The solution, @Nova_C , to save lives, is to ban every semi auto weapon
Don’t even need to ban them. As far as I can tell, Australia didn’t ban anything, they just made them very hard to obtain. The US did the same thing with full-auto weapons. They’re not banned, they’re just not available willy-nilly to anyone with a pulse (depending on which state you’re in).
Or we could go with thoughts and prayers.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+4
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Speaking of laws, did you know that the gun used in the Dayton shooting was, legally speaking, a pistol?
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
This is part of the reason why definitions matter.
Like, earlier in this thread, anyone who tried to clarify what parts were what were universally derided as trying to muddy the issue. I didn't step in because it's clear that wanting clarity was not or is not important.
But when people use casual definitions in laws, this sort of shit is what you end up with. Like, in Canada, the ban on assault rifles is very specific - and in some cases, completely fucking useless.
The things that make a gun look scary are not necessarily the things that make it an effective weapon for mass murder. Honestly, the only things you need to restrict to hamper these assholes is semi-auto rifles and magazine sizes. Everything else is window dressing. But since that's not important, and people don't care about what these things are, bans on useless bullshit will go through while the things that would actually make a difference get ignored.
Also, there is a very good reason why the 'firearm' is only one part - the receiver. Because the rest of it is just a block of wood and a metal tube. How do you restrict barrels without either being a useless restriction, or restricting things that are not part of a gun? How do you restrict stocks without the same problems?
As long as there isn't an all out ban, these are important questions that askers are often accused of nefarious purpose. But these questions matter.
Clarity is important when writing laws, sure.
But we don't have to speak in legalese when having discussions here on the forum.
When we say "assault weapons should be banned," a reasonable person should understand that means not just literally assault rifles, but also "assault-style" weapons. Not just a complete, assembled weapon, but also the parts that, when put together, allow a "pistol" to operate like an assault weapon.
If a law is crafted to allow all of these loopholes, it's not the average person's fault for not understanding the technical terms to request exact specifications of things. I would place the blame at the feet of those who do understand the specific technicalities, but either choose not to speak up about it, or use their knowledge to deliberately ensure loopholes exist.
Oh, that's nice. This thread absolutely shit on the people speaking up about it.
I'm not so sure the "scary" look does not matter. These massacres are all tied up with a crisis of masculinity, and if the guns looked like a "block of wood with a metal tube" it wouldn't trigger the "reclaim your masculinity at gunpoint" neurosis a lot of the shooters have.
I agree that the proliferation of “scary black rifles” specially has some extremely negative impacts on the culture at large, and banning them might actually have some value in and of itself. On the other hand, that’s part of what we tried to do in ‘94 and arguably that culture bounced back twice as hard.
Any law that actually bans “assault weapons” would include a section defining the term. In common parlance, regardless of how the military defines them, both “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” primarily mean centerfire semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. That’s the core of the definition. That’s going to be at the core of any legal definition as well. Select fire is not a part of the common definition at this point.
Edit: Though yes, current and past loopholes (lol thumbhole AR15s) show why keeping it as simple and broad as possible is best.
mcdermott on
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Any law that actually bans “assault weapons” would include a section defining the term. In common parlance, regardless of how the military defines them, both “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” primarily mean centerfire semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. That’s the core of the definition. That’s going to be at the core of any legal definition as well. Select fire is not a part of the common definition at this point.
That's not the definition in Canada. Assault rifles are effectively banned, but you can still buy semi-auto center fire rifles.
Which is the crux of the issue about defintions.
And I don't understand why it doesn't matter in this thread when the last few pages were about getting into the weeds about a Texas law concerning carrying on private property.
Any law that actually bans “assault weapons” would include a section defining the term. In common parlance, regardless of how the military defines them, both “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” primarily mean centerfire semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. That’s the core of the definition. That’s going to be at the core of any legal definition as well. Select fire is not a part of the common definition at this point.
That's not the definition in Canada. Assault rifles are effectively banned, but you can still buy semi-auto center fire rifles.
Which is the crux of the issue about defintions.
And I don't understand why it doesn't matter in this thread when the last few pages were about getting into the weeds about a Texas law concerning carrying on private property.
Well yeah, I’m saying we need both the common and legal definition of “assault rifle” to be expanded to include all semi-auto centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. Full stop. The way we do that is by pushing back on anybody that makes the semantic “but ARs have select fire” argument. I know that, I carried one in a combat zone. But I don’t care how the military defines it, we needn’t follow that convention.
And yeah, we need to make sure we roll sufficiently modified pistols into the ban as well. Or just can semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines too. Works for me.
I think it has been proven many times that there is no common parlance for what assault weapon means.
