• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is an assault rifle?

What is an assault rifle?

  • Any semi-automatic rifle (fires one shot every time the trigger is pulled)

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • A semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the features in the Brady bill.(see OP post)

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • A rifle that will keep firing bullets as long as you hold down the trigger.

    Votes: 36 64.3%

  • A rifle that will fire 3 bullet every time you squeeze the trigger.

    Votes: 20 35.7%

  • I do not know.

    Votes: 11 19.6%
  • Total voters
    56
Goshin said:
The PROPER definition of an Assault Rifle, as used by the military who invented the term...

A short rifle, using an intermediate-power cartridge, which is capable of selective, burst or auto fire and has a detachable magazine.


This largely replaced the "Battle Rifle", which was previously a higher-power caliber rifle with a detachable magazine of slightly lesser capacity (ie M14).


No semi-auto rifle is actually an "Assault rifle" by the proper definition.

Almost all civilian versions of "assault rifles" are semi-auto, not full nor selective fire.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you for that information.
 
Lutherf said:
Speaking of that, did you hear that last week (or so) someone in CT went to turn her old rifle in at one of the buy back programs and found out it was a 1944 Sturmgewehr? Fortunately, the cop who was handling the program wasn't just a simple bureaucrat or a dirtball con artist and he told her what she had.
Click to expand...
WOW! what a find.
 
I don't need an assault rifle but I will buy two to protest the stupid attack on same.
One I will give as a fund raising auction item to support our local shelter for battered women.
 
The guns from Goldeneye on the N64 that give you a little bit of zoom but not too much.
 
Gaius46 said:
Lots of things are designed for one purpose but used for others. Why is the original intent relevant here?

As to the term itself. The military defined it so that is the correct definition.
Click to expand...

It isn't relevant to anything other than pointing out the person that said that guns were not designed to kill is wrong.
 
The real question should be what are Assault Weapons, as that is what is being used in most of the massacres in the US and Mexico.

Gun owners have said for years there is nothing except cosmetic differences between assault weapons and other guns legally available, until the country decides that they should maybe not sell the gun of choice by massacre lovers everywhere. The gun fanatics now say that taking away these particular guns (with only cosmetic differences they have maintained) is some kind of hardship.

Anyone else see the irony in their new position?
 
bullets kill people.



I read somewhere that the type of bullets that Adam used on the children were designed to inflict the most internal damage.

The children and teachers were shot multiple times.

The teacher that was in the next classroom describes what she heard as a rapid fire pop, pop, pop, pop.....that didn't last very long. Does anyone know how many 30 round clips he used? It was a quite few.


Semi-automatics seem to be the choice of mass murderers. We don't know what other guns his mother may have had, but apparently she was a gun collector or enthusiast so Adam must have had an array to chose from, but he chose a semi-automatic....probably because it would hold 30 round clips and take out the most people and inflict the most internal damage.

Banning the type of bullets meant to inflict massive internal damage would be a good place to start.

Any gun that was designed for military use really has no business outside of a war zone, imo.

Is it true, the military was the first to use "assault weapon" If so, then why is calling military style guns "assault weapons" such a problem for gun rightys?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
bullets kill people.



I read somewhere that the type of bullets that Adam used on the children were designed to inflict the most internal damage.

The children and teachers were shot multiple times.

The teacher that was in the next classroom describes what she heard as a rapid fire pop, pop, pop, pop.....that didn't last very long. Does anyone know how many 30 round clips he used? It was a quite few.


Semi-automatics seem to be the choice of mass murderers. We don't know what other guns his mother may have had, but apparently she was a gun collector or enthusiast so Adam must have had an array to chose from, but he chose a semi-automatic....probably because it would hold 30 round clips and take out the most people and inflict the most internal damage.

Banning the type of bullets meant to inflict massive internal damage would be a good place to start.

Any gun that was designed for military use really has no business outside of a war zone, imo.

Is it true, the military was the first to use "assault weapon" If so, then why is calling military style guns "assault weapons" such a problem for gun rightys?
Click to expand...



