Gun Control... what is an "automatic" weapon... what is an "assault rifle"?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

To end the derail in the dog thread:

I encounter that response often, yes, and it reminds me of the debate between those who wish to ban automatic weapons and those who do not. Everyone seems to understand what is meant by the term "automatic weapon", unless and until one speaks of banning or restricting sales, at which time no one is apparently able to say just what a gun that fires lots of bullets in a short time is.

Tracker,

There is no debate on the definition of an "automatic" weapon. It is a weapon that if you sqweeze the trigger will continue firing until its magazine or clip is empty. Who has claimed this isn't the definition of automatic weapon?

I hear this in gun control debates all the time, and it never fails to annoy me. To my mind, it's an attempt to avoid engaging the main issue.

Tracker,

Huh? That there is a specific definition for what constitutes an "automatic" weapon? Why is that irritating?

I think the annoying debate is over what constitutes an "assault rifle."

DG,

That is frustrating... because there is no generally easily applicable definition of "assault rifle" that wouldn't encompass hunting rifles. Prior ban or regulation attempts have been worked around with mere cosmetic changes to the weapon with no changes its firing mechanism.

Can we agree that an "automatic" weapon is a firearm that continues to fire as long as its fireing mechanism is engaged and there is ammunition to fire?

Continue.

[Suttree]

An "assault rifle" is a marketing term coined by the gun industry.

NY Times

In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”

“The popularly held idea that the term ‘assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong,” Mr. Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”

[Free Northman Reborn]

The term "assault weapon" is vague and confusing.

They should just come out and call it a semi-automatic rifle. Because that is what they are really after.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

An "assault rifle" is a marketing term coined by the gun industry.

NY Times

That's actually about "assault weapon." "Assault Rifle" is a translation of Sturmgewehr, which is a piece of Hitlerian propaganda.

[Suttree]

That's actually about "assault weapon." "Assault Rifle" is a translation of Sturmgewehr, which is a piece of Hitlerian propaganda.

The NY Times article actually tracks the evolution of the phrase and talks about that:

Yet as Mr. Peterson noted in his buyer’s guide, it was the industry that adopted the term “assault weapon” to describe some types of semiautomatic firearms marketed to civilians.

“Assault rifle” was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr — literally “storm rifle,” a name chosen by Adolf Hitler — was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.

But the term “assault rifle” was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Yes, an automatic rifle is a rifle that fires continually while pulling the trigger. An assault rifle can be any rifle really IMO, but I think they are referring to semi automatic rifles. Which fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

[The Anti-Targ]

Seems like "Assault [insert type of gun here]" is poor terminology for the purposes of having meaningful discussion on the finer points of gun control. But then again, at least in the context of the USA, is it even possible to have meaningful discussion on even the major points of gun control? So does the erroneous use of this undefinable word actually make a difference when there is pretty much no common ground to be found in this endless cycle of talking past each other?

[Seli]

"A long barrelled weapon that allows the shooter to fire multiple continuously aimed shots while moving" seems to be reasonable starting point for a definition of "assault rifle" to my inexpert opinion.

[wolverine]

TBH, if I just hear automatic I just think of a weapon that requires no manual action to load the next shell. It can be fully automatic, where pulling the trigger causes the weapon to keep firing until all the ammo is gone. Or it can be semi-automatic where you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire a round. Actually I more typically think of the latter, semi-automatic, since there are lots of hunting weapons that are this way.

So if you intend to mean fully automatic and not semi-automatic it may be more clear to use fully automatic instead of just automatic. Or else I am just in the extreme minority interpreting the terms this way.

[Ulthosian Stark]

To me an assault rifle is exactly as it sounds. Its for assaults. Against people. Anything that is auto or semi auto or burst that chambers at least a .223 and larger, so it can go through most bulletproof vests.

Or a more simple definition would be a rifle that you don't use to hunt animals with. I'm sure some redneck fucks out there do use an assault rifle on deer, but if you have a short barreled M4 that is automatic or even burst with more then 2 rails for accessories. Nobody needs a red dot, flashlight, laser pointer and a foregrip for hunting. Or even for home defense.

Everyone should remember that only those with a class 3 license is capable of owning full-automatic weapons. Said license is extremely hard to get. So banning said weapons would only mean...

THE ONLY WAY TO GET THEM WOULD BE ILLEGALLY, THEREFORE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS WILL BE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE THEM.

