HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What Makes a Gun an Assau...

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:47 PM

What Makes a Gun an Assault Weapon?

Aside from questions about whether a new assault-weapons ban can be passed (probably not), the post-Newtown push for stricter gun control has sparked debate about what an "assault weapon" even is. Some argue that it's just a scary term concocted by gun-control advocates, but according to the New York Times, the term "assault rifle" was first used to describe a weapon produced by the Nazis, and decades later it was adopted by the firearms industry to sell guns modeled after new military rifles. However, it's true that the practical definition of an assault weapon is determined by lawmakers; with the new legislation before Congress, it could change again. For those whose gun knowledge starts at James Bond movies and ends at watching roommates play Call of Duty, here's a primer.

President Obama has called on Congress to reinstate the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Last week a group of congressional Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Carolyn McCarthy, introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/what-makes-a-gun-an-assault-weapon.html

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload.
What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

  • All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
  • All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
  • All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  • All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  • All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  • 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).


The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

  • Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
  • Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
  • Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
  • Antique weapons.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

113 replies, 8692 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply What Makes a Gun an Assault Weapon? (Original post)
SecularMotion Jan 2013 OP
onehandle Jan 2013 #1
kwolf68 Jan 2013 #2
jmg257 Jan 2013 #8
kwolf68 Jan 2013 #13
jmg257 Jan 2013 #20
Paladin Jan 2013 #21
Deep13 Feb 2013 #102
Bandit Jan 2013 #22
11 Bravo Jan 2013 #87
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #24
jmg257 Jan 2013 #25
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #27
Recursion Jan 2013 #35
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #42
Recursion Jan 2013 #43
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #45
Recursion Jan 2013 #47
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #88
Recursion Jan 2013 #89
X_Digger Jan 2013 #94
X_Digger Jan 2013 #95
Recursion Jan 2013 #96
X_Digger Jan 2013 #98
Recursion Jan 2013 #99
X_Digger Jan 2013 #100
slackmaster Jan 2013 #3
Animal Chin Jan 2013 #9
slackmaster Jan 2013 #11
librabear Jan 2013 #15
X_Digger Jan 2013 #26
jmg257 Jan 2013 #10
slackmaster Jan 2013 #17
Hangingon Jan 2013 #46
jmg257 Jan 2013 #48
Recursion Jan 2013 #54
jmg257 Jan 2013 #58
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #77
montanto Jan 2013 #4
slackmaster Jan 2013 #5
librabear Jan 2013 #12
quakerboy Feb 2013 #112
slackmaster Feb 2013 #113
iiibbb Jan 2013 #6
jmg257 Jan 2013 #16
iiibbb Jan 2013 #19
jmg257 Jan 2013 #23
Animal Chin Jan 2013 #7
jmg257 Jan 2013 #14
librabear Jan 2013 #18
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #28
slackmaster Jan 2013 #30
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #33
slackmaster Jan 2013 #36
hack89 Jan 2013 #29
SailorMike Jan 2013 #57
k2qb3 Jan 2013 #31
jmg257 Jan 2013 #39
SailorMike Jan 2013 #59
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #91
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #32
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #34
bowens43 Jan 2013 #37
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #38
NCTraveler Jan 2013 #40
X_Digger Jan 2013 #60
NCTraveler Jan 2013 #83
X_Digger Jan 2013 #85
TheCowsCameHome Jan 2013 #41
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #44
Recursion Jan 2013 #52
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #65
Recursion Jan 2013 #66
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #68
Recursion Jan 2013 #69
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #72
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #92
morningfog Jan 2013 #97
Recursion Feb 2013 #101
morningfog Feb 2013 #103
Recursion Feb 2013 #104
morningfog Feb 2013 #106
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #55
Recursion Jan 2013 #61
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #70
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #67
Recursion Jan 2013 #71
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #75
Recursion Jan 2013 #76
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #78
Recursion Jan 2013 #79
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #81
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #80
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #82
morningfog Feb 2013 #107
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #49
deathrind Jan 2013 #50
Recursion Jan 2013 #53
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #51
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #56
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #62
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #109
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #111
SailorMike Jan 2013 #63
DainBramaged Jan 2013 #84
derby378 Jan 2013 #86
Recursion Jan 2013 #64
guardian Jan 2013 #73
TransitJohn Jan 2013 #90
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #93
longship Feb 2013 #105
Deep13 Feb 2013 #108
mwrguy Feb 2013 #110