I disagree. If you asked like a hundred random Americans, they’d probably define it as “military-lookin’ rifles” and if pressed further to clarify it would boil down to semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips. What’s critical is that a vast majority would include semi-auto civilian rifles, select-fire is only a critical part of the definition for gun enthusiasts and military contracting officers.
Edit: Most people wouldn’t include centerfire, because they have no idea what that means. I tend not to include it because I’m willing to let semi-auto .22s with detachable magazines be less regulated. But that’s not at all a priority for me, I’d happily roll them in too.
Any law that actually bans “assault weapons” would include a section defining the term. In common parlance, regardless of how the military defines them, both “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” primarily mean centerfire semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. That’s the core of the definition. That’s going to be at the core of any legal definition as well. Select fire is not a part of the common definition at this point.
That's not the definition in Canada. Assault rifles are effectively banned, but you can still buy semi-auto center fire rifles.
Which is the crux of the issue about defintions.
And I don't understand why it doesn't matter in this thread when the last few pages were about getting into the weeds about a Texas law concerning carrying on private property.
Well yeah, I’m saying we need both the common and legal definition of “assault rifle” to be expanded to include all semi-auto centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. Full stop. The way we do that is by pushing back on anybody that makes the semantic “but ARs have select fire” argument. I know that, I carried one in a combat zone. But I don’t care how the military defines it, we needn’t follow that convention.
And yeah, we need to make sure we roll sufficiently modified pistols into the ban as well. Or just can semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines too. Works for me.
I have a question, that might be too tangential.
Is the AR platform built in such a way that there is space for selectfire? Like even though you can't get it, the box is built with that option in mind on some level right?
Any law that actually bans “assault weapons” would include a section defining the term. In common parlance, regardless of how the military defines them, both “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” primarily mean centerfire semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. That’s the core of the definition. That’s going to be at the core of any legal definition as well. Select fire is not a part of the common definition at this point.
That's not the definition in Canada. Assault rifles are effectively banned, but you can still buy semi-auto center fire rifles.
Which is the crux of the issue about defintions.
And I don't understand why it doesn't matter in this thread when the last few pages were about getting into the weeds about a Texas law concerning carrying on private property.
Well yeah, I’m saying we need both the common and legal definition of “assault rifle” to be expanded to include all semi-auto centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. Full stop. The way we do that is by pushing back on anybody that makes the semantic “but ARs have select fire” argument. I know that, I carried one in a combat zone. But I don’t care how the military defines it, we needn’t follow that convention.
And yeah, we need to make sure we roll sufficiently modified pistols into the ban as well. Or just can semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines too. Works for me.
I have a question, that might be too tangential.
Is the AR platform built in such a way that there is space for selectfire? Like even though you can't get it, the box is built with that option in mind on some level right?
I’m not an expert on the conversion because it never interested me in the slightest (and I’m an electrical guy, not mechanical). But yeah, the modifications are possible with the right parts and/or know-how. It’s the same platform.
You can legally buy all the parts to make a "pistol" into essentially a rifle, and it's still technically "legal" because the only thing considered a "firearm" is one fucking part.
That's the infuriating thing. I want to say that he's flaunted the law in order to make a weapon that's illegal to posses using entirely legal means, but that isn't even correct, because it's all still legal!
Fuck incrementalization! Fuck everything! We need comprehensive reform to our gun laws, from the ground up, because the whole fucking thing is rotten to the core, deliberately so. We cannot have any meaningful legislation working within the current strictures constructed, because it's been designed to hamper any attempts at useful and meaningful restrictions!
This is not true IIRC, possession of a group of parts which can be quickly assembled or disassembled into a SBR in one place is equivalent to possession of an SBR.
For example, the most common case is when a rifle has a barrel shorter than 16 inches with a removable muzzle brake or flash reducer that extends the barrel greater than 16 inches - the attachment MUST be welded or fixed in a permanent manner (no screw offs, quick release pins, etc) or its an NFA violation.
Similarly if you have a pistol and a detachable stock with it in the same bag that can be put on it to make it an SBR and you are caught with it you are going to be charged with possession on an SBR whether its on the gun or not.
The big difference between a bushmaster and other .223 hunting rifles really is t that big. One looks scarier that’s about it
Bolt-action and fixed-magazine .223 rifles are a thing.
I agree that the difference between an AR15 and a Mini14 is pretty minimal as far as lethality (and thus reasonable regulation) goes. Especially when aftermarket tacticool stocks for the latter are a thing.
Getting stuck on terminology is silly when you can just legally create a term and make it as big as you want. "Super Assault Weapons" are X, Y and Z, and those are banned.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
But according to one person familiar with the President's reaction, the President lashed out at his staff for keeping the cameras away from him, complaining that he wasn't receiving enough credit.