Idk about you guys but the thought of having to have a gunfight where you, the defender/innocent is only legally able to have bolt action and certain semi auto weapons, completely useless for defense against said illegal fully automatic weapons scares the fucking shit out of me

This would embolden criminals, knowing that the chances of a proper gun for defense being around are practically 0.

[wolverine]

I have about a dozen guns. I don't own any of them because I am worried about being in a gunfight. I don't plan on upgrading to a weapon where I think I have a better chance of killing another person before they can kill me either.

This "the bad guys will have all the firepower" argument gets dragged out a lot in these debates. Just curious how often is a bad guy with a fully automatic weapon stopped because a civilian good guy also has a fully automatic weapon? Maybe it happens way more than I think it does. Or do you really think it is that big of a deterrent? Bad guys are out there thinking, "well I would start shooting at that dudes house and family but he might have an AK-47 so i'll just go get high instead."

[S John]

I think in the current public mind an 'assault rifle' is an assault rifle because of the way it looks. As wolverine mentioned a lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. If you pulled out an innocuous looking semi-auto hunting rifle and set it next to an AR, a lot of people would point to the AR and say that it is the assault rifle. And I guess it could be fairly called that. But the innocuous looking hunting rifle is just as dangerous in capable hands. With an extended magazine you'd pretty much have the same function as a lot of 'assault rifles'. Anyway, point is, I do think its a bit of a meaningless term when talking about semi-auto rifles.

As for fully automatic, I think I'd personally consider any full-auto to be an 'assault weapon' and so would most other people. But I would imagine the number of crimes committed with fully automatic weapons in the US is pretty low as they are hard to get legally for a regular person. I don't think there are too many people who would advocate a free-for-all of fully automatic weapons, nor do I think there are that many people who would advocate a complete ban of every type of gun. I would go as far as to say that most Americans are fine with people owning bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, or muzzle loaders. So the gun control debate in the US really centers around the middle ground - the regulation or non-regulation of semi-auto weapons, handguns, extended magazines, etc.

[Galactus]

To me an assault rifle is exactly as it sounds. Its for assaults. Against people. Anything that is auto or semi auto or burst that chambers at least a .223 and larger, so it can go through most bulletproof vests.

Should note that most large game hunting rifles here chambers much larger than that. (for moose it's IIRC, illegal to use less than a 10 g. bullet)

[Larry of the Lawn]

To me an assault rifle is exactly as it sounds. Its for assaults. Against people. Anything that is auto or semi auto or burst that chambers at least a .223 and larger, so it can go through most bulletproof vests.

Or a more simple definition would be a rifle that you don't use to hunt animals with. I'm sure some redneck fucks out there do use an assault rifle on deer, but if you have a short barreled M4 that is automatic or even burst with more then 2 rails for accessories. Nobody needs a red dot, flashlight, laser pointer and a foregrip for hunting. Or even for home defense.

Everyone should remember that only those with a class 3 license is capable of owning full-automatic weapons. Said license is extremely hard to get. So banning said weapons would only mean...

THE ONLY WAY TO GET THEM WOULD BE ILLEGALLY, THEREFORE DANGEROUS CRIMINALS WILL BE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE THEM.

Idk about you guys but the thought of having to have a gunfight where you, the defender/innocent is only legally able to have bolt action and certain semi auto weapons, completely useless for defense against said illegal fully automatic weapons scares the fucking shit out of me

This would embolden criminals, knowing that the chances of a proper gun for defense being around are practically 0.

Assault rifle is just about look to me, and maybe a higher capacity magazine. I bolded that line in your post because that includes some pretty common hunting rifles.

I agree with Tracker that the term assault rifle is often used to shutdown discussion of gun control but it happens all around; if gc advocates demonstrate an understanding of the difference between a semiautomatic, automatic, and assault rifle (because.there are significant differences), and gun advocates / owners are a little more patient explaining these differences instead of refusing to engage with anyone who doesn't understand the finer points; that a much more productive coversation can follow.

its good to remember that a lot of gun control advocates have no experience with firearms so its understandable that they could very easily and in good faith say something they don't actually mean but that sounds ludicrous to anyone who's handled guns before.

At the same time, don't be surprised, gc advocates, when you start misusing terms and people use that misunderstanding to nullify any opinion you might hold on the subject. And anti gun control people should have a little patience.and realize that just because you are confusing a bunch of interrelated and confusing terms, you can still have a valid position on the role of guns in society.

[lupis42]

"A long barrelled weapon that allows the shooter to fire multiple continuously aimed shots while moving" seems to be reasonable starting point for a definition of "assault rifle" to my inexpert opinion.

Would you then count a double-barrel, e.g. a double barrel shotgun?

I agree with Tracker that the term assault rifle is often used to shutdown discussion of gun control but it happens all around; if gc advocates demonstrate an understanding of the difference between a semiautomatic, automatic, and assault rifle (because.there are significant differences), and gun advocates / owners are a little more patient explaining these differences instead of refusing to engage with anyone who doesn't understand the finer points; that a much more productive coversation can follow.

Agreed - there are many samples of such discussions in the latter pages of earlier iterations of this thread on this board.

And anti gun control people should have a little patience.and realize that just because you are confusing a bunch of interrelated and confusing terms, you can still have a valid position on the role of guns in society.

Some of us do try - there are a lot of versions of Tormund and I going through various iterations of "this term needs a definition", "here are the existing defined terms", "here is what existing law already does", etc.

I have limited time at present, but I remain happy to try to explain the current state of firearms technology (and US law) to the best of my ability.

As for fully automatic, I think I'd personally consider any full-auto to be an 'assault weapon' and so would most other people. But I would imagine the number of crimes committed with fully automatic weapons in the US is pretty low as they are hard to get legally for a regular person.

From 1934 (first registration requirement) to the present, the only record I can find of violent crimes committed with legally owned machine guns is a case of an undercover police officer who murdered an informant.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of collectors like to own (and, on occasion, take to the range and shoot) things like full-auto, crew-served weapons. While private ownership of machine guns is heavily regulated in the US, it's not completely extinct, ranges do good business renting actual assault rifles, sub machine guns, etc, and there is a good argument to be made for eradicating the Hughes amendment.

I don't think there are too many people who would advocate a free-for-all of fully automatic weapons, nor do I think there are that many people who would advocate a complete ban of every type of gun. I would go as far as to say that most Americans are fine with people owning bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, or muzzle loaders.

So the gun control debate in the US really centers around the middle ground - the regulation or non-regulation of semi-auto weapons, handguns, extended magazines, etc.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is, in iteslf, a huge area to define as the "middle ground", and most people who are in favor of 'regulation' of semi-autos are also pushing for 'regulation' of bolt-, lever-, and break- action firearms, and muzzle loaders/black powder/antiques - just a different level of 'regulation'.

There's a lot more complexity to this debate than most people enter into it aware of.

[RaceBannon42]

An "Assault Rifle" as is currently described in today's control debate should probably use the definition of the 94 assault weapon ban

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
  
• Pistol grip
  
• Bayonet mount
  
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  
• Grenade launcher mount
  

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
  

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
  
• Pistol grip
  
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  
• Detachable magazine.
  

Most of which are cosmetic descriptors. the NY Safe act has whittled the two features down to one. So of course manufacturers, made an ass ugly AR platform rifle which is NY legal. The only effective difference magazine capacity limit of 7 rds, which a judge struck down so it was made 10 rounds. Which is lucky since I don't thinking owning the most popular plinking rifle in america should make you a felon.

[Seli]

Would you then count a double-barrel, e.g. a double barrel shotgun?

...

I wouldn't include those. And would consider pump-action and lever-action weapons borderline. Yes, it is a very inclusive definition.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Race,

The "New York" compliant rifle is kind of funny.

[sologdin]

with all of the whining that we've had over the years, i'd've thought that by now BHO must've taken all'y'all's grrrns and locked y'all in FEMA camps?

[lupis42]

I wouldn't include those. And would consider pump-action and lever-action weapons borderline. Yes, it is a very inclusive definition.

It's an interesting question, though, and I bring it up because my double-barrel shotgun, unlike most of my more modern semi-autos, was designed specifically as a weapon, i.e. for fighting people. It's a coach gun.

I have it partly because it's useful to have something to demonstrate break actions and external hammers with, and partly because it's also a lot of fun to shoot.

If that's not included, and a lever action rifle (e.g. the Henry repeating rifle, also designed for fighting) is only borderline, while the majority of modern rifles designed for plinking, hunting, and competition are, what's the value of that definition? What can you say about that category of firearms?

with all of the whining that we've had over the years, i'd've thought that by now BHO must've taken all'y'all's grrrns and locked y'all in FEMA camps?

He's been as efficient at that as GWB was at banning abortion, eliminating social security, and herding all the gay people into concentration camps.