What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?

[Boats]

No, not more truthful.

Really? Prove it. With facts.

My contention is an overwhelming majority of civilian AR15 style weapons are used for sporting purposes: Target shooting, hunting, plinking, competitive practical shooting, collecting, etc.

So calling them sporting rifles or sporting weapons is MORE truthful than assault weapons, because most of them are used for sporting purposes rather than for assault.

Given the FACTs: that around 3-500 homicides by firearm per year are committed by all rifles including AR15 style rifles(FBI crime stats). The NSSF estimates 19,800,000 AR15s in civilian ownership as of 2020. At that rate it would take over 19000 years at 500 rifle homicides per year for a MAJORITY of AR15s to bee used for assaulting. (Assuming that every rifle used only ever kills one person and all rifles used in homicides are AR15s

So like I said: more truthful, you just don't like it. Now prove me wrong.

 

[smokey]

What's "the rest of the planet"? The only official definition anyone's given me is from a 50-year old guidebook published by an intelligence agency.



Actually, my words are quite meaningful even if they go in one ear and out the other for those who choose not to read/understand them, because they contradict what that person wants to believe. I find your post to be the epitome of talking loud and saying nothing.

Anyway, for the 100th time: I've said before that I care less about definitions, and more about the fact that our side is using definitions to deflect from honest debate. So, to the extent that I'm using any definitions at all, it's to prove how intellectually dishonest our side can be.

I gave you a working definition it was ....
"'Assault weapon' now continues to simply be a nebulous political catch-all term antigun politicians use to make common guns sound scary in order to ban them."

That is how it is used now. To you, are glock 19s, beretta m9s, and cz-75s "assault weapons"?

 

[Boats]

I've stated my "agenda" repeatedly now, even if you choose not to read it. My agenda is for us to retire failed arguments, and stick to using the Constitution and other, better arguments (e.g., the fact that AR-15s are statistically not used often in firearms homicides) to make our case against FSA 2013

Which won't work. Using the constitutional argument hasn't worked for over a century. It didn't work with the NFA, or the GCA, or the GOA. Because the antis want to ban assault weapons for emotional reasons. (They are scary, they can be used to kill, the people that own them are deplorable) And not factual, practical, or ethical reasons.

When faced with an emotional argument, only an emotional rebuttal is heard.


Which is why facts and statistics don't work. It's like arguing with you, for the same reasons. You argue that the constitution should be used as proof that assault weapons shouldn't be banned, but that hasn't and never will work.

 

[Bob A]

I've stated my "agenda" repeatedly now, even if you choose not to read it. My agenda is for us to retire failed arguments, and stick to using the Constitution and other, better arguments (e.g., the fact that AR-15s are statistically not used often in firearms homicides) to make our case against FSA 2013. It's not my fault if your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda.

FFS, hit the bricks in Annapolis and Richmond, and stop batting your gums about "definitions" that the opposition only uses for effect. Arguing with the Left goes nowhere; they don't care for logic and reason, and will waste your time while sticking to their guns.

Why are you here, picking nits?

If you really gave a damn, you'd take your case to the only people that matter, the state legislatures.

You might find it an eye-opening experience, unless your true goal is to waste everyone's time?

 

[MattFinals718]

Thought you said definitions don't matter.

You also ignore definitions when they are given (see above, you continue to mis-use "assault rifle") because they don't suit your argument. THAT IS moving goal posts. I. E. "Definitions don't matter" to "no one has given me an official definition".

I'm not ignoring definitions at all; I've simply said that I find them to be incorrect. You'll note that in this regard, I'm still criticizing the gun controllers - because I'm not one of them.

But yes, I would prefer that our discussion focuses less on definitions, and more upon what I'm actually trying to discuss: Practical differences between the shooting experience of some firearms vs. others. The only reason that this keeps becoming a discussion of definitions is because you, and others like you, keeping making it as such, because you are (as I've said before) trying to define away the discussion.

Those are 3 different official definitions of "assault weapon".

Great, and they all (IMHO) suck, and are (in some cases) written by stupid liberal legislators. I figured that since you and I are (essentially) on the same side, we could agree on that much. But you're content to use them when convenient?

Ok, what is the practical difference for an inexperienced shooter?

At what threshold does a difference become a practical difference to you?

What is an inexperienced shooter to you?

Said it a bunch of times now. If this discussion is becoming "circular," it's because you ask the same questions repeatedly.

And as for "inexperienced shooter," that's not a self-explanatory definition to you?

Give a dog a bad name and hang him.



Time-wasting hair-splitting pointless exercise in futility.

