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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A different way of defining what an assault weapon is [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)30. And replies
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Simpler: Any semiauto centerfire rifle or brace-equipped-pistol capable of accepting detachable mags
JoeStuckInOH
Oct 2017
#4
Same way Machine Guns can be Short barreled rifles without dual registration.
JoeStuckInOH
Oct 2017
#12
My definition (or post content) suggests banning nothing. It's just a definition.
JoeStuckInOH
Oct 2017
#21
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
re: "Wouldn't it make sense to adapt a definition that addresses your main complaint...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Oct 2017
#37
"Simple, short, easy." And impossible. But by all means try for your 'Prohibition 3.0'
friendly_iconoclast
Nov 2017
#44