what is....

[nickqt]

If you want to go with a definition, you could use something like, any gun that doesn't require manual labor to either reload the next round, or to reload multiple rounds into the gun for the next volley.

So, a revolver would be exempt, minus speed loaders. Pump shotguns would be excluded. Bolt-action rifles/single shot rifles.

You could also delve into the caliber of the round being used, the power of the gun, like m/s of the bullet, etc. A

Just coming up with a definition is going to be arbitrary depending on who you're asking.

But you knew that.

 

[kage69]

The US Army sees it differently. You know, scientists & shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

Of course they do, what hunter needs or wants to lug around hundreds of rounds? Infantry combat taking place in the <300m range meant the performance reduction via shrinking battle cartridges was acceptable. Like it or not, this has resulted in a round a lot less capable than many fairly common hunting rounds. The .223/5.56 will usually do it's job when exiting a barrel of the proper length, so that maximum velocity is imparted to the bullet. In really short barrels you are screwing with the equation and hampering both accuracy and the tumble n spall effect that makes the 5.56 effective.

It worked so well in Vietnam that the Warsaw pact developed a similar round as their standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.45×39mm

Vietnam could have never happened and the Russians would have still adopted the 5.45x39mm, it was a simple measure of parity. Higher velocity projectiles with flat trajectories are simply more accurate than slower bullets that catch more air. Incidentally, the 7.62x39mm was a lot more suited to the thick foliage of Vietnam than the 5.56x45mm. Small, light, very fast moving bullets are better in wide open spaces with nothing in the way. Australians and South Africans say for fighting in the bush, it's 7.62x51NATO or nothing. Our supply of 5.56 ammo in the beginning of Vietnam wasn't smokeless, and the guns didn't come with cleaning kits (!!) Gain the admiration of the Soviets? They did no such thing.

They're as good as it gets for combat infantry. Other than that they're too much for rabbits & too little for big game.

Well I definitely agree with the last sentence there, but if 5.56 is as good as it gets, when why was 6.8SPC developed? Why so many people raving about 6.5 Creedmoor, or any of the 6.5s really? As good as it gets? Maybe you didn't hear... https://www.military.com/kitup/2017/05/modern-enemy-body-armor.html

It's not as good as it gets, and many people have thought so for some time.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

How about we make a law that all "assault style" rifles must be painted bright pink by the manufacturer to ensure better visibility in public.

Would that make you feel better than banning?

Needs to be more like Mr. Garrison’s IT.

Two flexi grips for the handles
Another handle in the mouth
Another handle in the butt to keep you safe

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153051/flexi-grips

*worth a watch, sorry for the commercial

 

[soundforbjt]

Needs to be more like Mr. Garrison’s IT.

Two flexi grips for the handles
Another handle in the mouth
Another handle in the butt to keep you safe

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153051/flexi-grips

*worth a watch, sorry for the commercial

IT beats walking!

 

[Fenixgoon]

And I think that's the wrong way to go...I see way too many progressives calling for an outright ban or even repeal of 2A, but I've always been more interested in beefing up the "well regulated militia" requirement of 2A.

I'd be all for a national gun registration and licensing program similar to what we have for automobiles. Allow anyone of a legal age (determined by states) and clear juvenile/medical/criminal record (no violent offenses, not a danger to self or others) to purchase and own "Class 1" firearms: bolt action rifles, break action shotguns, single shot pistols, revolvers or antique guns. No semi-automatics of any kind.

Moving up to the next class license and so on/so forth would require a specified amount of training, active hunting permits, ROTC and/or military service, perhaps a higher age limit, and background checks. Open carry/concealed carry and transport permits would be earned on the license, accordingly. You can also have a points system--i.e. convictions for domestic violence, substance abuse or violent felonies could count as points against your license or loss of license.

