BattleMoose wrote:How is this even a discussion. If people are choosing to carry out attacks with assault rifles,
LaserGuy wrote:I'm not a gun person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about here, but couldn't you just define assault rifles as
Tyndmyr wrote:1. "assault rifles" functionally, are not different from other rifles.
Yes, Tyndmyr, they are.
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. This is not debatable, this is not in question, this is the international standard. An assault rifle a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. If it does not have all three of those qualities, it is not an assault rifle.
An AR-15 does indeed use a detachable magazine and can indeed fire an intermediate cartridge. It is not capable (off the shelf at least) of selective fire. So an AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
That's one of the reasons many gun owners and opponents found the ban to be moronic. Because it was. I mean, yes, it was better than nothing, but the criteria was .... absurd and arbitrary.
In the official definition, yes. That's all entirely correct.
Unfortunately, the waters are muddied by media usage and the language of various 'assault weapon bans' in the US, all of which use different definitions. Not necessarily consistent with each other, either. Assault rifle, is, colloquially, treated as the rifle subset of 'assault weapon' by most people who do understand guns, I think.
The Swiss, for instance, also embraces this concept.
No, they don't. While its true that army reservists
are required to keep their military issued weapon with them, it is not an armed citizenry. It is militarily trained people, who have their military issued weapon on hand, so should they be called to action, they then form up into military units.
It is so far removed from the untrained armed citizenry of the USA who are somehow expected to, I just don't even.
Yeah, but the vast majority of the citizenry are reservists. Well, men at least. So, in practice, it is "the citizenry".
Leaving aside the gender bias, anyways. But I can't think of any practical reason to exclude women nowadays. Certainly not mass violence, given that they basically never engage in it.
KnightExemplar wrote:A side note: "Assault Rifles" are effectively banned for civilian use in the US. "Assault Weapons" are not.
This terminology sucks. I've been writing about "Assault Weapons" but now that I'm rereading posts, it seems like a lot of people were saying "assault rifles" (probably due to the confusing terminology in this discussion). Uggghhhh... I'm pretty sure most people are talking about "Assault Weapons", the vague term that is utter bollocks.
It is obnoxious. It's super easy for conversations to get entirely derailed onto terminology, just because gun control advocates/media do not understand/use standard terminology. So, it's kind of a clusterfuck.
In practice, when most people use those words, they are talking about black rifles. AR-15 and similar.
KnightExemplar wrote:And note that NONE of the 12 shootings I've discussed used machine guns or "assault rifles". They used only the easy-to-get AR15 or similar weapons. This should be taken as proof that the 1986 ban on "assault rifles" is working.
Leaving aside legality, nobody is going to grab an M60 because it costs more than most vehicles, it's heavy as crap, eats ammo, and is meant to be a crew served weapon. It would probably be a poor choice simply for practical reasons. Movies love "all the bullets" scenes, but in the real world, automatic weapons are definitely not a better choice in all circumstances.
These weapons weren't a problem before that law either, so pointing at that law as the delta is questionable.
BattleMoose wrote:When it comes to gun bans, I think for the most part, no one really cares about the assault terminology. For the most part I think people just think civilians should not be able to own guns, period. That's the culture here in Australia.
IF you want something for hunting, which is a thing, then, you better be living in the sticks and single round breach loading thing, is the most I think people could agree to.
In the US, people do not wish to agree to that. Different culture.
SecondTalon wrote:As I keep saying to people in various places - if you can't be bothered to learn the difference between Assault Rifle (something very difficult, time consuming, expensive, and invites the Feds to be all up in your business) and Assault Weapon (Definition varies), you will never get a gun rights supporter to even give your argument a second glance.
I try to. I try to avoid pedantic distinctions of clip vs mag, and rifle vs weapon and whatever, because those get frustrating.
But I admit that people talking about something they clearly have no understanding of does diminish credibility at least somewhat. Using correct terminology does make for a stronger argument. It's certainly a valid point.
Vahir wrote:I don't care how brutal the police is, the answer isn't to shoot officers. And that's what "arming the populace to stop brutality" leads to. + What the others said.
I think this may be ranging far from the original topic.
However, police do not actually seem to be shot frequently in the US. Spree shooters do not seem to be targeting police. If anything, they are deliberately selecting venues without defense.
So, I'm not sure that there's any large effect either way here. It seems like police are all too willing to engage in violence even when no firearm is present, and this fact is clearly known. So, I don't see it as either a cause or a solution, given current usage.