Well, yes, because our side has a tendency (at times) to be like a fundamentalist religious movement: It offers its adherents a simplistic view of the world, it offers simple and intellectually challenged explanations for how the world works, and then it "hangs" the heretics who dare to question the orthodoxy and promote intellectual debate.

If you have to "hang" or suppress dissenters from the party line, you should be asking yourself what's wrong with your worldview.

Really? Prove it. With facts.

My contention is an overwhelming majority of civilian AR15 style weapons are used for sporting purposes: Target shooting, hunting, plinking, competitive practical shooting, collecting, etc.

So calling them sporting rifles or sporting weapons is MORE truthful than assault weapons, because most of them are used for sporting purposes rather than for assault.

Great. If I buy an demilitarized tank, I could use it for driving to the grocery store, but that doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes my Mom's Prius just because I'm not using it for what it was designed for.

I use my own AR-15s for the same purposes you describe. But I'm also going to reach for one of my ARs, not one of my bolt-action rifles (or my Remington 7400) if I were to face a mob of BLM rioters in the future. (Which I feared might happen in 2020.) Under your logic, I should just grab the Remington because all of these guns are "rifles," so there's zero difference between them?

So like I said: more truthful, you just don't like it. Now prove me wrong.

You're really good at projection, aren't you?

Anyway: Are you still going to tell me that it's "subjective" that my Glock 34 does not shoot as quickly or as controllably as my Steyr SPP? Even though I already described the mechanical characteristics of the SPP that make it different from the Glock? That is an example where I proved you wrong, and you disregarded the evidence that didn't fit your worldview.

Here are the facts that I posted in the other thread - tell me what's wrong with any of what I am saying below:

- The Steyr SPP and Glock 34 both meet the legal definitions of 9x19mm handguns in the U.S.
- The Steyr SPP is a semi-automatic-only version of a submachine gun (the Steyr TMP, later the B&T MP9), while the Glock 34 is a longer-slide version of the G17, developed as a semi-automatic service pistol (though it has a machine pistol variation, the G18).
- Since the SPP's design lineage is that of an SMG, its action is very different than that of the G34. Specifically, it is (like the TMP) a delayed blowback, closed-bolt firearm, in which all of the moving parts are encased in the receiver.
- The SPP also features a rotating barrel, which has the effect of keeping the action locked upon firing, and also delays the opening. This has the effect of reducing the recoil impulse on both the TMP and the SPP; on the TMP, it also limits the cyclic rate (800-900 RPM).
- By comparison, a Glock 18 - which is based on the Glock 17 (again, same action as my G34) - is mechanically a much simpler pistol, since it uses a slide, not a bolt and rotating barrel. As you note, it has a higher cyclic rate than a TMP because of its design.
- Also: It goes without saying that being a larger, heavier weapon, the TMP and SPP will be more controllable than any Glock. This is also (generally speaking) the reason that subguns and "assault pistols" like the Uzi, MAC, etc. are more controllable than Glocks in rapid-fire (though the SPP is lighter than them, due to use of composites - it uses its rotating barrel design to reduce felt recoil, versus weight alone).

I gave you a working definition it was ....
"'Assault weapon' now continues to simply be a nebulous political catch-all term antigun politicians use to make common guns sound scary in order to ban them."

That is how it is used now. To you, are glock 19s, beretta m9s, and cz-75s "assault weapons"?

No, those handguns do not contain the characteristics that have the antis up in arms (no pun intended). More to the point: None of them are semi-automatic variations of submachine guns or machine pistols. (Though they all have machine pistol variations - not the same thing.)

Anyway, your definition is a true statement. It also says nothing about mechanical characteristics of the weapons, which is what I focused on. So, it adds nothing to the substance of the discussion, and therefore represents another attempt to "define away the problem."

Which won't work. Using the constitutional argument hasn't worked for over a century. It didn't work with the NFA, or the GCA, or the GOA. Because the antis want to ban assault weapons for emotional reasons. (They are scary, they can be used to kill, the people that own them are deplorable) And not factual, practical, or ethical reasons.

When faced with an emotional argument, only an emotional rebuttal is heard.

Which is why facts and statistics don't work. It's like arguing with you, for the same reasons. You argue that the constitution should be used as proof that assault weapons shouldn't be banned, but that hasn't and never will work.

So, basically, you're once again admitting that because a substantial portion of the population does not believe in the premise of the 2nd Amendment, and doesn't care about it, you're saying that it's OK to be intellectually dishonest?