I don't see why something like this would need more than just a basic federal structure (background checks, weapon classification, registration and forensics database, perhaps tying permits to Real ID etc.) while allowing states the leeway to determine age limits, no carry areas, hunting/game permit exemptions etc.

that just makes too much goddamn sense, that's why. props to you, fski, and vi_edit for having a reasonable discussion here.

i think the "assault weapon" term is bogus, since it covers features that so many other "hunting rifles" have.

as vi_edit pointed out, a lot of it is based on looks. people see a wood stock and think hunting rifle. people see a tacticool version of the same rifle, decked out with a foregrip, bayonet, flashlight, and red dot and think "assault weapon". one could argue it's like the (in)famous definition of porn - you know it when you see it. but functionally, these rifles are the same, and while banning them would prevent the next school shooting happening with a rifle, it would just change the item to a pistol instead. so i see a rifle ban as a long haul for a short stop. ending the war on drugs would have a much more dramatic effect on murder rate (and banning pistols would help too, not that i advocate it. pistols are much more easily concealable than rifles and shotguns. not too many people are gonna be packing an AR15 in their pants somewhere).

i'm ok with additional regulation - UBC for one. it just needs to be easy. so easy that it's stupid not to do it. i call it a netflix/itunes problem. MPAA/RIAA bitched about no one buying movies and music, and all of the sudden two services came up that made it beyond trivial to access content. do the same for background checks. most gun owners are in favor of this. but if you're in a small town with 1 gun store, sometimes people can be dicks because they know they're the only game in town.

the other thing is a cultural change, and something vi_edit touched on. we provide little to no emotional outlet for kids, especially boys. we tell them to hide their feelings, bottle it up, and eventually you hit a breaking point and that's when you get a mass shooting. there needs to be a cultural shift about how we teach young people to deal with their feelings. part of it might be letting kids fight it out (...it kinda makes sense). the other is simply part of parenting, and challenging parents to do better. no one expects their kid to become a mass shooter, and certainly no one wants that. so give kids tools to work their emotions out.

edit: and one last thing - in instances where it's not a "snap" decision but the culmination of a long history of depression/anger, parents seriously need to consider continuing to own a firearm given what they know about their children (or at the very least, storing it in the house).

 

[Puffnstuff]

please point me to it
https://www.outdoorlife.com/gun-news-week-atf-says-assault-rifle-is-bogus-term

Stop grabbing the first thing you see on a google search.
https://www.ttb.gov/rrd/tdatf396.htm
http://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/ATF_AssaultEnhance_2009.pdf
https://atf-eregs.18f.gov/478-40/2016-00112#478-40

 

[mdram]

Stop grabbing the first thing you see on a google search.
https://www.ttb.gov/rrd/tdatf396.htm
http://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/ATF_AssaultEnhance_2009.pdf
https://atf-eregs.18f.gov/478-40/2016-00112#478-40

thats all from the awb of 1994, i know what it said, but its no longer law, therefore does not apply.

what i posted discussed a current white paper by a deputy director of atf. its also not law, but show their current thought. the thought that 'assault weapon' is a made up term.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course they do, what hunter needs or wants to lug around hundreds of rounds? Infantry combat taking place in the <300m range meant the performance reduction via shrinking battle cartridges was acceptable. Like it or not, this has resulted in a round a lot less capable than many fairly common hunting rounds. The .223/5.56 will usually do it's job when exiting a barrel of the proper length, so that maximum velocity is imparted to the bullet. In really short barrels you are screwing with the equation and hampering both accuracy and the tumble n spall effect that makes the 5.56 effective.




Vietnam could have never happened and the Russians would have still adopted the 5.45x39mm, it was a simple measure of parity. Higher velocity projectiles with flat trajectories are simply more accurate than slower bullets that catch more air. Incidentally, the 7.62x39mm was a lot more suited to the thick foliage of Vietnam than the 5.56x45mm. Small, light, very fast moving bullets are better in wide open spaces with nothing in the way. Australians and South Africans say for fighting in the bush, it's 7.62x51NATO or nothing. Our supply of 5.56 ammo in the beginning of Vietnam wasn't smokeless, and the guns didn't come with cleaning kits (!!) Gain the admiration of the Soviets? They did no such thing.



Well I definitely agree with the last sentence there, but if 5.56 is as good as it gets, when why was 6.8SPC developed? Why so many people raving about 6.5 Creedmoor, or any of the 6.5s really? As good as it gets? Maybe you didn't hear... https://www.military.com/kitup/2017/05/modern-enemy-body-armor.html

It's not as good as it gets, and many people have thought so for some time.

Things may change in the future. The 5.56 & 5.45 carbines are currently state of the art for infantry & civilian massacre roles.

 

[mdram]

The 5.56 & 5.45 carbines are currently state of the art for

not even close

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm your bogey-man!

 

[Jhhnn]

not even close

This is the usual gun nut form of argument, right? Divert into the minutiae of gun lore & opinion? The usual "I think I know more about guns than you do so my argument carries more weight" routine.