Credit...for what, exactly? Other than creating the climate that precipitated at least one of these shootings, what was his role? Pushing for benefits for the victims? Pushing for new restrictions to prevent future incidents? Did he show up in Marine One and take down the shooter himself with a vest and a pistol? Help lead victims to cover? Perform emergency surgery saving those that could be saved?
Far as I can tell only one of the above is anything he should be getting credit for. Though, to be fair, agree he’s not getting quite enough of it.
He wants credit for missing his golf game.
He’s a fucking narcissistic toddler who expects praise when he takes time away from whatever he wants to do and does something he’s told to do.
+18
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Speaking of laws, did you know that the gun used in the Dayton shooting was, legally speaking, a pistol?
NPR has an article explaining how this can be, and reading it sure seems like a stark example of how deliberately impotent and meaningless our current gun laws are.
What's the point of banning assault-style rfiles if you can legally buy a "pistol" and all the parts to make it fire enough bullets to injure dozens in 30 seconds?
This is part of the reason why definitions matter.
Like, earlier in this thread, anyone who tried to clarify what parts were what were universally derided as trying to muddy the issue. I didn't step in because it's clear that wanting clarity was not or is not important.
But when people use casual definitions in laws, this sort of shit is what you end up with. Like, in Canada, the ban on assault rifles is very specific - and in some cases, completely fucking useless.
The things that make a gun look scary are not necessarily the things that make it an effective weapon for mass murder. Honestly, the only things you need to restrict to hamper these assholes is semi-auto rifles and magazine sizes. Everything else is window dressing. But since that's not important, and people don't care about what these things are, bans on useless bullshit will go through while the things that would actually make a difference get ignored.
Also, there is a very good reason why the 'firearm' is only one part - the receiver. Because the rest of it is just a block of wood and a metal tube. How do you restrict barrels without either being a useless restriction, or restricting things that are not part of a gun? How do you restrict stocks without the same problems?
As long as there isn't an all out ban, these are important questions that askers are often accused of nefarious purpose. But these questions matter.
Clarity is important when writing laws, sure.
But we don't have to speak in legalese when having discussions here on the forum.
When we say "assault weapons should be banned," a reasonable person should understand that means not just literally assault rifles, but also "assault-style" weapons. Not just a complete, assembled weapon, but also the parts that, when put together, allow a "pistol" to operate like an assault weapon.
If a law is crafted to allow all of these loopholes, it's not the average person's fault for not understanding the technical terms to request exact specifications of things. I would place the blame at the feet of those who do understand the specific technicalities, but either choose not to speak up about it, or use their knowledge to deliberately ensure loopholes exist.
Oh, that's nice. This thread absolutely shit on the people speaking up about it.
D_P is clearly speaking in terms of crafting a law and not speaking up about possible loopholes then. Telling people about firearm esoterica in the context of (yet another) forum thread about mass shootings and using specific language when crafting a law are two very different things and will garner different responses.
The reason there's pushback against specific language and precise definitions is not that those aren't important in general, it's because, during discussions, they are used as excuse to dismiss concerns, to derail, and to deflect. Most of the time, insisting on the importance of correct terminology is done in bad faith.
None of us are writing laws, so it's a red herring.
mrondeau on
+20
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Well, okay. I mean, if we're going with any semi-auto center fire rifle, then great. Now I know what you mean when you say assault rifle.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
For the most part when people are talking about banning weapons they are talking about Mcdermott's definition. And that is pretty much what I want banned.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The reason there's pushback against specific language and precise definitions is not that those aren't important in general, it's because, during discussions, they are used as excuse to dismiss concerns, to derail, and to deflect. Most of the time, insisting on the importance of correct terminology is done in bad faith.
None of us are writing laws, so it's a red herring.
Also the knowledge that Republicans will block anything substantive and so even some level of accessory bans is about the best we can hope for. They're blocking making background checks universal to prevent violent felons illegally buying guns from legal sellers who don't need to follow the process for various reasons. Like, there is no defensible argument against it, but that doesn't matter since they have the power to kill it anyway.
When I get home from work I'll look around for some good examples of guns that were designed specifically to get around the last AWB - there were a good number of them, albeit most were apparently kinda pricey and/or gimmicky and thus unpopular except as novelties
I think it has been proven many times that there is no common parlance for what assault weapon means.
semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or belt feed.
There are very few belt-fed semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal in the USA, because an open-bolt action is necessary to use one without some really intensely quirky engineering. Open-bolt actions are de jure regulated by the BATFE as being a machine gun because of some patent trolling in the early '80s. Most belt-fed guns that are semi-auto are basically designed to look like WWII relics. Though they are rare and mostly meant as a collectable for history geeks who can't afford the $30k-plus for the real deal, I'd shed no tears if they were federally regulated in a bigger way alongside AR-15s et al
This is not an endorsement of them, nor saying they're outside of your proposed definition, but rather just that they are very quirky and rare!
