Armed Citizens

[M14 Shooter]

Huntsville, AL -

After casing the location on two previous visits, an armed robber entered the Chazz liquor store in Florence, Ala. and attempted to strong-arm the clerk. An altercation ensued in which the clerk was able to retrieve a gun and fire at the criminal, striking the robber and causing him to flee. In his escape, the criminal only made it to the store parking lot, where he collapsed and died. After an initial investigation, police determined that the robber was on probation for a previous robbery conviction. Chazz manager Terry Rhodes hoped that the incident would deter future robbery attempts, stating, “I know times are hard and everything, but I hope they'll think twice, because this is not something anybody enjoys doing. You don't want to kill anybody, but sometimes you're afraid for your life, you don't know what they're gonna do.” Police do not plan to charge the clerk.




Anniston, AL -

A woman was alone in her home in Piedmont, Ala., when she heard a suspicious noise. After retrieving a handgun, the woman searched the house and noticed that her sliding glass door had been broken and a man with a flashlight was inside the home. The intruder yelled something at the homeowner, who then shot the intruder several times, killing him. Police noted that it is unlikely the homeowner will face any charges, with Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson stating, “She was totally within her rights to defend herself.”




Birmingham, AL -

Career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley entered the Bait Shop in Bessemer, Ala., drew a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money from the owner. While Dudley was holding the owner at gunpoint, two customers walked into the store, distracting Dudley long enough for the store owner to grab his pistol. The owner then fired at Dudley, striking and killing him. After an investigation, it was shown that Dudley had been convicted of robbery in 1996 and spent time in prison. More recently, Dudley had been a suspect in a number of other armed robberies as well as a murder

Billings, Montana -

Out for a Sunday morning drive with his wife and two children, Buford Harris was feeling good. It was a beautiful day, Buford's wife, Clara, was in the seat next to him, singing happily and, best of all, Buford had his trusty, .357 magnum right next to him there in the center console, loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come Buford's way.

Directly behind Buford was a pickup truck being driven by Billy Bob Cutler, another married man. There were only two occupants of the Cutler vehicle - Billy Bob and his fully loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come his way, .38 caliber, Glock, semi-automatic handgun.

Buford was driving a tad slower than Billy Bob. Billy Bob went to pass Buford. As he did so, Buford sped up to prevent Billy Bob from passing him. Billy Bob looked over at Buford and shot him a dirty look as he sped up even faster. As Buford flipped Billy Bob off, Billy Bob cut sharply in front of him, causing Buford to have to brake sharply.

This was trouble. Both men instantly pulled up their respective fire arms and began firing at each other. When it was all over, Buford's wife was dead, one of his children was blinded for life and Billy Bob was in a coma. He would die three weeks later.

Thank GOD Montana has a law authorizing citizens to carry weapons. Think what would have happened if that had not been the case . . .

Difference:
You story is fiction.

 

[Missourian]

All right - thank you all for your comments, both the well reasoned and civil ones as well as the rude and childish ones.

I had not considered the argument that if EVERYONE is armed, then Driver A is going to think twice about drawing down on Driver B. That's a good point. I think the studies I have seen do bear out that the instances of citizen v. citizen shootings in armed jurisdicitons, are less than the gun prohibitionists claim.

BTW - I am a liberal, but I am not in favor of gun control. I own three or four shotguns (I think I gave one to one of my sons), have hunted birds all of my life, and would not like to think of a society where I could not have a gun in my house if I so chose. In fact, there is a shotgun propped up in one corner of the bedroom, in easy reach.

I am not sure I would be in favor of allowing all citizens to carry concealed and loaded weapons, however. That is going a tad too far, at least for me.

But again - thanks for your comments. I am learning from what I read on this thread.

I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership.

Look at Wyoming, nearly 60% of the population are gun owners, but their firearm homicide rate is .59 per 100,000, the 4th lowest in the U.S.

Now look at Illinois, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, only 20% of their citizens own a gun yet their firearm homicide rate is the 7th highest in the country at 4.59 per 100,000.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Gun laws or population density?

You really think the populations of Wyoming and Illinois are a good match in any comparison?