Yeh, that one.

Say what you want, but the 5.56 & 5.45 systems are extremely effective for their designed purpose- accurately shooting as many people as you can in as short a time as possible. The round is devastating at the range of school, church & nightclub shootings. The sustainable rate of fire is also quite large.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ- have some respect for the people who designed them & worked to perfect them. They know what it's for even if you pretend otherwise. It's a murder machine.

 

[kage69]

Things may change in the future. The 5.56 & 5.45 carbines are currently state of the art for infantry & civilian massacre roles.

I suppose that's true to an extent for civilian shootings, but that is not the case for military roles. State of the art would be Textron's 6.5mm CT. Shoots better at range than 5.56, hits harder than 7.62x39, and eats polymer, telescoped cases that are lighter and shorter than traditional brass.

I'm a gun owner in favor of more regulation. I feel getting the facts straight on this topic is important and no vice. I can't help the Gadsen flag waving "ammosexuals," but the anti-dead student crowd can count on me to help them not sound completely lost when it comes to guns.

 

[trenchfoot]

interesting, can you explain why you thought it was impotent.
just curious.
i find the 5.56/.223 to be a mediocre round for anything other than punching paper

Even though I knew my buds were all around me whenever things got real, sometimes I'd get this sinking feeling in my gut that I'm all alone and that 16 I had just wasn't enough to get me through the day in one piece. Goes along with feeling helpless, not smart enough and not ready enough/never ready enough and then I think ehhh fvck it, stay small, cover your buds, do my job. After awhile the sixth sense kicks in and you learn to trust it.

No more talk of this, K?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I want to have a discussion! I feel that they are fundamentally hard to define but as K1052 says that distinction is not very important. So let’s focus on the guns that are the issue! It’s mostly gun ownership in general but there’s a very good case for eliminating semiautomatic weapons even absent a larger ban.

You present an excellent reason why there won't be any significant action. When a .45ACP becomes an "assault weapon" then that's the end of any discussion. Worse, that means that people with moderate ideas will be viewed with distrust. This is why the NRA is supported, not because of the fear of reasonable regulations, but the ulterior motive of disarmament, which is what is being proposed except for some exceptions.

We'll revisit this issue next year and the next and the next...

 

[Greenman]

Don't know if anyone has pointed it out, but the obvious answer to the question "what is an assault rifle", is any rifle that's pointed at you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But you weren’t interested in having a fair discussion. You wanted to play the old “this is a hunting rifle, this an AR, don’t you know what you want to ban stupid liberal” game.

Instead when nobody bit you declared the other side wasn't debating in good in good faith.

Well how about now, are you willing to have a good faith discussion?

I see no honest broker in all this. To the above add a .22 Ruger semi-auto pistol. Why? Because a proposed recent proposed piece of legislation had a little tidbit in it. Any weapon which could possibly hold more than the limit would be labeled as such. Do you see the problem here?

 

[Jhhnn]

I suppose that's true to an extent for civilian shootings, but that is not the case for military roles. State of the art would be Textron's 6.5mm CT. Shoots better at range than 5.56, hits harder than 7.62x39, and eats polymer, telescoped cases that are lighter and shorter than traditional brass.

Please. Someday maybe, but not today. It's experimental tech & immaterial in reference to available firearms.

I'm a gun owner in favor of more regulation. I feel getting the facts straight on this topic is important and no vice. I can't help the Gadsen flag waving "ammosexuals," but the anti-dead student crowd can count on me to help them not sound completely lost when it comes to guns.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I see no honest broker in all this. To the above add a .22 Ruger semi-auto pistol. Why? Because a proposed recent proposed piece of legislation had a little tidbit in it. Any weapon which could possibly hold more than the limit would be labeled as such. Do you see the problem here?

No, I don't. It would just mean a change in what guns are manufactured and sold. It would also be a iterative process. Some mistakes would be made, and then corrected, over and over until we got it right. By that I mean finding the right balance between allowing the right to bare arms and the protection of our society so that it is not mandatory to. It is the complete resistance to even attempting to do anything about this that is the unreasonable position. Reasonable people would work together to find a balance. But I suspect that the NRA crowed knows that the right balance is to have few guns at all and that is why they hold such a hard line.

 

[WHAMPOM]

an assault weapon.

can someone please explain what an assault weapon is ti me?

