Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)
30. And replies
Sat Oct 14, 2017, 11:00 AM
Oct 2017
Me: 1. Defining an "assault weapon" is a task whose objective is to provide criteria to identify modern black scary semi-auto rifles so that they may be banned from sale, transfer, manufacture and/or possession. Why engage in this pointless charade?

Kaleva: 1) My definition has nothing to do with appearance. It concentrates on the action of the gun, the length of the barrel and features of the round the gun is designed or has been modified to fire.
It is an excellent idea to develop a precise terminology for use in discussing any topic. No one doubts this. I'm not arguing that point. I'm asking "Why pursue a definition, even a concise and reasonable one, for assault weapons? In my opinion this is an exercise where, once a definition is created, it begs to utilized in some way. Please explain the utility of having a definition.



Me: 2. Why engage in an activity lending credibility to folks with the goal of banning common use rifles with legal purposes?

Kaleva: 2)I say nothing about banning or regulating but I am engaging in an exercise in coming up with a set of definitions for what an assault weapon may be which is easy to understand and can't be easily worked around.
I understand you didn't mention a ban or regulations. "an exercise in coming up with a set of definitions for what an assault weapon may be which is easy to understand and can't be easily worked around" is not in itself useful in a vacuum. Why expend the energy and time to create a definition without a use in mind?


As I see it firearm types for classification purposes include the type of action (bolt, lever, semi-auto...), ammo diameter or caliber, ammo design (shot pellets, soft point, hollow point fmj...), pistol, rifle, sbr...
Developing language has a purpose. An assault rifle was developed some years back as a military weapon useful in certain battle tactics. The term followed the development of the device. No one is developing the termed "assault baseball bat" though the design could certainly be optimized for the purpose of fighting.
any loaded gun aimed at another human being is an assault weapon nt msongs Oct 2017 #1
Correct. Straw Man Oct 2017 #5
You win the internet Alea Oct 2017 #6
Thank you. Straw Man Oct 2017 #7
This could be any of my counter assault weapons. ileus Oct 2017 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2017 #3
Simpler: Any semiauto centerfire rifle or brace-equipped-pistol capable of accepting detachable mags JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #4
Does this mean AR and AK pistols without braces would not be AWs? aikoaiko Oct 2017 #8
I suppose. Can't win 'em all. nt JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #9
What about... Always Right Oct 2017 #11
Same way Machine Guns can be Short barreled rifles without dual registration. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #12
So a SBR can have a bump stock? Always Right Oct 2017 #14
LOL, I don't think bump stocks are going to be around much longer. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #15
Over inclusive and under inclusive at the same time Always Right Oct 2017 #20
My definition (or post content) suggests banning nothing. It's just a definition. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #21
The NFA registry has its own issues Always Right Oct 2017 #22
New NFA process is just fine. People are just impatient. JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #23
Eforms never worked right Always Right Oct 2017 #24
Simplicity is good, but... Adrahil Nov 2017 #45
Maybe not so simple. oneshooter Nov 2017 #47
Maybe not so simple. oneshooter Nov 2017 #48
Your definition of AW is too broad and at the same time over inclusive Always Right Oct 2017 #10
There's no point in reinventing the wheel in an effort to get around this Kaleva Oct 2017 #13
Pressure, in answer to your statement: yagotme Oct 2017 #16
Thanks for the info! Kaleva Oct 2017 #17
Welcome! n/t yagotme Oct 2017 #29
I would like to read your thoughts on how to avoid being an AW. Kaleva Oct 2017 #18
Not sure anyone can define semi-auto AW Always Right Oct 2017 #19
That maxim 50 is dumb as hell JoeStuckInOH Oct 2017 #25
You said in an earlier post that it was easy to get around what I proposed Kaleva Oct 2017 #26
I have a few basic questions discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #27
Some answers Kaleva Oct 2017 #28
And replies discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #30
Most every term in relation to guns is well understood except for assault weapons Kaleva Oct 2017 #31
Have you considered why that term is misunderstood and ill-defined? discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #33
Semi-automatics have been around for decades. Kaleva Oct 2017 #34
Can you conceive of the color red? discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #35
Your arguing in circles isn't going to be effective on me. Kaleva Oct 2017 #36
re: "Wouldn't it make sense to adapt a definition that addresses your main complaint... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #37
The term assault weapon is going to stay around. It's not going away. Kaleva Oct 2017 #38
I can really appreciate having a well defined term discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #39
My proposed definition isn't going to be adopted by anyone Kaleva Oct 2017 #40
For some, it would be any weapon not The Mouth Oct 2017 #32
What is the point of another artificial definition? ManiacJoe Nov 2017 #41
The term "assault weapon" is in very common use. Kaleva Nov 2017 #42
And whatever made-up definition used back then ManiacJoe Nov 2017 #46
Any semi-automatic firearm with a removable magazine. Simple, short, easy. flamin lib Nov 2017 #43
"Simple, short, easy." And impossible. But by all means try for your 'Prohibition 3.0' friendly_iconoclast Nov 2017 #44
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»A different way of defini...»Reply #30