When I get home from work I'll look around for some good examples of guns that were designed specifically to get around the last AWB - there were a good number of them, albeit most were apparently kinda pricey and/or gimmicky and thus unpopular except as novelties
I think it has been proven many times that there is no common parlance for what assault weapon means.
semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or belt feed.
There are very few belt-fed semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal in the USA, because an open-bolt action is necessary to use one without some really intensely quirky engineering. Open-bolt actions are de jure regulated by the BATFE as being a machine gun because of some patent trolling in the early '80s. Most belt-fed guns that are semi-auto are basically designed to look like WWII relics. Though they are rare and mostly meant as a collectable for history geeks who can't afford the $30k-plus for the real deal, I'd shed no tears if they were federally regulated in a bigger way alongside AR-15s et al
This is not an endorsement of them, nor saying they're outside of your proposed definition, but rather just that they are very quirky and rare!
It's more about trying to close what would be a loophole. Like belt fed isn't a thing right now, but if you banned detachable magazine but left belt fed, suddenly people would be working to convert or sell belt fed weapons.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The big difference between a bushmaster and other .223 hunting rifles really is t that big. One looks scarier that’s about it
Bolt-action and fixed-magazine .223 rifles are a thing.
I agree that the difference between an AR15 and a Mini14 is pretty minimal as far as lethality (and thus reasonable regulation) goes. Especially when aftermarket tacticool stocks for the latter are a thing.
Yeah thats why some rifle bans have focused heavily on pistol grips and whatnot.
When I get home from work I'll look around for some good examples of guns that were designed specifically to get around the last AWB - there were a good number of them, albeit most were apparently kinda pricey and/or gimmicky and thus unpopular except as novelties
I think it has been proven many times that there is no common parlance for what assault weapon means.
semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or belt feed.
There are very few belt-fed semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal in the USA, because an open-bolt action is necessary to use one without some really intensely quirky engineering. Open-bolt actions are de jure regulated by the BATFE as being a machine gun because of some patent trolling in the early '80s. Most belt-fed guns that are semi-auto are basically designed to look like WWII relics. Though they are rare and mostly meant as a collectable for history geeks who can't afford the $30k-plus for the real deal, I'd shed no tears if they were federally regulated in a bigger way alongside AR-15s et al
This is not an endorsement of them, nor saying they're outside of your proposed definition, but rather just that they are very quirky and rare!
It's more about trying to close what would be a loophole. Like belt fed isn't a thing right now, but if you banned detachable magazine but left belt fed, suddenly people would be working to convert or sell belt fed weapons.
Oh, I definitely understood that part - it's possible to do, I'm just explaining the why on the engineering difficulties and expense of it
The big difference between a bushmaster and other .223 hunting rifles really is t that big. One looks scarier that’s about it
Bolt-action and fixed-magazine .223 rifles are a thing.
I agree that the difference between an AR15 and a Mini14 is pretty minimal as far as lethality (and thus reasonable regulation) goes. Especially when aftermarket tacticool stocks for the latter are a thing.
I own a bolt-action rifle in .223, it was great for getting into longer-range target shooting. It's got a 5-round removable magazine but its definitely not swappable like an AR or AK magazine just by virtue of being kind of small and finicky and not being able to slam it in.
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles also exist, which led, of course, to someone sticking a 100-round drum on one for a photo.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Bolt action rifles in .223 are useful as like, a coyote gun but there are plenty of other calibers for that if we went the route of a lot of European countries and banned military calibers in particular (I am kinda neutral on that one, the specific variety of bullet isn't the part of an AR-15 or AK or whatever that makes it dangerous, insomuch as the action feeding the bullets through does)
Being a Country of Rules Lawyering, restrictions on even a fixed magazine need to be significant enough that there is no incentive to refine en bloc clip mechanisms to be faster.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Well, okay. I mean, if we're going with any semi-auto center fire rifle, then great. Now I know what you mean when you say assault rifle.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
Yeah, and I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking your posts; I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, though *usually* when the distinction is made that’s the purpose (usually along the “those are already banned” lines). Which is why the response to the objection is sometimes...argumentative. The main reason I think it’s important to expand the definition of “assault rifle” (or use the more nebulous “assault weapon”) to include semi-auto-only guns...at least when used in a civilian context...is because we need a short, punchy term to use when discussing the topic. Saying we need to ban “centerfire semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and/or xyz ergonomic features” ain’t gonna cut it, you just lost half your audience.