1. Bullets: hollow points are designed to do more damage yes... but also to not overpenetrate and endanger persons beyond the target, which is why cops use them.

2. Proper "assault weapons" are capable of autofire. Military-styled semiautomatics are not properly called "assault weapons".... they just LOOK like military rifles and have a few common characteristics... except where some purely civilian rifles have been misnamed "assault" because of a few similar characteristics. It is a MUCH abused term, that is why we roll our eyes over it.
 
Goshin said:
1. Bullets: hollow points are designed to do more damage yes... but also to not overpenetrate and endanger persons beyond the target, which is why cops use them.

2. Proper "assault weapons" are capable of autofire. Military-styled semiautomatics are not properly called "assault weapons".... they just LOOK like military rifles and have a few common characteristics... except where some purely civilian rifles have been misnamed "assault" because of a few similar characteristics. It is a MUCH abused term, that is why we roll our eyes over it.
Click to expand...

Would you call the type of weapon that Adam used an "assault weapon"? I haven't seen a picture of the gun that he used and even if I did I wouldn't call it "scary" because I"ve been conditioned to seeing those types of weapons on TV and in movies and from gun righty's themselves.

I don't consider using the correct verbage to be more important than the kind of damage a particular gun can do. Most us without gun knowledge get our information from the media. But when we talk to gun righty's about guns we get nothing but insults and ridicule for not using correct terms. It creates a barrier to communication, which I kinda think is intentional to divert the issue away from real concerns that people have with guns.
 
Catawba said:
The real question should be what are Assault Weapons, as that is what is being used in most of the massacres in the US and Mexico.

Gun owners have said for years there is nothing except cosmetic differences between assault weapons and other guns legally available, until the country decides that they should maybe not sell the gun of choice by massacre lovers everywhere. The gun fanatics now say that taking away these particular guns (with only cosmetic differences they have maintained) is some kind of hardship.

Anyone else see the irony in their new position?
Click to expand...

murders, mass or single, are rarely committed with "assault weapons"
such was the case when the 1st AWB was enacted.. such is still the case today.
 
Moot said:
Would you call the type of weapon that Adam used an "assault weapon"? I haven't seen a picture of the gun that he used and even if I did I wouldn't call it "scary" because I"ve been conditioned to seeing those types of weapons on TV and in movies and from gun righty's themselves.

I don't consider using the correct verbage to be more important than the kind of damage a particular gun can do. Most us without gun knowledge get our information from the media. But when we talk to gun righty's about guns we get nothing but insults and ridicule for not using correct terms. It creates a barrier to communication, which I kinda think is intentional to divert the issue away from real concerns that people have with guns.
Click to expand...

he used a sporting rifle... and had a pair of semi auto handguns as back up.

the primary reason folks are ridiculed for using improper terminology is because the conversation is usually about banning this or that.. restricting this or that.

in a normal conversation about guns, incorrect terminology will usually just be corrected and explained... but when the convo is about bans or restrictions... yeah... ridicule is sure to follow.


the media, in general, are friggin dolts when it comes to firearms... it is the exact wrong place to get information from.
 
Moot said:
Would you call the type of weapon that Adam used an "assault weapon"? I haven't seen a picture of the gun that he used and even if I did I wouldn't call it "scary" because I"ve been conditioned to seeing those types of weapons on TV and in movies and from gun righty's themselves.

I don't consider using the correct verbage to be more important than the kind of damage a particular gun can do. Most us without gun knowledge get our information from the media. But when we talk to gun righty's about guns we get nothing but insults and ridicule for not using correct terms. It creates a barrier to communication, which I kinda think is intentional to divert the issue away from real concerns that people have with guns.
Click to expand...

If you are going to scream for something to be banned then shouldn't you actually know what it is you are calling to be banned?
 
Moot said:
Would you call the type of weapon that Adam used an "assault weapon"? I haven't seen a picture of the gun that he used and even if I did I wouldn't call it "scary" because I"ve been conditioned to seeing those types of weapons on TV and in movies and from gun righty's themselves.