Penis substitute. We know why you ask.

 

[Paladin3]

For anyone who cares...

Prior to WWII we mostly armed our ground troops with full-sized, large caliber battle rifles like the 1903 bolt action .30-06 Springfield, the semi-auto .30-06 M1 Garand, or the semi-auto .308 M14. Even the single shot muzzleloading black powder rifles used in the Civil War would be considered battle rifles.

During WWII, Germany and other countries starting thinking a shorter, lighter, smaller caliber, higher capacity rifle might work better in most battle situations. The were easier for the average soldier to shoot, in an intermediate caliber so more ammo could be carried, and still effective at common battle distances of less then 300ish meters. These weapons were often semi-automatic or select fire and often utilized a quick to change out removable box magazine. These weapons were intended to give increased firepower like a machine gun, but still do most of the job of a full-sized battle rifle. We refer to this class of firearms as assault rifles and it include guns such as the WWII era German StG 44, .30 caliber M1 Carbine, the Kalashnikov AK-47 and the M16/AR-15 platform.

That said, "assault rifle" has become a political term that means a scary looking black gun that turns normal individuals into child-murdering psychopaths.

 

[SMOGZINN]

For anyone who cares...

Prior to WWII we mostly armed our ground troops with full-sized, large caliber battle rifles like the 1903 bolt action .30-06 Springfield, the semi-auto .30-06 M1 Garand, or the semi-auto .308 M14. Even the single shot muzzleloading black powder rifles used in the Civil War would be considered battle rifles.

During WWII, Germany and other countries starting thinking a shorter, lighter, smaller caliber, higher capacity rifle might work better in most battle situations. The were easier for the average soldier to shoot, in an intermediate caliber so more ammo could be carried, and still effective at common battle distances of less then 300ish meters. These weapons were often semi-automatic or select fire and often utilized a quick to change out removable box magazine. These weapons were intended to give increased firepower like a machine gun, but still do most of the job of a full-sized battle rifle. We refer to this class of firearms as assault rifles and it include guns such as the WWII era German StG 44, .30 caliber M1 Carbine, the Kalashnikov AK-47 and the M16/AR-15 platform.

That said, "assault rifle" has become a political term that means a scary looking black gun that turns normal individuals into child-murdering psychopaths.

So, from this we can pull together a decent definition of what 'assault rifle' really means. An 'assault rifle' is a short, light, small caliber, high capacity rifle effective at distances of less then 300ish meters that are semi-automatic or select fire and utilize a quick to change out removable magazine. This sounds like a pretty good, detailed, usable description. NRA groupies don't want to accept it because it describes a fairly large swath of their favorite weapons, and they know that once we settle on a definition of assault weapon it will become the goal of the gun control movement to get it heavily regulated.

 

[IJTSSG]

So, from this we can pull together a decent definition of what 'assault rifle' really means. An 'assault rifle' is a short, light, small caliber, high capacity rifle effective at distances of less then 300ish meters that are semi-automatic or select fire and utilize a quick to change out removable magazine. This sounds like a pretty good, detailed, usable description. NRA groupies don't want to accept it because it describes a fairly large swath of their favorite weapons, and they know that once we settle on a definition of assault weapon it will become the goal of the gun control movement to get it heavily regulated.

Define short - how many inches?
Define light - how many pounds/ounces
Define small - less than .50? .30?
Define high - >5? 10? 20?
Define effective - .5 MOA? 1? 2?
Define quick to change - 1 second? 5 seconds

More work to be done. Good luck.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Define short - how many inches?
Define light - how many pounds/ounces
Define small - less than .50? .30?
Define high - >5? 10? 20?
Define effective - .5 MOA? 1? 2?
Define quick to change - 1 second? 5 seconds

More work to be done. Good luck.

That is not really how definitions work, even in law. Few laws use that level of detail. The law more often than not leaves it to the agencies and courts to figure that stuff out.

 

[mdram]

That is not really how definitions work, even in law. Few laws use that level of detail. The law more often than not leaves it to the agencies and courts to figure that stuff out.

actually many of the current laws enumerate specific weapons

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

i was thinking, and i was wrong, that people would have a civilized conversation.
i forgot that the typical liberal is incapable of this act.

maybe someone will prove me wrong

When you use a straw man -- in this case 'liberal' - then yes, there is no discussion to be had.