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:51 PM

1. Down the road, guns, clips, and ammo will be 'well regulated' based on performance.

Count on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:56 PM

2. Assault


is supposed to mean fully automatic. These are not illegal, but heavily regulated. And almost no crimes are committed with them, because of this regulation and the cost of said guns.

We ALREADY have gun control. Been on the books for 70 whatever years now. I am now CHALLENGING my Facebook friends to ask for the removal of these controls and M50 machine guns should now be sold in WalMart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwolf68 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:03 PM

8. "Assault is supposed to mean fully automatic". Says who?

Not Gun Digest when they wrote a book about them in in 1986.

Included all kinds of semiautos...AR-180, AUG, Uzi, SAR-48, .22 AK, Daewoos...

ya know - all those great semiauto "Assault Weapons"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:07 PM

13. Maybe I am thinking of "assault rifle"


I do know the term exists and THOUGHT it had that meaning, though in looking it up just now definitions are all over the map.

I do not deny it is used by gun control advocates as a form of propaganda. Just calling it "a gun" isn't good enough.

Disclaimer: I am in total support of gun control and am actually quite sick of the gun fetish native to our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwolf68 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:11 PM

20. You are right about "assault rifle", and it typically being distinguishable from "assault weapon"

but these days those terms are getting muddied, possibly innocently, but especially by anyone with an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:12 PM

21. Back Then, Military-Style Semi-Autos Were Openly Marketed As "Assault Rifles"


A fact that our Gun Enthusiast types do their best to conceal.

Like I keep saying, I see no reason for a firearm to have to adhere to a narrow, Wayne LaPierre/Ted Nugent-approved definition to be considered an "assault rifle." The gun militants are attempting to control the vocabulary and thus the argument. I see no reason to continue that practice, post-Sandy Hook.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:03 AM

102. Anyone who has participated in a military assault...

...in the last 50 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwolf68 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:15 PM

22. I can tell you have NEVER been anywhere near a real assault

NO ONE uses their rifle in the full auto mode when engaged in an assault. Do you know how long it takes to burn through your 300 rounds if you fired in full auto mode. When engaged in Combat you try and preserve your ammo the best you can because you have no idea when you will be resupplied....An assault weapon is one that is light weight and has rapid fire capabilities. An M-60 machine gun can be considered an assault weapon and so can an M-1 Carbine....It is what you can carry easily and put out a lot of suppressive fire power. that is the reality no matter what "official" NRA people say it is...It is all about accurate suppressive fire power and semi auto rifles fill that bill if they have detachable magazines..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:15 PM

87. Yup, three-round bursts are what we were taught. You might go full-balls rock and roll ...

during a mad minute, but that was only inside the wire and only when you had a shit load of ammo on hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwolf68 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:21 PM

24. Wrong. Assault means military style. Fully automatic means nothing.

You can switch these weapons from fully auto to semi auto. They do not cease to be assault weapons when in semi automatic mode.

The fact that you need to lie to support your point of view is proof that you are wrong on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:24 PM

25. Can you clarify this? Assault RIFLE - traditionally has select fire.

Assault Weapon, typically and as codified in numerous bans is semiauto only.

is that what you meant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:28 PM

27. Yes

My point being that when an assault rifle is not in fully automatic it is still an assault rifle. The idea that a weapon that is semi automatic can't be an assault weapon is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:49 PM

35. Legally, no gun can ever be both an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle"

If it's capable of selective fire, it's an assault rifle. If it's not, it may or may not be an assault weapon, but cannot be an assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:57 PM

42. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

^snip^

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, expired after ten years in 2004. It banned the manufacture or importation of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defined as assault weapons. Any firearms so defined that were already possessed at the time the law took effect were grandfathered in, and could be legally owned or transferred. The law also banned the manufacture or importation of magazines that could hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, with existing magazines grandfathered in as legal.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and at least two of these features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel, a bayonet mount, or a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher. It also included semi-automatic pistols with a detachable magazine and at least two of these features: a magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip, a threaded barrel, a barrel shroud, or an unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more. Additionally defined as assault weapons were semi-automatic shotguns with a rotating cylinder, or with at least two of these features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a detachable magazine, or a fixed magazine that can hold more than five rounds.