Whereas when you say we need to ban “assault rifles” a vast majority of civilians are going to interpret it more or less correctly, and the majority of those that don’t are going to be people intentionally misinterpreting the statement who own covered weapons and don’t want to lose their toys.
I get that precision of language is a thing, and I understand some concern there. But I don’t see much value in coming up with a new shorthand nomenclature for this class of weapon for this purpose, and it wouldn’t be very productive anyway when a majority already accept the (arguably incorrect) usage. Better just to say that’s what “assault rifle” means now.
Question on the one American rifle that is particularly common and uses en bloc clips: are there any states that currently ban the M1 Garand? California certainly doesn't
I feel like right now the greatest common denominator on guns that are 50-state legal are the two guns we won WWII on: the Garand, and the 1911. Bolt actions and lever actions are also 50-state legal as far as I am aware
edit: I know most if not nearly all states allow the SKS so long as it's original clip-fed model, but then also explicitly ban the popular US-made aftermarket mod that adds a detachable magazine feed, which is nearly impossible to do on the Garand
Question on the one American rifle that is particularly common and uses en bloc clips: are there any states that currently ban the M1 Garand? California certainly doesn't
I feel like right now the greatest common denominator on guns that are 50-state legal are the two guns we won WWII on: the Garand, and the 1911. Bolt actions and lever actions are also 50-state legal as far as I am aware
None that I know of. They're also pretty hard to find? Most have more or less disappeared over the years; many are mothballed in military warehouses. The government occassionally does a lottery on found lots as they come across them for collectors.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Getting into the weeds about whatever a M1 Garand is is pointless. Weapons should be licensed on how dangerous they are, and that will always be a bit of a judgement call. What matters is they *are* licensed and categorized by danger potential.
When I get home from work I'll look around for some good examples of guns that were designed specifically to get around the last AWB - there were a good number of them, albeit most were apparently kinda pricey and/or gimmicky and thus unpopular except as novelties
I think it has been proven many times that there is no common parlance for what assault weapon means.
semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or belt feed.
There are very few belt-fed semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal in the USA, because an open-bolt action is necessary to use one without some really intensely quirky engineering. Open-bolt actions are de jure regulated by the BATFE as being a machine gun because of some patent trolling in the early '80s. Most belt-fed guns that are semi-auto are basically designed to look like WWII relics. Though they are rare and mostly meant as a collectable for history geeks who can't afford the $30k-plus for the real deal, I'd shed no tears if they were federally regulated in a bigger way alongside AR-15s et al
This is not an endorsement of them, nor saying they're outside of your proposed definition, but rather just that they are very quirky and rare!
To be fair, you can buy brand new semi-auto versions of the M249 that are both belt and detachable magazine fed. If we're banning semi-auto, detachable magazine fed firearms, I'd want to toss in belt-fed as well to cover all of the bases.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
+3
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Well, okay. I mean, if we're going with any semi-auto center fire rifle, then great. Now I know what you mean when you say assault rifle.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
Yeah, and I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking your posts; I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, though *usually* when the distinction is made that’s the purpose (usually along the “those are already banned” lines). Which is why the response to the objection is sometimes...argumentative. The main reason I think it’s important to expand the definition of “assault rifle” (or use the more nebulous “assault weapon”) to include semi-auto-only guns...at least when used in a civilian context...is because we need a short, punchy term to use when discussing the topic. Saying we need to ban “centerfire semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and/or xyz ergonomic features” ain’t gonna cut it, you just lost half your audience.
Whereas when you say we need to ban “assault rifles” a vast majority of civilians are going to interpret it more or less correctly, and the majority of those that don’t are going to be people intentionally misinterpreting the statement who own covered weapons and don’t want to lose their toys.
I get that precision of language is a thing, and I understand some concern there. But I don’t see much value in coming up with a new shorthand nomenclature for this class of weapon for this purpose, and it wouldn’t be very productive anyway when a majority already accept the (arguably incorrect) usage. Better just to say that’s what “assault rifle” means now.
I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, though. Like, "assault rifle" has always been more of an advertising term, it's never really meant anything specific. And that's led to a lot of ineffectual legislation. Like, there's several rifles that really should be restricted or banned in Canada, but aren't, because people decided that assault weapon meant irrelevant stuff like the plastic bolted to the sides of a barrel. And what a rifle is capable of in violence terms is 100% a factor of the action. The only time I can think of when modifications become important factors is in competition. When a dude is walking around firing at civilians, MOA doesn't matter. How fast he can effectively fire that weapon is the only thing that matters.
Which is why I like your definition. It might actually make a difference.