I'm not being emotional at all. On the contrary, I've been sharing my observations about weapons, about other experts' (our own community's) descriptions of weapons, and evidence that our community talks out of both sides of its mouth (as you are doing now).

FFS, hit the bricks in Annapolis and Richmond, and stop batting your gums about "definitions" that the opposition only uses for effect. Arguing with the Left goes nowhere; they don't care for logic and reason, and will waste your time while sticking to their guns.

Why are you here, picking nits?

If you really gave a damn, you'd take your case to the only people that matter, the state legislatures.

You might find it an eye-opening experience, unless your true goal is to waste everyone's time?

Would love to. Where do I begin? And will I be any better received in Annapolis than I have been here?

 

[BurkeM]

There is no difference between a Brown Bess flintlock musket w/bayonet and a fully automatic M-2 Browning.

Both were designed as defensive firearms. The rates of fire differ, the firing mechanisms differ, but the function is identical. The trigger releases a hammer (or stricker) which ignites a prier, which sets off a rapid combustion of gunpowder, which accelerates a projectile down a barrel, to begin a parabolic flight towards a distant target- all intended to STOP a threat.

Any firearm of any make, model or caliber can likewise be used to attack or assault a target (human, animal or object) with intent to destroy the target.

 

[MattFinals718]

There is no difference between a Brown Bess flintlock musket w/bayonet and a fully automatic M-2 Browning.

Both were designed as defensive firearms. The rates of fire differ, the firing mechanisms differ, but the function is identical. The trigger releases a hammer (or stricker) which ignites a prier, which sets off a rapid combustion of gunpowder, which accelerates a projectile down a barrel, to begin a parabolic flight towards a distant target- all intended to STOP a threat.

Any firearm of any make, model or caliber can likewise be used to attack or assault a target (human, animal or object) with intent to destroy the target.

If you seriously believe that, you are beyond delusional. You must also partake in magical thinking on a regular basis.

 

[BurkeM]

If you seriously believe that, you are beyond delusional. You must also partake in magical thinking on a regular basis.

Missing the point-

That's what the Bloomberg-Brady-Whine-stryker crowd believe. The rest of this discussion (Dead horse) is immaterial.

(Listen to the judges in the Oral Arguments in Bianchi)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/mp3/2024/03/20/dominic_bianchi_v._anthony_brown_cl.mp3

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

It's not my fault if your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda.

First of all,

Thanks for the psycho analysis on my IQ and how well you assessed the lack of ability for my brain to process your superior thoughts.

How about this? I was pressed for time and simply did not have it available when I asked for a simple synopsis of your point, so I could understand where you were coming from. I don't think I was ignorant or rude in asking in a fashion akin to the immortal words of Gary Coleman, " Whatchu talkin bout, Willis?" Asking for basically what you were going on and on about, a simple request to summarize the points you were aiming to convey, should not have warranted such a demeaning and snarky retort.

Unfortunately, sitting at a computer all day today to read 7, now 8+ pages was not in the cards for me. Having to meet an 11 AM scheduled meeting at a Nursing home in Catonsville Md to evaluate it for potential relocation of an elderly person, was. On top of that was having to go to a pharmacy in Elkridge, Md 20 minutes in the opposite direction, then come back home to change into dress clothes and drive another 40 minutes to make a 2 PM funeral in Carroll County Md. was the agenda, however.

If you would like to reword your statement about my mental intellect, I will continue to read and discuss your responses at my discretion. If you prefer to leave it at deeming me to being mentally deficient, then so be it. I guess I am too dumb to exist. I might as well park my butt in the nursing home and wait to die so people can come to my funeral too.

Maybe Poopy Pants and I can finish our ice cream, before it melts.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

HOLY SHIP, MATT/ How about the cliff notes version of your agenda in this and the past 6 pages of your posts.

I got to page 1 and now page 7.

In case anyone missed it. The above is my one and only message directed at Matt earlier today. To which he responded in essence calling me too simple minded and somehow derived and deduced the following based on my question earlier today.
"your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda."

Where in my QUOTE did I say anything about anyone's perspective and how it must align with mine or be ANTI? Did I miss something?

 

[MattFinals718]

Missing the point-

That's what the Bloomberg-Brady-Whine-stryker crowd believe. The rest of this discussion (Dead horse) is immaterial.

(Listen to the judges in the Oral Arguments in Bianchi)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/mp3/2024/03/20/dominic_bianchi_v._anthony_brown_cl.mp3

Clearly, I am. What you said sounds a lot more like what our side says.

I’m not watching 90 minutes of that shit for you to make your point. Summarize for me: Who said what?