The ban also prohibited 19 specifically named models of firearms, as well as copies of those guns. These included the AK-47, Uzi, Galil, AR-15, FN FAL, MAC-10, Steyr AUG, TEC-9, and Armsel Striker.



At this point we may just be playing word games but it seems to me that the rifles being classified as an assault weapon under the ban are assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:58 PM

43. Yes, that's what I said

A semi-automatic weapon may be an assault weapon, and cannot be an assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:01 PM

45. I'm confused.

So you are saying that the assault rifle ceases to be an assault rifle once it is classified as an assault weapon?


That just seems like a word game to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:10 PM

47. No. I'm saying it has to be capable of automatic fire to be an assault rifle. Here's a Venn diagram.

Any weapon capable of automatic fire is legally considered "automatic", even if it has a semi-automatic mode it can also fire in: the weapon is classified at its fastest possible mode of operations.

Assault weapons are all semi-automatic. Nothing that is legally an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire, period. So nothing that is legally an assault weapon can be an assault rifle. Here's a Venn Diagram:



My Venn diagram aesthetic skills clearly need some work, but there you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:49 PM

88. That is crazy

The "gun" is still a rifle, and still a weapon.

The thing does not stop being a rifle because it is semi auto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:52 PM

89. Of course it's crazy. Our gun laws are not sane.

My post was meant as a description, not endorsement, of the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:06 PM

94. Yes, rifles can be full auto or semi, "assault weapons" or not, and some pistols can also be "AW"s

But as a descriptive demonstration of the difference between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon", it's accurate.

All "assault weapons" are semi-automatic, but not all semi-automatics are "assault weapons". Similarly all "assault rifles" are full auto, but not all full auto firearms are "assault rifles".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:41 PM

95. This help any?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:42 PM

96. Thank you

Is there an API for that? Or just knowing how to use The Gimp/Photoshop?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:45 PM

98. Just threw it together in photoshop..

Let me know if you think it needs revision, I saved the psd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:47 PM

99. Just as a former topology grad student, "full auto" should be contiguous and include some shotguns

With spheres rather than circles that could be done.

But, yes, absolutely right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:49 PM

100. Yeah, hard to do in 2d.. also nevermind DDs & SBRs, 'cane' guns, etc etc.

I would model it in bryce 4, and do a cutaway / fly through animation, but that's going a bit far, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:57 PM

3. The part labelled "Barrel shroud" is actually a handguard or forestock

 

A part that has existed on every long gun that has ever made, going back centuries.





A "barrel shroud" sometimes called "That shoulder thing that goes up" is a ventilated metal heat shield found some fully automatic machine guns and a few handguns. Its purpose is to protect the user from getting burned by the barrel.

A pistol grip is merely an ergonomic item that gives the user a more comfortable and secure, therefore safer, grip on the weapon.

A collapsible stock allows the shooter to adjust the length of the rifle for a proper fit. It also provides for storage in smaller spaces. Neither that nor the pistol grip make the weapon any more dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:05 PM

9. Have to disagree with you about collapsible stocks

They are one of the "military" features that I do think goes beyond cosmetic, because they make a rifle more concealable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:06 PM

11. A person would have to be pretty big and wear very loose clothing to conceal any rifle

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:08 PM

15. They also make it fit multiple people

 

Like a small woman and a larger man that may want to shoot the same rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:24 PM

26. 4" difference makes it concealable?!?

36" = fine, but 32" = concealable?