I don't consider using the correct verbage to be more important than the kind of damage a particular gun can do. Most us without gun knowledge get our information from the media. But when we talk to gun righty's about guns we get nothing but insults and ridicule for not using correct terms. It creates a barrier to communication, which I kinda think is intentional to divert the issue away from real concerns that people have with guns.
Click to expand...


We figure, if you're going to advocate banning something we possess and value, you could at least by gawd take the trouble to know whereof you speak. :)

And really, if you're going to try to ban or restrict things, then you really SHOULD know what you're banning... if for no other reason then so you actually ban what you're trying to ban and not something else. :doh

You ought to educate yourself of what weapons are ACTUALLY used in most crimes, as opposed to what people THINK are used... what weapons are capable of what... or how in the hell can you have ANY idea whether what you're trying to do will actually accomplish anything useful or not?!?!?


In a sense, it is like someone trying to run the economy who doesn't know there's a difference between Sun Trust Bank and the Federal Reserve. Scary... blind person at the wheel type thing.
 
Thrilla said:
he used a sporting rifle... and had a pair of semi auto handguns as back up.

the primary reason folks are ridiculed for using improper terminology is because the conversation is usually about banning this or that.. restricting this or that.

in a normal conversation about guns, incorrect terminology will usually just be corrected and explained... but when the convo is about bans or restrictions... yeah... ridicule is sure to follow.


the media, in general, are friggin dolts when it comes to firearms... it is the exact wrong place to get information from.
Click to expand...
I really don't care about guns per se. I grew up around guns because almost everybody I knew hunted and the only people that got killed or injured were hunters accidentally shooting each other. I remember the filled gun racks in the cab windows of pick up trucks like it was yesterday.

The only reason I really have to talk about guns today is because massive amounts of innocent people are getting killed and the only solution to stopping the senseless killing that I can think of is to ban them. All the talk about proper training is pointless when you consider the NRA's own research that something like 30% of all households with children leave their guns unlocked, loaded and out in the open. Adam's own mother seems to fit that description and I suspect that she was a true blue NRA member.

Owning a gun for self defense is a bogus arguement when one looks at the statistics...

"....The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

4 accidental, 7 homicides, 11 suicides to 1 actual self defense. Thats a lot of people getting killed and injured to justify one's persons right to self defense. "Rather than being used for defense, most weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."


So I'm open to suggestions from gun rightys as to how we can stop these senseless killings, but the only solution gun rightys ever seem to have, is more guns. IMO, that is the problem, not the solution.
 
jamesrage said:
If you are going to scream for something to be banned then shouldn't you actually know what it is you are calling to be banned?
Click to expand...
Was I screaming? Or is that just your way of dismissing everything I just said?
 
Thrilla said:
murders, mass or single, are rarely committed with "assault weapons"
such was the case when the 1st AWB was enacted.. such is still the case today.
Click to expand...

"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers." - By Police Chief Joseph M. Polisar

Police Chief Magazine - View Article
 
Moot said:
I really don't care about guns per se. I grew up around guns because almost everybody I knew hunted and the only people that got killed or injured were hunters accidentally shooting each other. I remember the filled gun racks in the cab windows of pick up trucks like it was yesterday.

The only reason I really have to talk about guns today is because massive amounts of innocent people are getting killed and the only solution to stopping the senseless killing that I can think of is to ban them. All the talk about proper training is pointless when you consider the NRA's own research that something like 30% of all households with children leave their guns unlocked, loaded and out in the open. Adam's own mother seems to fit that description and I suspect that she was a true blue NRA member.

Owning a gun for self defense is a bogus arguement when one looks at the statistics...

"....The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

4 accidental, 7 homicides, 11 suicides to 1 actual self defense. Thats a lot of people getting killed and injured to justify one's persons right to self defense. "Rather than being used for defense, most weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."


So I'm open to suggestions from gun rightys as to how we can stop these senseless killings, but the only solution gun rightys ever seem to have, is more guns. IMO, that is the problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...