Getting into the weeds about whatever a M1 Garand is is pointless. Weapons should be licensed on how dangerous they are, and that will always be a bit of a judgement call. What matters is they *are* licensed and categorized by danger potential.
Fair point - I would argue that an M1 is on a whole different planet from an AR for quite a few reasons, but it is still semi-automatic at the end of the day and that alone is a big feature
When I get home from work I'll look around for some good examples of guns that were designed specifically to get around the last AWB - there were a good number of them, albeit most were apparently kinda pricey and/or gimmicky and thus unpopular except as novelties
I think it has been proven many times that there is no common parlance for what assault weapon means.
semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or belt feed.
There are very few belt-fed semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal in the USA, because an open-bolt action is necessary to use one without some really intensely quirky engineering. Open-bolt actions are de jure regulated by the BATFE as being a machine gun because of some patent trolling in the early '80s. Most belt-fed guns that are semi-auto are basically designed to look like WWII relics. Though they are rare and mostly meant as a collectable for history geeks who can't afford the $30k-plus for the real deal, I'd shed no tears if they were federally regulated in a bigger way alongside AR-15s et al
This is not an endorsement of them, nor saying they're outside of your proposed definition, but rather just that they are very quirky and rare!
To be fair, you can buy brand new semi-auto versions of the M249 that are both belt and detachable magazine fed. If we're banning semi-auto, detachable magazine fed firearms, I'd want to toss in belt-fed as well to cover all of the bases.
Definitely. Again, pricey, rare, quirky, a pain in the ass, but they do exist and have a lot of capacity for harm.
Well, okay. I mean, if we're going with any semi-auto center fire rifle, then great. Now I know what you mean when you say assault rifle.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
Yeah, and I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking your posts; I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, though *usually* when the distinction is made that’s the purpose (usually along the “those are already banned” lines). Which is why the response to the objection is sometimes...argumentative. The main reason I think it’s important to expand the definition of “assault rifle” (or use the more nebulous “assault weapon”) to include semi-auto-only guns...at least when used in a civilian context...is because we need a short, punchy term to use when discussing the topic. Saying we need to ban “centerfire semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and/or xyz ergonomic features” ain’t gonna cut it, you just lost half your audience.
Whereas when you say we need to ban “assault rifles” a vast majority of civilians are going to interpret it more or less correctly, and the majority of those that don’t are going to be people intentionally misinterpreting the statement who own covered weapons and don’t want to lose their toys.
I get that precision of language is a thing, and I understand some concern there. But I don’t see much value in coming up with a new shorthand nomenclature for this class of weapon for this purpose, and it wouldn’t be very productive anyway when a majority already accept the (arguably incorrect) usage. Better just to say that’s what “assault rifle” means now.
I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, though. Like, "assault rifle" has always been more of an advertising term, it's never really meant anything specific. And that's led to a lot of ineffectual legislation. Like, there's several rifles that really should be restricted or banned in Canada, but aren't, because people decided that assault weapon meant irrelevant stuff like the plastic bolted to the sides of a barrel. And what a rifle is capable of in violence terms is 100% a factor of the action. The only time I can think of when modifications become important factors is in competition. When a dude is walking around firing at civilians, MOA doesn't matter. How fast he can effectively fire that weapon is the only thing that matters.
Which is why I like your definition. It might actually make a difference.
Is that the reason, or was it sufficient lobbyist influence/ rural opposition which watered the classification down to whatever would get the votes to pass?
Like, I don't want to be too nihilistic or cynical here, but when legislators and lobbyists who are more knowledgeable about firearms refuse to agree with the prior condition that there is a problem that needs legislation to fix...you are stuck with laws written by people who are less knowledgeable by default, or worst case no legislation at all.
+11
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Well, okay. I mean, if we're going with any semi-auto center fire rifle, then great. Now I know what you mean when you say assault rifle.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
Yeah, and I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking your posts; I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, though *usually* when the distinction is made that’s the purpose (usually along the “those are already banned” lines). Which is why the response to the objection is sometimes...argumentative. The main reason I think it’s important to expand the definition of “assault rifle” (or use the more nebulous “assault weapon”) to include semi-auto-only guns...at least when used in a civilian context...is because we need a short, punchy term to use when discussing the topic. Saying we need to ban “centerfire semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and/or xyz ergonomic features” ain’t gonna cut it, you just lost half your audience.
Whereas when you say we need to ban “assault rifles” a vast majority of civilians are going to interpret it more or less correctly, and the majority of those that don’t are going to be people intentionally misinterpreting the statement who own covered weapons and don’t want to lose their toys.
I get that precision of language is a thing, and I understand some concern there. But I don’t see much value in coming up with a new shorthand nomenclature for this class of weapon for this purpose, and it wouldn’t be very productive anyway when a majority already accept the (arguably incorrect) usage. Better just to say that’s what “assault rifle” means now.