That's quite a stretch (of more than 4").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:05 PM

10. You might want to read the Bill...

‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
16 ‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
17 partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire
18 arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire
19 arm from heat generated by the barrel; and
20 ‘‘(B) does not include—
21 ‘‘(i) a slide that partially or completely en
22 closes the barrel; or
23 ‘‘(ii) an extension of the stock along the
24 bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or
25 substantially encircle the barrel.



Sure sounds like the handguards on that AR to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:08 PM

17. Further proof that the bill is mindless and probably not written with any intention of passing

 

A rifle of any kind without something to protect the shooter's off hand would be useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:09 PM

46. How long do you think it will take?

To design the "work around" for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:16 PM

48. Not sure - but this part should make it a little harder...

‘‘(H) All of the following rifles, copies, dupli
20 cates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capa
21 bility of any such weapon thereof:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:21 PM

54. '94 ban had that too

ATF had to rule that it couldn't literally mean that, because that would ban every firearm made in the past 100 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:29 PM

58. Ahh - I thought they used..

"any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates"

Not sure if that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:51 PM

77. Too vague. Law has to be precise. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:59 PM

4. The part labeled "suppressor"

is a "flash suppressor," not to be confused with a noise suppressor or "silencer" as some would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanto (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:01 PM

5. Yes, and the purpose of a flash suppressor is to deflect the flash out of the shooter's field...

 

...of vision to prevent temporary blindness. It doesn't do anything to make the weapon more dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:07 PM

12. Correct

 

And a silencer keeps people from going deaf. It makes a big gun sound like a smaller gun, not silent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:33 AM

112. What is the purpose of that?

Ive never shot a gun that blinded me. Under what circumstances does that become an issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:38 AM

113. When the combination of firearm and ammunition produce a brilliant flash at the muzzle

 

Try shooting an M44 Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle with surplus standard ball ammunition some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:02 PM

6. by definition capable of automatic fire = assault rifle

 

assault weapons is a not a technical term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:08 PM

16. But it does describe a class of weapons.

Originally semiauto versions of select-fire military arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:10 PM

19. the class is arbitrary

 

guns that are mechanically identical are not in the class

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:17 PM

23. As codified in law - yes - I agree. But not as likely orginally used.

I think it would have been a stretch for Gun Digest to place a traditional ranch-style Mini-14 or 7400 in with an AUG or AR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:02 PM

7. Barrel Shroud

It's annoying when the pro-gun folks claim that any factual error or lack of knowledge about a gun disqualifies you from having an opinion about them.

But it also annoying when the press makes these kind of mistakes because they are easy to avoid (i.e., basic fact checking).

I may be wrong, but that's not what I would consider a barrel shroud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:07 PM

14. Doesn't matter what you think a barrel shroud is...only what Feinstein says it is...

‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
16 ‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
17 partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire
18 arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire
19 arm from heat generated by the barrel; and
20 ‘‘(B) does not include—
21 ‘‘(i) a slide that partially or completely en
22 closes the barrel; or
23 ‘‘(ii) an extension of the stock along the
24 bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or
25 substantially encircle the barrel.

Sounds like those AR handguards to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:08 PM

18. I see a big list of cosmetic features.

 

None of those items listed make a rifle more dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:29 PM

28. How many people can you kill with it within a 20 foot radius, in 1 minute.

That's an objective measure which ignores what the weapon looks like.

The radius is selected to determine if people can escape quickly.

The time limit determines a set time period for comparison across weapons.

If you can kill 5 people in a minute in a 20 foot radius, that's all the weapon you need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:39 PM

30. We have a document called the Bill of Rights. I've never heard of a Bill of Needs.

 

If you can kill 5 people in a minute in a 20 foot radius, that's all the weapon you need.

What if you are being pursued by seven zombies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:48 PM

33. I say .... Screw the semantics of "need".

That's a common dodge.

Try this ... the 2nd Amendment says you can "keep and bear" arms ... it says NOTHING about the SALE and PURCHASE of such arms.

The SALE and PURCHASE of items are covered in the COMMERCE CLAUSE.

