What is an Assault Weapon?

[Missourian]

For those that support an assault weapon ban...define what you support banning.

 

[Likkmee]

It's something regularly utilized by the meatheads "yes sir/following orders sir" at the Dept of Offence

 

[Missourian]

It's something regularly utilized by the meatheads "yes sir/following orders sir" at the Dept of Offence

I assume that's dumbass speak for weapons used by Soldiers and Marines. Well, you might as well stand down...those are already highly regulated.

 

[Penelope]

For me anything that holds a magazine.

 

[Nosmo King]

The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.

To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:

The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.

The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.

And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.

 

[Missourian]

For me anything that holds a magazine.

This shotgun that takes a magazine:

The most popular hunting rifle in the U.S., the Remington 700, takes a magazine.

So that's not going to work either.

 

[Missourian]

The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.

To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:

The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.

The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.

And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.

Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.

Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.

Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller. That's the reason the 1994 ban was a cosmetic, not a platform ban. It was a workaround.

Interesting idea though.

 

[Nosmo King]

The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.

To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:

The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.

The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.

And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.

Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.

Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.

Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.

What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?

If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?

 

[Penelope]

For me anything that holds a magazine.

This shotgun that takes a magazine:

View attachment 178480

The most popular hunting rifle in the U.S., the Remington 700, takes a magazine.

View attachment 178481

So that's not going to work either.

for hunting only, and only a 6 cartridge magazine.

 

[tycho1572]

These have all been used as assault weapons......

3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home

Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN

Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...

Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel

 

[Missourian]

For me anything that holds a magazine.

This shotgun that takes a magazine:

View attachment 178480

The most popular hunting rifle in the U.S., the Remington 700, takes a magazine.

View attachment 178481

So that's not going to work either.

for hunting only, and only a 6 cartridge magazine.

"For hunting only" restrictions have already been deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Penelope]

For self defense you need a pistol without a magazine, not one with a magazine or a rifle with a magazine unless only used

These have all been used as assault weapons......

3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home

Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN

Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...

Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel

keep trying.

 

[Penelope]

For me anything that holds a magazine.

This shotgun that takes a magazine:

View attachment 178480

The most popular hunting rifle in the U.S., the Remington 700, takes a magazine.

View attachment 178481

So that's not going to work either.

for hunting only, and only a 6 cartridge magazine.

"For hunting only" restrictions have already been deemed unconstitutional.

They should change the law then.

 

[Penelope]

The US pop. in the 1800's (minus Indians and blacks) was about 5 million , the pop. of WI. The 2nd amendment was for militias in states, now we have the NG.

I realize its big business, but so what.

 

[Missourian]

The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.

To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:

The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.

The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.

And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.

Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.

Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.

Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.

What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?

If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?

Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.

 

[Nosmo King]

These have all been used as assault weapons......

3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home

Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN

Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...

Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel

Two questions, if you please.

Are there any other uses for these tools? Were they designed exclusively as weapons to be used in a mass assault?

And...

Do you believe 17 or 26 or 49 or 58 people could be killed at once by any of those tools?

 

[Auld Phart]

The US pop. in the 1800's (minus Indians and blacks) was about 5 million , the pop. of WI. The 2nd amendment was for militias in states, now we have the NG.

I realize its big business, but so what.

The 2nd amendment was for militias in states, now we have the NG.

You need to reread the 2nd

 

[August West]

These have all been used as assault weapons......

3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home

Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN

Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...

Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel

Two questions, if you please.

Are there any other uses for these tools? Were they designed exclusively as weapons to be used in a mass assault?

And...

Do you believe 17 or 26 or 49 or 58 people could be killed at once by any of those tools?

One dead or 50 dead, they don`t care.
BODY COUNTS DON`T MATTER

 

[Nosmo King]

The biggest hurdle is, of course, arriving at a definition all can agree on. Some gun advocates will argue that those without a working knowledge of the minutiae of firearms should have no voice due to their lack of expertise. This, of course, is as silly as saying if you don't know what type of tacks an upholsterer used, you should not comment on the comfort of an armchair. Or if you don't know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland V-8, you have no voice in a discussion of automobile safety.

To me the definition should coalesce around three factors:

The rate of fire. This is what puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. No one is capable of murdering so many people in a short time with a knife or club, or bolt action rifle.

The muzzle velocity. A round fired from some weapons is substantially slower and delivers less impact measured in foot pounds per second than other weapons. The lethality of such rounds is exponentially greater than others.

And finally, practicality beyond sporting weapons. Some guns are designed to hunt quail or pheasant or turkey. Some are designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. Some weapons are designed for target shooting. Punching holes in paper or shattering clay pigeons. But some weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

And, for heaven's sake, let us not get bogged down with cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors do not impact the design purpose of assault weapons.

Rate of fire and muzzle velocity won't get you there either.

Because semiautomatic pistols have the same rate of fire as semiautomatic rifles...it's no stretch to argue that one ban leads right into the next...banning semiautomatic pistols...as they also have minimal sporting purpose and are mostly used for self defense.

Attempting to link any ban to sporting purpose will be almost certainly be overturned by the High Court, as firearms for defensive purposes are specificly protected by Miller.

What type of weaponry is envisioned to be used by school staff as defensive weapons? Surely the same type of weapon called upon to defend a classroom is adequate for defense of a home. So how can linking some semi-automatic weapons to a self defense role be made?

If weapons have minimal usage as sporting weapons, but fine for self defense, what special virtues do these weapons uniquely hold?

Likely 80% of defensive firearms owned in the U.S. are semiautomatic weapons.

Your statement implies eventual confiscation. A ban on further sale, trade, importation, manufacture and distribution simply stops the flow of such weapons.

Remember, no law I said a panacea. Speed limit laws have not eliminated speeding. Laws prohibiting fraud or perjury have not, God knows, stopped those crimes. But laws have been proven to slow the incidence of crime.

 

[Nosmo King]

These have all been used as assault weapons......

3 women murdered in grisly hammer attack at NY home

Man Accused Of Killing Family With Baseball Bat: 'I Freed Them'

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN

Judge sentences man in tire iron beating death to life without...

Man sentenced after beating boss to death with shovel

Two questions, if you please.

Are there any other uses for these tools? Were they designed exclusively as weapons to be used in a mass assault?

And...

Do you believe 17 or 26 or 49 or 58 people could be killed at once by any of those tools?

One dead or 50 dead, they don`t care.
BODY COUNTS DON`T MATTER

So Orlando and Fort Hood and Columbine and Blacksburg and Newtown and Aurora and Sutherland Springs and Parkland and Las Vegas are inconsequential?