You really need to look at cause and effect

Do they have more gun violence because they have more gun laws
or
Do they have more gun laws because they have more gun violence?

RW, you need to go back and read what I posted.

"I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership."
​

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whatever. My post is not an actual haplpening. I made it up to illustrate the objection to arming citizens.

You do know that having to lie in order to make your point defeats your argument, outright - right?

Stuff like that would happen all too often, and the danger from citizens shooting other citizens in road rage incidents or just because they got mad at them, far outweighs the benefit from citizens being able to shoot genuine bad guys.

Except that it doesn't.

By far, confrontations between citizens happen much more often than citizens actually observing a crime in progress.

You cannot show this to be true.

Given that your argument is based on untruths, it necessarily fails.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's no such thing as a .38 caliber Glock. 9mm yes, .40 S&W yes. .38....no.

This just goes to show that most of those who argue against firearms, such as 'George Costanza', don't even know enough about them to be arguing against them. I have seen this too often.

If you are going to be against firearms and argue against them, please at least learn something about them first. Otherwise your argument is of no effect.

The fact that I mistakenly used a Glock .38 caliber weapon in the example I gave in no way detracts from the point that was being made.

No... the lack of factual basis for your claims does that, and well.
The fact that you had to lie to make your point is just sauce for the goose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gangs are so polite

They were pretty respectful of certain areas during the Rodney King riots in LA. In those areas where people were unarmed they ran rampant, in those areas where people were armed they either kept quiet or they got shot.....43 of them were killed during the riots.
10 other people were killed.

The LAPD abandoned Koreatown and left them to fend for themselves which they did fairly well, they were responsible for the vast majority of gangbanger fatalities but sadly lost 6 of their own. Several iconic images were taken of the Koreans defending their lives and property, many armed with assault weapons.

Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons. Is that what you were meaning?

Not a single 'assault weapon' is full auto.
By definition, all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto.

 

[Missourian]

1) Gun laws or population density?

2) You really think the populations of Wyoming and Illinois are a good match in any comparison?

3) You really need to look at cause and effect

4) Do they have more gun violence because they have more gun laws
or
5) Do they have more gun laws because they have more gun violence?

To you point:

1) Gun laws or population density? Gun laws make zero difference (see 2) Population density maybe part of the answer, I've always thought so. I'm sure you've seen my "Guns don't kill people...Cities kill people" .

Look at St. Louis compared with Missouri overall...St. Louis crime rates and statistics - Neighborhood Scout


2) Do they match up? Depends on what you're arguing. If you are arguing more guns equals more firearm homicides, that match up proves you are wrong.

If you want to prove restrictive gun laws have no impact on firearm homicides, a Missouri vs. Illinois match up will prove that that is true. Missouri has CCW, legal loaded firearms in motor vehicles, and only requires the federal minimum background check. In Illinois, no CCW, no loaded weapons in vehicles, and I believe you need a Illinois firearm permit to own a weapon and handguns were banned in Chicago.

Plus only 20 percent of the citizens of Illinois own firearms, while 40 percent of the population of Missouri are gun owners.

And yet, despite all that, Illinois has a higher firearm homicide rate....4.6 compare to 4.2 per 100,000.


3) I've looked at cause and effect.

4) I don't see that gun laws have any effect on gun violence.

5) This isn't something that can be legislated, Illinois, California, Maryland and D.C. have had the some of the most restrictive gun laws for 30 years, and you see where they are...still right at the top of the gun murders list.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership."
​

Of course it isn't.

If more guns = more gun crime, then as the number of guns increases by a few million each year, similarly would the number of gun crimes increase.

But, it doesn't.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

I for one have had a CCW permit from PA. for 20 years and have not had a reason to use one of my weapons. The main reason I have to permit is because you have to have one to transport a firearm in your vehicle, but I do carry quite regularly. Saying that, I do not frequent bars, if I want a beer I buy it and consume it at home, it's cheaper. When I go out for dinner and I am armed, I do not drink alcahol.

As I stated earlier, I have never had a reason to use one of my forearms but I want it near if I do need it.

In my state, carrying even with a permit while consuming alcohol is a sure way to get your permit revoked.