I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, though. Like, "assault rifle" has always been more of an advertising term, it's never really meant anything specific. And that's led to a lot of ineffectual legislation. Like, there's several rifles that really should be restricted or banned in Canada, but aren't, because people decided that assault weapon meant irrelevant stuff like the plastic bolted to the sides of a barrel. And what a rifle is capable of in violence terms is 100% a factor of the action. The only time I can think of when modifications become important factors is in competition. When a dude is walking around firing at civilians, MOA doesn't matter. How fast he can effectively fire that weapon is the only thing that matters.
Which is why I like your definition. It might actually make a difference.
Is that the reason, or was it sufficient lobbyist influence/ rural opposition which watered the classification down to whatever would get the votes to pass?
There is almost no will in Canada to include all semi-autos on the Restricted list. It's just not talked about. When people talk about banning assault rifles, each person has a slightly different rifle they mean they want to ban.
Posts
Don’t even need to ban them. As far as I can tell, Australia didn’t ban anything, they just made them very hard to obtain. The US did the same thing with full-auto weapons. They’re not banned, they’re just not available willy-nilly to anyone with a pulse (depending on which state you’re in).
Or we could go with thoughts and prayers.
Oh, that's nice. This thread absolutely shit on the people speaking up about it.
I agree that the proliferation of “scary black rifles” specially has some extremely negative impacts on the culture at large, and banning them might actually have some value in and of itself. On the other hand, that’s part of what we tried to do in ‘94 and arguably that culture bounced back twice as hard.
Edit: Though yes, current and past loopholes (lol thumbhole AR15s) show why keeping it as simple and broad as possible is best.
That's not the definition in Canada. Assault rifles are effectively banned, but you can still buy semi-auto center fire rifles.
Which is the crux of the issue about defintions.
And I don't understand why it doesn't matter in this thread when the last few pages were about getting into the weeds about a Texas law concerning carrying on private property.
Well yeah, I’m saying we need both the common and legal definition of “assault rifle” to be expanded to include all semi-auto centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. Full stop. The way we do that is by pushing back on anybody that makes the semantic “but ARs have select fire” argument. I know that, I carried one in a combat zone. But I don’t care how the military defines it, we needn’t follow that convention.
And yeah, we need to make sure we roll sufficiently modified pistols into the ban as well. Or just can semi-auto pistols with detachable magazines too. Works for me.
semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or belt feed.
I disagree. If you asked like a hundred random Americans, they’d probably define it as “military-lookin’ rifles” and if pressed further to clarify it would boil down to semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips. What’s critical is that a vast majority would include semi-auto civilian rifles, select-fire is only a critical part of the definition for gun enthusiasts and military contracting officers.
Edit: Most people wouldn’t include centerfire, because they have no idea what that means. I tend not to include it because I’m willing to let semi-auto .22s with detachable magazines be less regulated. But that’s not at all a priority for me, I’d happily roll them in too.
I have a question, that might be too tangential.
Is the AR platform built in such a way that there is space for selectfire? Like even though you can't get it, the box is built with that option in mind on some level right?
I’m not an expert on the conversion because it never interested me in the slightest (and I’m an electrical guy, not mechanical). But yeah, the modifications are possible with the right parts and/or know-how. It’s the same platform.
There, problem solved
This, and to answer that asshole's follow up question yes your mini14 is an assault rifle.
The big difference between a bushmaster and other .223 hunting rifles really is t that big. One looks scarier that’s about it
This is not true IIRC, possession of a group of parts which can be quickly assembled or disassembled into a SBR in one place is equivalent to possession of an SBR.
For example, the most common case is when a rifle has a barrel shorter than 16 inches with a removable muzzle brake or flash reducer that extends the barrel greater than 16 inches - the attachment MUST be welded or fixed in a permanent manner (no screw offs, quick release pins, etc) or its an NFA violation.
Similarly if you have a pistol and a detachable stock with it in the same bag that can be put on it to make it an SBR and you are caught with it you are going to be charged with possession on an SBR whether its on the gun or not.
Bolt-action and fixed-magazine .223 rifles are a thing.
I agree that the difference between an AR15 and a Mini14 is pretty minimal as far as lethality (and thus reasonable regulation) goes. Especially when aftermarket tacticool stocks for the latter are a thing.
He wants credit for missing his golf game.
He’s a fucking narcissistic toddler who expects praise when he takes time away from whatever he wants to do and does something he’s told to do.
D_P is clearly speaking in terms of crafting a law and not speaking up about possible loopholes then. Telling people about firearm esoterica in the context of (yet another) forum thread about mass shootings and using specific language when crafting a law are two very different things and will garner different responses.