And so, Congress can regulate the SALE and PURCHASE of the these items that you can "keep and bear" AFTER you purchase them under the relevant commerce regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:49 PM

36. The federal government already regulates commerce in firearms

 

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

It has since 1934.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:33 PM

29. The stupidity of the AWB in two pictures

This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB:




This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB:



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #29)


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:39 PM

31. "Assault" is a verb, not an adjective.

The bill wouldn't do anything to reduce violence, if passed it's a certainty violence would increase significantly..

What it would do is put you and your child at risk of a felony no-knock if you handed down grandpa's 70 Y/O m1 carbine.

This is, and always was, a very foolish approach that will have significant political cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to k2qb3 (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:52 PM

39. Except of course that grandpa's M1 carbine is specifically exempt.

FWIW - So is his Garand.

Curious - why would violence increase significantly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #39)


Response to jmg257 (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:49 PM

91. Oddly enough the SKS, the Russian Garand is included in the ban.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:47 PM

32. there is no such things as global warming

because the weather today is colder than average...

Besides there were emails between researchers as they tried to figure out how to communicate their findings and concerns.

Bullshit smoke-screens are still bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:48 PM

34. +10000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:51 PM

37. the ability to fire bullets.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:51 PM

38. Legislative imagination.

Just ask anyone if they'd rather be shot by gun with or without a folding stock or pistol grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:52 PM

40. "Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement"

Why would the bill exclude assault weapons used by "retired law enforcement".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:31 PM

60. All these laws carve out exceptions for law enforcement and retired law enforcement

Often, that's the "cost" to get law enforcement groups behind them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:57 PM

83. Thanks for the reply. I understand it is that way for current law enforcement.

But retired kind of baffled me. Your reasoning makes sense. I don't think it should be that way, but I see how it would get their support. As long as we can keep ours kind of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:02 PM

85. Really makes you think about all those who tout 'supported by law enforcement' re new bills, eh? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:56 PM

41. If it causes an erection quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:59 PM

44. Any firearms that can allow a novice to kill 20 children in a blink of an eye

 

I don't care what you call them ("mean" guns works for me), but I think we are smart enough to figure out what these are and get rid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:18 PM

52. OK, that technology is called a "gun", unfortunately

Lanza killed 26 people in 10 minutes. Even with a single-shot deer rifle or six-shooter, that rate of fire is very easy.

I know this is very upsetting and everybody wants to do something. The unfortunate fact is there's not nearly as much difference among different firearms in terms of lethality as people think there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:36 PM

65. "not nearly as much difference among different firearms"

 

Then get rid of everything except a bow and arrow. If someone manages to kill 20 children in a flash with a bow, get rid of those too. If we are that keen of hunters, we can figure out how to hunt deer with rocks. You make a great argument.


But no, I don't believe you. A novice cannot deal that type of damage with a bolt-action rifle at close range because people would run. But why would people run from a gun that will spray down the majority of the runners at close range? Its kind of pointless. Thats the interesting thing about these firearms people don't want to mention: the psychological assessment of potential victims. The run vs hope-you-live assessment facing an AR15 vs a bolt-action rifle are dramatically different; the later potential victims would generally assess a greater chance of survival by fleeing in random directions between shots, whereas the AR15 may encourage a crowd of sitting ducks (or deer in a spotlight) that do not see a dramatic advantage to running. It takes more than a novice to effectively use a bolt-action rifle at close range and cause this damage, because people will run for their lives; hence, that's why its not used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:38 PM

66. What about Virginia Tech?

That was even more people, in the same amount of time, with ordinary handguns.

I think the victim's mentality generally doesn't come into play in a mass shooting: there are people who get caught before they realize what's going on, and then the people who do realize what's going on and get out of there. *shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:42 PM

68. Did he use a bolt-action rifle?

 

Did his handguns look like this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:43 PM

69. No, he used semi-automatic handguns, like 95% of people who kill with guns

The last time a bolt action rifle made any big crime news was that guy in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:45 PM

72. So maybe those qualify as "mean" guns

 

Fuck em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:46 PM

74. I don't have an argument in principle against banning pistols

I think it would be as effective as banning drugs has been (and cause the same problems that banning drugs has) but that at least addresses what I think the "real" problem is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:54 PM

92. I do

It is the primary means of self defense and the most effective.