In case anyone missed it. The above is my one and only message directed at Matt earlier today. To which he responded in essence calling me too simple minded and somehow derived and deduced the following based on my question earlier today.
"your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda."

Where in my QUOTE did I say anything about anyone's perspective and how it must align with mine or be ANTI? Did I miss something?

My apologies then. Surely, though, you have empathy for the fact that almost everyone who’s responded to me in this thread has been going after me? So yes, I cannot tell who’s friend or foe, and your post was vague.

Thank you for doing what you do to help out the elderly.

 

[dblas]

Why, yes, when I am looking for specific information to back up a certain point of discussion, or further investigate a point that somebody made, my instinct is to CTRL-F and search for the information that I'm looking for. In this case, I found no information which claims that the VPC invented the term, as you argued. What I did find was information which suggests that the VPC turned "assault weapon" into a political buzzword and a new gun control policy frontier, which is hardly the same thing as saying that they conjured up the term out of thin air (as you seem to be implying).

But I'm more than happy for you to quote the specific part of the article that you believe supports your point. I've done the same thing previously, so it shouldn't be too much to expect the same from you.



No, I'm not moving goal posts at all; you just keep resorting to distraction tactics. Somebody made a claim in the other thread (i.e., that the antis invented the term "assault weapon", and our side never did), so I posted that example to refute their claim. Simple.

BTW, I "hijacked" that thread because, in case you forgot, somebody posted an article which said essentially the same thing I've been saying.

Also, IMHO, "moving the goal posts" is what you are doing when you keep resorting to discussing legal definitions (which I don't care about) vs. definitions based on practical differences between firearms (which is what I'm talking about). This really wouldn't be a "definition" debate at all if you and your buddy Boats didn't keep making it into one.



OK, because you said so bluntly?



So in other words, you are saying that when you went downrange, you used your issue M16 or M4 (whichever it was) only in the same FC setting that you are limited to on your personal AR-15s?

And yes, I'm providing my opinion based on what I've read, and what I've watched, and people I've talked to (either online, or IRL). I'm not sure what else I can do. Maybe you think I should go enlist in USAR or the Guard now? Think they'll take me when I'm almost 40 years old?

BTW, being a biological male who doesn't advertise his pronouns on his social media profiles, I am biologically incapable of having children. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let feminists tell me that I have no right to an opinion on the abortion debate. I've also never had student loans, but I'm still not going to be dissuaded of my opinion on the Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness program.



Right, that may be relevant from a legal perspective. Yes, an M4A1 has a different fire control function than a civilian AR-15, by virtue of the difference in fire control group. But what we're talking about (or rather, what I am talking about) is the practical difference. I am especially thinking about the practical difference for someone with minimal training, vs. someone who is an experienced shooter.



Oh, that's rich. So basically, according to you, nobody can speak about the differences between firearms based on anything except their military experience?

The problem with that argument is that there are veterans in Congress who have also appealed to their military experience to make the argument that AR-15s should be banned. During the debates about VA's gun ban in the past few months, Dan Helmer kept telling everyone that we should trust him that ARs need to be banned because he's a veteran. For that matter, at the en banc hearing in the 4th, Judge Wilkinson tried to make the same argument based on his service in Vietnam (50+ years ago). I suppose that I'm supposed to listen to him when he says that, "The kick was so powerful that when a bullet struck a human being, it splintered them in all sorts of different pieces. There was very little left of the human being?"

I care about their military experience about as much as I care about yours: Zero. Doesn't that I'm not open to hearing what you have to say, but if you think you can tell me, "Shut up, I know better than you because I served," that ain't happening.



I know what I've read, and what I've discussed with others on this forum.



I don't want to let them do anything. I'm making my own observations.

Also, you're once again forgetting that the other side is complaining about certain types of handguns (like the Steyr SPP that I own, which is a semi-auto version of the TMP machine pistol), not just rifles.



Noted, I only know what I've seen on MSP's site.



What you're basically saying here is that you're afraid of the truth, so you want to suppress it.



You want to be the pot or the kettle? You've done that quite a bit in this discussion, especially since you keep trying to make this debate about legal definitions, vs. practical differences. You have also deflected my arguments about the differences between semi-automatic "assault weapons" vs. other types of semi-automatic firearms, to hyper-focus on what I've said about those same guns vs. their full-auto counterparts.

Anyway, I would surmise that, even if the Gun Digest cover is to be used for your argument, Boats is misusing it. He's making a spurious claim based on factually incorrect assertions about why the cover lists those types of firearms. He's claiming that it represents some sort of definition, when in fact, as I've told him, it does not.