None of us are writing laws, so it's a red herring.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also the knowledge that Republicans will block anything substantive and so even some level of accessory bans is about the best we can hope for. They're blocking making background checks universal to prevent violent felons illegally buying guns from legal sellers who don't need to follow the process for various reasons. Like, there is no defensible argument against it, but that doesn't matter since they have the power to kill it anyway.
There are very few belt-fed semi-automatic rifles that are currently legal in the USA, because an open-bolt action is necessary to use one without some really intensely quirky engineering. Open-bolt actions are de jure regulated by the BATFE as being a machine gun because of some patent trolling in the early '80s. Most belt-fed guns that are semi-auto are basically designed to look like WWII relics. Though they are rare and mostly meant as a collectable for history geeks who can't afford the $30k-plus for the real deal, I'd shed no tears if they were federally regulated in a bigger way alongside AR-15s et al
This is not an endorsement of them, nor saying they're outside of your proposed definition, but rather just that they are very quirky and rare!
It's more about trying to close what would be a loophole. Like belt fed isn't a thing right now, but if you banned detachable magazine but left belt fed, suddenly people would be working to convert or sell belt fed weapons.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah thats why some rifle bans have focused heavily on pistol grips and whatnot.
Oh, I definitely understood that part - it's possible to do, I'm just explaining the why on the engineering difficulties and expense of it
I own a bolt-action rifle in .223, it was great for getting into longer-range target shooting. It's got a 5-round removable magazine but its definitely not swappable like an AR or AK magazine just by virtue of being kind of small and finicky and not being able to slam it in.
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles also exist, which led, of course, to someone sticking a 100-round drum on one for a photo.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Yeah, and I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking your posts; I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, though *usually* when the distinction is made that’s the purpose (usually along the “those are already banned” lines). Which is why the response to the objection is sometimes...argumentative. The main reason I think it’s important to expand the definition of “assault rifle” (or use the more nebulous “assault weapon”) to include semi-auto-only guns...at least when used in a civilian context...is because we need a short, punchy term to use when discussing the topic. Saying we need to ban “centerfire semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and/or xyz ergonomic features” ain’t gonna cut it, you just lost half your audience.
Whereas when you say we need to ban “assault rifles” a vast majority of civilians are going to interpret it more or less correctly, and the majority of those that don’t are going to be people intentionally misinterpreting the statement who own covered weapons and don’t want to lose their toys.
I get that precision of language is a thing, and I understand some concern there. But I don’t see much value in coming up with a new shorthand nomenclature for this class of weapon for this purpose, and it wouldn’t be very productive anyway when a majority already accept the (arguably incorrect) usage. Better just to say that’s what “assault rifle” means now.
I feel like right now the greatest common denominator on guns that are 50-state legal are the two guns we won WWII on: the Garand, and the 1911. Bolt actions and lever actions are also 50-state legal as far as I am aware
edit: I know most if not nearly all states allow the SKS so long as it's original clip-fed model, but then also explicitly ban the popular US-made aftermarket mod that adds a detachable magazine feed, which is nearly impossible to do on the Garand
None that I know of. They're also pretty hard to find? Most have more or less disappeared over the years; many are mothballed in military warehouses. The government occassionally does a lottery on found lots as they come across them for collectors.
To be fair, you can buy brand new semi-auto versions of the M249 that are both belt and detachable magazine fed. If we're banning semi-auto, detachable magazine fed firearms, I'd want to toss in belt-fed as well to cover all of the bases.
I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, though. Like, "assault rifle" has always been more of an advertising term, it's never really meant anything specific. And that's led to a lot of ineffectual legislation. Like, there's several rifles that really should be restricted or banned in Canada, but aren't, because people decided that assault weapon meant irrelevant stuff like the plastic bolted to the sides of a barrel. And what a rifle is capable of in violence terms is 100% a factor of the action. The only time I can think of when modifications become important factors is in competition. When a dude is walking around firing at civilians, MOA doesn't matter. How fast he can effectively fire that weapon is the only thing that matters.
Which is why I like your definition. It might actually make a difference.
Fair point - I would argue that an M1 is on a whole different planet from an AR for quite a few reasons, but it is still semi-automatic at the end of the day and that alone is a big feature
Definitely. Again, pricey, rare, quirky, a pain in the ass, but they do exist and have a lot of capacity for harm.
Is that the reason, or was it sufficient lobbyist influence/ rural opposition which watered the classification down to whatever would get the votes to pass?
There is almost no will in Canada to include all semi-autos on the Restricted list. It's just not talked about. When people talk about banning assault rifles, each person has a slightly different rifle they mean they want to ban.