We have had semi automatic pistols for over a century and revolvers for many more years than that. Somehow I don't believe that the hardware is the "real issue"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:45 PM

97. Bullshit. Utter and complete NRA bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:02 AM

101. Hm. OK. Tell me what you think was wrong with what I said (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #101)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:03 AM

103. You derailed with this:

"Even with a single-shot deer rifle or six-shooter, that rate of fire is very easy."

Not to many, not to most, not to the average.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #103)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:06 AM

104. 26 in 10 minutes? One shot every 23 seconds?

Name me a firearm that cannot be pretty easily fired that quickly.

That's slower than the standard rate of fire of a musket back in the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:08 AM

106. Your attempt to muddy the water is still failing.

How many bullets were actually fired in that 10 minutes?

How many at a time?

How many marksmen could put 3 or more bullets in every one of the 26 people killed?

You disgust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:25 PM

55. It wasn't a blink of an eye... it was several minutes.

 

Someone can shoot 20 targets at a gun range with a 6-shot .357 revolver in just a couple minutes. Try the same thing with a 7 shot semiautomatic pistol and 4 loaded magazines. Or a 10-shot rifle with 4 magazines. Go to a range, rent one for $10 and give it a try... that level of skill isn't difficult.

What is so hard to grasp that legislation like this won't save any of our children. We need meaningful legislation that might ACTUALLY have a significant impact on gun crime. I'm convinced just about any design of gun from the last century could have been used for the carnage witnessed in CT. It's not the type of guns that are the problem... it's the type of people that have access to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:31 PM

61. If someone can be trusted with a gun, they can pretty much be trusted with any gun

And if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with any gun.

*shrug*

Then again if I knew how to keep bad people from getting things they want, I'd be king right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:43 PM

70. I agree. Feinstein's bill says a Glock with 15 rounds is too unsafe but 10 rounds is acceptable.

 

Excuse me, but if I felt someone carrying a gun near me with a 15-round magazine is simply too much of risk then why the hell would I feel safer if they only had 10 bullets?!? I don't want shot at all... not even once! It's not kind of gun held by a person near me that I worry about, it's the kind of gun owner.

That's like saying I don't trust drunk drivers who have consumed liquor, but if they only drank beer it's OK. Or perhaps, that guy that drives home from the bar after 12 drinks is unacceptable but after 10 drinks that's OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:41 PM

67. Im convinced that's just nonsense

 

I'm convinced just about any design of gun from the last century could have been used for the carnage witnessed in CT.


A single-shot .22 pistol would fail miserably

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:44 PM

71. People haven't made single-shot pistols since the mid 1800s.

What kind of gun are you thinking of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:48 PM

75. Yes they have

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:50 PM

76. Aren't those air pistols? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:55 PM

78. Single-shot .22 pistols

 

They appear like air pistols because they jacked the popular design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:57 PM

79. Fair enough. So there are break-action pistols.

If we want to talk about going back to just those, I'm all ears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:00 PM

81. Oh, I was just nit-picking the "any design" comment :)

 

And honestly, I don't know. Hell, when they first started making revolvers, they got nicknames like the Widow Maker for a reason, right? And those have become relics. We are so far down the rabbit hole that we can't even judge what is "reasonable" any more for general utility. Honestly, I think applying my '20 children dead from novice' criteria isn't a bad start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #67)


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:05 PM

82. And improved upon in the 20th Century

 

There are numerous "guns from the last century" that were single shot 22s. So I don't understand what your point is. I think you are trying to move goalposts or something. There are numerous designs made within the last 100 years that do not enabled them to be tools of mass carnage by relatively unskilled users.