And your butt thrown in jail to boot.

 

[westwall]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

This is not true George. If you bother to read the book I mentioned you will find that in the west, where pretty much everyone carried a firearm, violent crime was actually pretty low. Those that did engage in gunfights were like the gangs of today habitual criminals and people with personality dsorders or simply insane (Clay Allison fits this description to a T).

However, unlike today, those bad people in general did not even try to prey on the regular civilian population for a couple of reasons, first off if they did indeed harm someone they would be hunted down and killed...period. The Wild Bunch (I am sure you've heard of them) went to great pains to NEVER shoot one of their pursuers or harm someone while robbing a bank or a train. They would shoot near a posse that was chasng them but they really tried to never harm one of them.

The James/Younger gang on the other hand did and were eventually shot to pices in the famous Northfield Minnesota raid. The Wild Bunch as well had two killers in their midst and those two were not associated with after it became clear they were murderers, they were Harry Tracy and Kid Curry (Harvey Logan).

Three brothers, Tom, Billy and Fred McCarty (also shooters, so were fringe members of the Wild Bunch) plus a man who's name I can't remember robbed the bank in Delta Colorado, and in the process murdered one of the clerks, a man named Blachley (or Blachly, can't remember for sure) as they were leaving one of the townspeople (a man named Ray Simpson) who had seen what transpired killed Fred with a shot to the temple as he raced by on his horse.
Simpson then walked to the middle of the street for a better view and shot Billy in the back of the head killing him instantly. You see, it was usually the townspeople who meted out the justice back then. There weren't that many peace officers and the townspeople could shoot..often much better then the bandits, so most bandits made a habit of not pissing off the townspeople.

The history of the west is nowhere near as violent as people would like to have you believe. If you were a regular person you were much safer in the wildest cow town then you would have been in New York or Philadelphia. Especially so when compared with the crime levels of today.

 

[westwall]

All right - thank you all for your comments, both the well reasoned and civil ones as well as the rude and childish ones.

I had not considered the argument that if EVERYONE is armed, then Driver A is going to think twice about drawing down on Driver B. That's a good point. I think the studies I have seen do bear out that the instances of citizen v. citizen shootings in armed jurisdicitons, are less than the gun prohibitionists claim.

BTW - I am a liberal, but I am not in favor of gun control. I own three or four shotguns (I think I gave one to one of my sons), have hunted birds all of my life, and would not like to think of a society where I could not have a gun in my house if I so chose. In fact, there is a shotgun propped up in one corner of the bedroom, in easy reach.

I am not sure I would be in favor of allowing all citizens to carry concealed and loaded weapons, however. That is going a tad too far, at least for me.

But again - thanks for your comments. I am learning from what I read on this thread.

I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership.

Look at Wyoming, nearly 60% of the population are gun owners, but their firearm homicide rate is .59 per 100,000, the 4th lowest in the U.S.

Now look at Illinois, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, only 20% of their citizens own a gun yet their firearm homicide rate is the 7th highest in the country at 4.59 per 100,000.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Gun laws or population density?

You really think the populations of Wyoming and Illinois are a good match in any comparison?

You really need to look at cause and effect

Do they have more gun violence because they have more gun laws
or
Do they have more gun laws because they have more gun violence?

In every case you will see a direct relationship between stricter gun laws and crime increases. The more gun laws in place the more violent felonies occur in the area. Correlation does not mean causation for sure, but boy the evidence is overwhelming that
in this case it just might be.

Population density certainly has an impact as does the relative wealth of the individuals, it is a sad fact that black and hispanic gangs are responsible for a vast majority of the violent crimes and they congregate in the larger cities. Where white gangs exist the problems are the same, so it is not a race issue but a socio-economic one.

 

[Wingsofwind]

So if we all just armed ourselves to the teeth there'd less property crime?

Yeah, I believe that.

I also believe that crimes would become even more violent, but I don't doubt there might be less of it.

Well, evidence shows that, in fact, criminals ARE less likely to commit crimes when the victim is likely to be present if they believe the victim is likely to be armed. So the question now is, what are YOU basing your belief that "crimes would become even more violent" on?