Where did I ever say that? I would do the exact same thing in your position. I agree with you that there are too many people who think "assault weapons" (the ones that the antis want to ban right now) are full-auto weapons. My own wife thought that way until I took her shooting.

I just want us to stop pretending that all semi-automatic weapons are exactly the same thing. As I already told Boats: My Glock 34 and Steyr SPP are both 9mm pistols, and both can take magazines that hold over 30 rounds. But there are functional differences between them that make one of those guns (the SPP) far more controllable when it is fired rapidly compared to the other (the Glock).



Except that's not what I said. Yes, of course there are functional differences - which reside in the FCG. I care more about the practical differences (i.e., what can an inexperienced shooter do with one vs. the other), even though you keep trying to shift the debate to talk legal definitions.

I'll tell you what, when we no longer have to fight the anti's over the legal definition, then we can discuss the practical differences, until then, I and others will continue to argue the legal definition.
I do agree with you on your "constitutional argument" comment about military firearms being the most protected, but again, we have to fight the legal definition game. Until we can get the courts to agree to the actual legal rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, we will continue to fight that battle as well.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

I’m not watching 90 minutes of that shit for you to make your point. Summarize for me: Who said what?

Thank you for your apology and mine back to you if anything I said earlier today was cause for rancor.

By your message I quoted above, you understand ( "I'm not watching 90 minutes...) My first request earlier was basically from how all I saw were points, counterpoints plus long copy pasted quotes of others, then your replies, rinse repeat. As I said, the brevity of my trips did not afford me a chance to understand much. I saw a bit on page one, skipped ahead to page 7 and then flew the coop to complete my day. I actually did not digest or formulate any thoughts about points that you or any other members had formulated before I left. Then after I left my explanation and put my synopsis request into context, at least it could be better understood why I asked for the cliff notes.

If I get some rest, I may revisit this topic to absorb the statements made in the pages before I return. I have finally gotten home from my treks around Howard, Baltimore and Carroll Counties, and am so tired. I fell asleep once parked in our driveway and was paralyzed in my driver's seat for about 25 minutes before I could exit and walk back into the house.

 

[fishgutzy]

It is any scary looking black rifle with scary looking thingies sticking out of it.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[Boats]

Matt, I gotta tell you, I have seen the light. Your powers of argument are just too overwhelming.

You should go to Annapolis or DC and enact your plan immediately.

 

[BurkeM]

I’m not watching 90 minutes of that shit for you to make your point. Summarize for me: Who said what?

You're guilty of being lazy. It's audio- if you believe in the argument you're trying to make, LISTEN to the Oral arguments for Bianchi and the HQL lawsuit.

Know your opponent.

 

[aray]

Senator Kennedy again, trying to get Mayorkas to answer what is an assault weapon. Seems the SECDHS doesn’t know either.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Senator Kennedy again, trying to get Mayorkas to answer what is an assault weapon. Seems the SECDHS doesn’t know either.

When Mayorca, says essentially with all the proliferation of MASS casualties in America from " military style weapons" I would like to see the data on the numbers of lives taken by the use of these vs other means of killing. Then I would like to see just what is being done to curb the use of these other means.

If Mayorca can give me believable and verifiable by facts data on how well the common sense laws of the Left are lowering the crime rates and totals from thugs, cartels, drunks, road rages, domestic abusers, illegals etc. Then we can see how the "assault weapons" bans are anything more than pandering and feel good measures to ensure re-election every voting cycle.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

" What is going on with all the mass killings in the US?"

How about defund police, NO Border Security, Mental health crises, Entitlement and insurrection being taught in schools and the street cred taking precedence over a Nationwide solution to the decline of education and efforts to promote greatness and excellence in mind, body and spirit instead of DEI and Gender bending.

America and Congress needs a serious wake up call.
This election season is definitely going to be telling about the future of our land.

I sure would like to have the ability to fix what so many have been tearing down for far too long before it is too late.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

This Sen Kennedy, Mayorca hearing was 1 year ago, HAS Mayorkass, conferred with his experts and gotten back to Sen Kennedy as he said he would, yet? Does anyone know?

PS. Mayorkass, " we've seen enough tragedy, yet he apparently has 0 idea what ILLEGAL immigration is, otherwise he would have stopped the millions of illegals from entering and being illegals IN the USA.. AND Any chance that ILLEGAL immigrants will continue to do ILLEGAL things like drugs, shootings, robbery, rape, human trafficking? Oh yeah, give em cell phones and rights to health care, not deport em.