body armor, and kill a man. You can bump fire semi-autos pretty effectively if you practice.

Say its good for hunting deer and I'll slap you, the thing will end up looking like a dishrag. Say its good for bear protection... Took 5 10 gauge slugs to the head at practically 10' to kill a bear mauling some guy at a parking lot a few years back.

Talked to the RCMP officer shooting it. He said it didn't matter what you hit it with, pistol, (45 Glocks here), or rifle, the bear continued the attack like it was on autopilot. He thought perhaps it was dead by slug #3 but wanted to make sure it really was by then. So it seems to me a fast moving .556 is just going to p888 it off more and may even just ricochet off its skull. Any way, assault weapons belong on the battlefield or Gun Range in my neighborhood and that's the way I like it.

I'm pretty sure you meant the 5.56 MM NATO because I've never heard of .556 caliber but .50 rifles and up I believe are a war crime to shoot a human with and also within the scope for anti-aircraft (and other light vehicle armor) guns. No human could rapidly fire a round that big without getting promptly knocked on their hind quarters quite violently...

However you're right, 5.56x45 MM NATO would be a poor choice for hunting deer...I would really want something a bit bigger to comfortably and reliably take down a deer in one shot. And if its a bear I was after, forget the shotgun or anything in the "assault weapon" class; all those toys are just going to make it madder than hell. I would probably go with a .30-06 Springfield (AKA 7.62x63 MM [Not the NATO 7.62 which is x51 MM, although it would still get the job done]) and even at that I would still want to hit it right between the eyes just to make sure.

The 5.56 MM NATO round and its virtually identical parent the .223 Remington are used in "assault weapons" pretty much because they are smaller and lighter. While packing an effective punch they are still light enough to carry a lot of them, and most anyone is able to fire a lot of them without excessive fatigue. Also they are pretty accurate which combined with the other reasons makes them very popular for practice and sport shooting. About the biggest thing you would want to use a 5.56 MM NATO round to hunt would be coyotes. They are a good choice for hunting prairie dogs/rabbits and other small game thanks to their good range and light recoil. Although things as small as squirrels should probably be left out because it starts to get messy with that much velocity hitting something that small.

Some other things to keep in mind is that body armor is meant to stop handguns not rifles, pretty much all but the simple rimfire rifles are beyond the scope of body armor that a person can wear or walk in. Most rifle rounds are heavier, faster, more accurate and orders of magnitude harder to stop than handgun rounds. Popular deer/large game hunting rifles will penetrate body armor, car doors, walls and a lot of other things you might think to hide behind.

Of course how much of that really has to do with assault rifles or the definition of one? IMO a weapon becomes an "assault weapon" by most peoples standards when it is too user friendly... The only fault of these weapons is that they were too well made; clunky weapons that are difficult for the untrained and unpracticed to use don't receive the same ridiculous vilification.

So per country, according to NationMaster, you've got Canada with 1.5% as many gun murders in 2002 as the U.S.

Per capita, on the other hand, it becomes 18% (1998-2000 study).

Cities over 100,000 population:
U.S. - over 250, as of 2005
Canada (\"Urban Areas\") - 30, as of 2006

I'm not convinced. There are so many differences, it seems, that numbers are tricky.

A fully automatic weapon is good for assault or defense against armed human beings. As for whether automatic weapons should be used for hunting, take a look at the topic that this one stemmed from and see if you find any such ridiculous notions. When it comes to bear defense, whether a gun is automatic or not doesn't matter as much as the ammunition it's using. What you need is stopping power, whereas many military rounds seem to lend more to penetration (aren't hollow-points against the Geneva Convention?). Load it up with high-power rounds and you would have a very effective back-up in case of a bear encounter. Like I said in the last topic, though, I would restrict the carrying of full-auto weapons to a person's own property, by law. Our country's constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah I think all military rounds have to have a full metal jacket to keep the bullet itself from shattering and expanding.

Will Robinson wrote:The answer to the question of What is an assault weapon? is:
A Trojan Horse.

awesome!

flip wrote:Yeah I think all military rounds have to have a full metal jacket to keep the bullet itself from shattering and expanding.

I seem to recall reading or TV somewhere that armor piercing bullets are made out of harder materials like steel and thus require coatings so they don't completely wreck the rifling when fired?

flip wrote:Yeah I think all military rounds have to have a full metal jacket to keep the bullet itself from shattering and expanding.

some rounds. Depends on what they want it to do. They have phosphorous rounds for tracers. .. I wouldn't want to be hit by one.