The answer to every confronation is not "You have a gun so I will have a gun too and I will win"

If someone is robbing your store and you reach for your gun the chances are just as good that you will be shot. The best response is to hand him the money and ask if he would like fries with that. Smile and waive as he leaves

Then call the police and show them the video tape of the robber and the video from the parking lot showing the car he was driving. The police will pick him up at their leisure. Video equipment is proving to be a larger factor in fighting crime than armed clerks

This does not always work. There have been stores that were robbed and the clerks did everything they were told and still got shot/killed. Even if you do everything you are told don't mean you will be spared.

Also, you can find many videos on Youtube where a clerk fended off robbers by fighting back. Some of the clerks even used firearms.

 

[Wingsofwind]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

There are more guns privately owned in the US than there are citizens in the US. If you consider only those of age to possess a firearm, we could put almost 2 weapons into the hands of every man and woman legally old enough to purchase a firearm with the guns that are already out there, and sales are at all-time record highs, and getting stronger.

How many have CCW's, I don't know. But I'd say the number is likely approaching 1/3 of the population (those who possess a CCW, and those who do not need one to carry openly or concealed).

Here in Missouri, you do not need a CCW to carry openly.

However, some Missouri cities do have laws against it, not many but some (not sure but I think Cape does not allow it). So before anyone tries to carry openly in a Missouri city please check the laws first.

 

[Wingsofwind]

They were pretty respectful of certain areas during the Rodney King riots in LA. In those areas where people were unarmed they ran rampant, in those areas where people were armed they either kept quiet or they got shot.....43 of them were killed during the riots.
10 other people were killed.

The LAPD abandoned Koreatown and left them to fend for themselves which they did fairly well, they were responsible for the vast majority of gangbanger fatalities but sadly lost 6 of their own. Several iconic images were taken of the Koreans defending their lives and property, many armed with assault weapons.

Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons. Is that what you were meaning?

Not a single 'assault weapon' is full auto.
By definition, all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons. Is that what you were meaning?

Not a single 'assault weapon' is full auto.
By definition, all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto.

I cannot vew that here -- but I can say that whatever it shows, it doesn't invalidate what I said.

Now, having watched the video - I was correct; it does not invalidate what I said.

The officer is incorrect - full-auto weapons are not prohibited everywhere in the US - in fact, they are legal in the large majority of states.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, evidence shows that, in fact, criminals ARE less likely to commit crimes when the victim is likely to be present if they believe the victim is likely to be armed. So the question now is, what are YOU basing your belief that "crimes would become even more violent" on?

The answer to every confronation is not "You have a gun so I will have a gun too and I will win"

If someone is robbing your store and you reach for your gun the chances are just as good that you will be shot. The best response is to hand him the money and ask if he would like fries with that. Smile and waive as he leaves

Then call the police and show them the video tape of the robber and the video from the parking lot showing the car he was driving. The police will pick him up at their leisure. Video equipment is proving to be a larger factor in fighting crime than armed clerks

This does not always work. There have been stores that were robbed and the clerks did everything they were told and still got shot/killed. Even if you do everything you are told don't mean you will be spared.

Also, you can find many videos on Youtube where a clerk fended off robbers by fighting back. Some of the clerks even used firearms.

I remember women used to be taught to cooperate with an attacker in order to get through it with their lives. As it turns out, that was sometimes the worst thing you could do. NOW women are taught to use their best judgement as to whether cooperation or resistance will be most likely to get them through the incident alive.

As for "the police will pick him up at their leisure", their leisure might be after he's already robbed and killed three other people. I guarantee you that if that first clerk shoots and kills the robber, the police can be as leisurely as they like without it adversely affecting anyone.

 

[Wingsofwind]

I cannot vew that here -- but I can say that whatever it shows, it doesn't invalidate what I said.

Now, having watched the video - I was correct; it does not invalidate what I said.

The officer is incorrect - full-auto weapons are not prohibited everywhere in the US - in fact, they are legal in the large majority of states.

Yes, the officer was incorrect on the fact that fully auto weapons being prohibited everywhere in the U.S., however, in order to have one you have to pay a lot and go through a bunch of loops.