Basically most any common revolver or magazine-fed firearm, regardless of how scary/paramilitary it looks, can kill dozens of people in a few minutes

Sure, then get rid of them. Go back to my original post. If any idiot can use some firearm to do that damage that quickly, get rid of it.


This 2013 Assault Weapons ban won't save our children

I understand that. My original post doesn't mention "assault weapon". I think we need to create a new criteria based on the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:12 AM

107. Your NRA gun apologia is telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:16 PM

49. The only feature on that picture that effects lethality in any way is the magazine.

 

The pistol grip, barrel shroud (sometimes lovingly referred to as the-shoulder-thing-that-goes-up), adjusdtable stock, and the flash hider/suppressor don't do anything 'extra' for the gun. It's like wood-checkering, butstock pads, sling swivels, or bipod attachments on your grandad's hunting rifle - completely cosmetic and/or user preference accessory items.

This bill overreaches by specifying absurd shit on guns that makes little to no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:17 PM

50. AW's

The Fedorov Avtomat is considered by most to be the world’s first “Assault Weapon”. The second one (made by Germany) is the Sturmgewehr-44. If I am wrong about this I am sure someone will correct me. What gets lost in translation here of “Assault Weapon” is not how the weapon looks or its size but its ability to enable one person (1) to inflict damage to multiple people quickly and alone. One could not reasonably take out an MG nest or Pillbox in WW2 with an M1 or 1911 unless they were very good and lucky. Hence the "Assault Weapon" was born which allowed one person to put alot of bullets in the air and in a general direction in a very short period of time. Spray and pray.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:20 PM

53. The term "assault weapon" is legally defined, though

And ironically neither the Fedorov nor Sturmgewehr fall under that legal definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:18 PM

51. Markedly better definition here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:26 PM

56. It becomes an assault weapon

when it's used to assault someone.

You can have as many fucking muskets as you want. Beyond that, forget it. THAT is the true intention of 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:34 PM

62. Second Amendment has never been read to only protect muskets.

No majority has ever held that only Revolutionary-era weapons counted as "arms" under the 2nd. SCOTUS does not apply "technological originalism" to any Amendment (Or the First wouldn't protect any electronic or electrical communication), so why do you think it applies to the Second?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:16 AM

109. You're fucking wrong.

Those were the only weapons available at that time, so that is original intent.

Buh-bye, because I don't need people like you in my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #109)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:06 AM

111. You lot get *so* angry when we decline to sing from your hymnal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #56)


Response to SailorMike (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:59 PM

84. (sigh) didn't take long did it Mikey........

I figured it out way before today's post. You guys come and go and try again and you go and you just don't get it.


This is OUR playpen, we who ARE LIBERALS and PROGRESSIVES NOT Regressive.


Have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:02 PM

86. That's why I'm here...

And just because I've strayed from the official script doesn't make me any less of a liberal, does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:34 PM

64. Basically, yes: if you want to make mass shootings impossible you have to go back to muskets

The technology mass random shooters use has been around for 150 years or so, but the motivation for some reason wasn't there until more recently.

There were even a lot of mass random murders during that time, but they were mostly arsons and poisonings. It's somewhat mysterious.

I'd also point out that the murder rate in 1789 was significantly higher than it is today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:46 PM

73. If it comes with a

 

crocheted barrel shroud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:44 PM

90. If it's designed to assault an opposing force,

i.e., go on the offensive rather than defend against an opposing force. Seems pretty basic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:55 PM

93. Armies do not assault anything these days with semi automatic rifles

regardless of cosmetic features

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:06 AM

105. If it shoots bullets, it can assault people at a distance. That's sufficient. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:14 AM

108. Whatever the law says it is. It has no historic meaning.

"Rifle" means something. "Pistol" and "handgun" mean something. "Battle rifle" means something. "Assault rifle" means something. "Assault weapon" doesn't.

The reason is because all those other terms are technical terms that grew out of the development of firearm technology. The term "assault weapon" was invented by politicians who were not making any progress restricting hand guns, so they shifted focus to scarey-looking guns that look like they belong in the military, but don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:40 AM

110. Can you assault people with it? Yes?

Then it's an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread