What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[calicoug]

Seems like there are two main purposes: assault (no surprise given the name) and entertainment.

One of those purposes is obviously awful. The other is frivolous. For those who support assault weapons, why don't the risks associated with assault weapons (like slaughtering of five year olds) outweigh the benefits (shooting for fun)?

[Maximus]

Define assault weapon

[calicoug]

Define assault weapon

There are lots of possible ways to define it, so let's stick to the one the government used in 1994 (even though it could be updated to specifically include a weapon like the Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle and a Colt Match Target rifle and many others like them):

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

That definition was cumbersome (obviously) and won't fit all issues we see today, but it's useful as a starting point for a conversation.

[Maximus]

There are lots of possible ways to define it, so let's stick to the one the government used in 1994 (even though it could be updated to specifically include a weapon like the Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle and a Colt Match Target rifle and many others like them):



That definition was cumbersome (obviously) and won't fit all issues we see today, but it's useful as a starting point for a conversation.

So you think semi automatics should be banned?

[calicoug]

So you think semi automatics should be banned?

Some semi-automatics fall under the definition I just gave, but not all. But we are skipping ahead. See my first post. What's your answer?

[Maximus]

Im in favor of renewing that law.

[wuapinmon]

I think you're argument is weak because you can call anything frivolous. That doesn't make it so.

I'm not a fan of just anyone owning handguns and assault weapons, but you're going to have to do better than dismissing the major reason probably most people own those weapons: entertainment.

I don't plan on using my Type 56 SKS to assault anything. I didn't buy it, I inherited it from my dad, and it's in a friend's safe in his basement in Alpharetta, GA. If I wanted to go shooting, I'd have to get someone to train me properly in its operation. But, the damned thing is fun to shoot.

And, then again, I believed that a well-armed citizenry is a check against totalitarianism.

With that said, it should be really farking hard to buy a pistol or an assault weapon. There is absolutely no way that any challenge to the 2nd Amendment will pass muster in the Supreme Court, and mucho menos any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Mental health reform is more productive, cheaper, and a better use of resources than trying to ban assault weapons.

[wuapinmon]

We don't ban private ownership of airplanes because someone flies them into a building:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html?_r=0
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Lidle"]Cory Lidle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_plane_crash"]2002 Tampa plane crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[hostile]

This is the transcript of an interview I heard on NPR this evening, driving home from work.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167479...ult-weapon-ban

[Drunk Tank]

We don't ban private ownership of airplanes because someone flies them into a building:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html?_r=0
Cory Lidle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2002 Tampa plane crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither do we ban alcohol or automobiles, even though the use of both in conjunction with each other often lead to tragic results.

[byu71]

Neither do we ban alcohol or automobiles, even though the use of both in conjunction with each other often lead to tragic results.

Although I don't have an answer for Cali, the entertainment vs harm argument brought to mind alcohol too. I can't think of anything that alcohol consumption is good for except entertainment.

Just as prohibition didn't really work, I doubt a ban on assault weapons will cure the problem. I am open to listening to the discussion though.

[calicoug]

Neither do we ban alcohol or automobiles, even though the use of both in conjunction with each other often lead to tragic results.

I find it illuminating that the examples people give of analogous objects are only analogous in the sense that they can kill. Don't forget they do also serve a very important purpose: travel.

So I ask again, what is the very important purpose served by assault weapons? So far we have people agreeing on "entertainment" (but arguing that is a bigger deal than I suggest) and fighting off tyranny.

I guess if I thought they really could be used to fight off tyranny I would be more impressed by that argument. But the fact that the tyrannical side also has fighter jets, missiles, tanks and other such weapons that render an assault rifle pretty useless is impossible to ignore. Not to mention that if fighting off tyranny was a really important issue to people, they would rationally be arguing either that they get fighter jets, tanks, etc or that the government not get them (and I don't hear either argument advanced anywhere).

Are there any reasons besides fun and believing assault weapons can stop tanks?

[Drunk Tank]

A ban on assault type rifles as described above is useless. There are semi-auto sporting and hunting rifles that fall under that description. When is the last time someone used a bayonet attached to a rifle to kill someone? The bayonet isn't illegal, the bayonet lug was. When has a flash hider ever done damage? Threaded barrel? Watch out, they are dangerous. Sounds dumb right? Collapsable stock? Pistol grip? Thumb hole stock? OMG! Under the assault weapon ban they were all illegal. Truthfully, it will be very hard to re-enact the AWB of 1994. Since the ban was lifted, there have been literally millions of those weapons manufactured and sold in the US.

It is sad that less than 1/10 of 1% of gun owners ( I am just throwing out a number) who use their guns in an unlawful and heinous way, ruin it for responsible gun owners such as myself.

[calicoug]

Although I don't have an answer for Cali, the entertainment vs harm argument brought to mind alcohol too. I can't think of anything that alcohol consumption is good for except entertainment.

Just as prohibition didn't really work, I doubt a ban on assault weapons will cure the problem. I am open to listening to the discussion though.

The fact that an alcohol ban didn't work doesn't suggest a ban on other things that are fun also won't work. That said, if people are opposed to an assault weapons ban only or primarily because they think it won't work, speak up. That suggests if a ban or regulation could be adopted which would be effective those people would support such a ban or regulation. I'm guessing there aren't many in this camp.

[calicoug]

A ban on assault type rifles as described above is useless. There are semi-auto sporting and hunting rifles that fall under that description. When is the last time someone used a bayonet attached to a rifle to kill someone? The bayonet isn't illegal, the bayonet lug was. When has a flash hider ever done damage? Threaded barrel? Watch out, they are dangerous. Sounds dumb right? Collapsable stock? Pistol grip? Thumb hole stock? OMG! Under the assault weapon ban they were all illegal. Truthfully, it will be very hard to re-enact the AWB of 1994. Since the ban was lifted, there have been literally millions of those weapons manufactured and sold in the US.

It is sad that less than 1/10 of 1% of gun owners ( I am just throwing out a number) who use their guns in an unlawful and heinous way, ruin it for responsible gun owners such as myself.

It is sad, but not because they "ruin it for gun owners." More because they kill people and decimate lives.