However, you were wrong in saying "Not a single 'assault weapon' is full auto. By definition, all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto." In fact, the definition is:

assault weapon 
–noun
any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.

What I was getting at is that not all weapons that the media claims to be 'assault weapons' are. They are 'Military' firearms. Also, originally, assault weapons were referred to ONLY fully auto. However, the media and those who did not educate themselves on what the term 'assault weapon' was used for has used it wrongly for so long that the definition has changed to also mean semi-auto. But that still does not mean it is referred to ANY semi-auto, only those of the military should be referred to as assault weapons.

The term 'assault weapons' has been VERY loosely used. It has been used wrongly for so long that it has become a 'scare' tactic by the gun grabbers who know nothing about firearms to begin with.

I know this is a debate that just keeps going on and on. And many have their own idea of what an assault weapon is. I do know that any weapon can be used to 'assault', however that does not mean that the term was originally used for any weapon that is used in an assault. That being said I will not bother you again about this. These are just my views and beliefs on the matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot vew that here -- but I can say that whatever it shows, it doesn't invalidate what I said.

Now, having watched the video - I was correct; it does not invalidate what I said.

The officer is incorrect - full-auto weapons are not prohibited everywhere in the US - in fact, they are legal in the large majority of states.

Yes, the officer was incorrect on the fact that fully auto weapons being prohibited everywhere in the U.S., however, in order to have one you have to pay a lot and go through a bunch of loops.
[/quotee]
Guess it depends on what you mean bu a lot.
If you're shelling out $6000-16000 for the gun, the $200 transfer tax isnt much.

However, you were wrong in saying "Not a single 'assault weapon' is full auto. By definition, all 'assault weapons' are semi-auto." In fact, the definition is:
assault weapon 
–noun
any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.

Your definition is incorrect.

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

NRA-ILA :: Firearms Glossary

Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?

A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.

Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.

These combat features include:

•A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
•A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
•A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
•A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
•A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
•A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
•A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
Q. What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?

A. An automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied). A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can depress your finger.

This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Assault-Style Weapons

Looks like both sides agree on this issue.

Aside from that, every 'assault weapon' ban focuses on semi-automatic weapons; none of them mention full-auto weapons in any way.

 

[Wingsofwind]

I cannot vew that here -- but I can say that whatever it shows, it doesn't invalidate what I said.

Now, having watched the video - I was correct; it does not invalidate what I said.

The officer is incorrect - full-auto weapons are not prohibited everywhere in the US - in fact, they are legal in the large majority of states.

Yes, the officer was incorrect on the fact that fully auto weapons being prohibited everywhere in the U.S., however, in order to have one you have to pay a lot and go through a bunch of loops.

Guess it depends on what you mean bu a lot.
If you're shelling out $6000-16000 for the gun, the $200 transfer tax isnt much.

assault weapon 
–noun
any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.

Your definition is incorrect.

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

NRA-ILA :: Firearms Glossary

Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?

A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.

Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.

These combat features include:

•A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
•A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
•A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
•A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
•A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
•A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
•A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
Q. What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?

A. An automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied). A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can depress your finger.

This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Assault-Style Weapons

Looks like both sides agree on this issue.

Aside from that, every 'assault weapon' ban focuses on semi-automatic weapons; none of them mention full-auto weapons in any way.

I was referring to the term 'assault weapons', not 'assault rifles'. So my definition was not wrong. These two are also used interchangeably by those who do not know the difference, like the supporters of the 'assault weapons' bans.

Also, you can not buy a fully auto weapon that has been manufactured after May 19th of 1986, which makes the ones legal to own even more rare and expensive, $6000-16000 is a lot for the average citizen. The fee for the permit is $200, however, if you are to own more than one class 3 weapon you will have to pay this fee for each weapon. In order to obtain the permit/s you must submit finger prints, passport type photo of yourself, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police, obtain approval from the ATF, and pass an extensive background check.

You must also be willing to let BATFE come into your home once a year to inspect the weapon and how it is being stored. So in other words YOU will be regulated along with your weapon/s.