You statistics are erroneous. Even the most conservative estimates say that over 80,000 crimes are stopped by privately owned guns; other studies say hundreds of thousands, or over a million, anually... compared to 30,000 firearm deaths, most of which are suicides.

Homicide is down, btw... so are gun accidents. WAY down from the 1970's. So this supposed epidemic of shooting violence you're claiming isn't supported by statistics.
 
Goshin said:
We figure, if you're going to advocate banning something we possess and value, you could at least by gawd take the trouble to know whereof you speak. :)

And really, if you're going to try to ban or restrict things, then you really SHOULD know what you're banning... if for no other reason then so you actually ban what you're trying to ban and not something else. :doh I don't need to know gun terminology. I"m asking you what guns should be banned or modified or whatever. If you can't answer the question then that tells me you are interested in stopping the killing.


You ought to educate yourself of what weapons are ACTUALLY used in most crimes, as opposed to what people THINK are used... what weapons are capable of what... or how in the hell can you have ANY idea whether what you're trying to do will actually accomplish anything useful or not?!?!?


In a sense, it is like someone trying to run the economy who doesn't know there's a difference between Sun Trust Bank and the Federal Reserve. Scary... blind person at the wheel type thing.
Click to expand...
Then why don't you tell me what weapons should be banned and we'll go from there? Because it just looks to me like you're more interested in protecting your toys, than you are in protecting innocent lives.
 
Moot said:
Was I screaming? Or is that just your way of dismissing everything I just said?
Click to expand...

Are you going around the forum saying you want "assault weapons banned" and "high capacity magazines" banned? Yes? No?
 
Moot said:
Then why don't you tell me what weapons should be banned and we'll go from there? Because it just looks to me like you're more interested in protecting your toys, than you are in protecting innocent lives.
Click to expand...

which ones should be banned from civilians?... any weapon that cannot, by design, be utilized by an individual as a defensive weapon on point targets.
 
Moot said:
Then why don't you tell me what weapons should be banned and we'll go from there? Because it just looks to me like you're more interested in protecting your toys, than you are in protecting innocent lives.
Click to expand...


I resent your accusation, madam. I am a father with a child in school.

I have made suggestions I think would ACTUALLY reduce mass murders and school shootings:

1. Fund mental hospitals and make it easier to involuntarily commit dangerously insane people... as part of a total reform of how we handle mental health issues.

2. More security at schools... particularly, more armed security officers. I don't care if they're cops, or if some of the principles/vice-p's or other staff take some training and do it, but the best way to stop an active shooter is for him to be shot down.

3. Recognize that "gun free zones" are viewed by crazy murders as "Unarmed victims available here!" :doh


As for what guns I would ban, I would ban nukes, bio and chemical weapons from private ownership, and restrict and heavily regulate artillery, heavy machine guns, squad support weapons, and mounted weapons.

I think the current Class III license requirements for full auto weapons is more than adequate to control same... proof being that full auto weapons are almost never used in crimes.

I'd add a "has been committed for mental illness" or "has been red-flagged as dangerous by two shrinks" to the NICS system.

Other than that I do not see any new gun control laws as being at all effective in stopping this sort of thing. It's really a sad joke that anyone thinks it would.

Like Alice's Restaurant, you can get anything you want on the street, illegally.
 
Moot said:
Owning a gun for self defense is a bogus arguement when one looks at the statistics...

"....The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).
Click to expand...

Surely this is only taking into account when a gun is actually fired, which is a very small percentage of self defense gun uses. Often, criminals want to take advantage of a helpless victim, and, when they discover that they are not helpless, they often retract.

I know this because those numbers don't add up to any study on the topic.

Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Click to expand...

Gee, people are more likely to be shot where a gun is. That's nice. How about general homicide/suicide statistics instead, since whether one is shot or stabbed or suffocated, the outcome is the same.
 
Catawba said:
"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers." - By Police Chief Joseph M. Polisar

Police Chief Magazine - View Article
Click to expand...

I took the time to actually read that lil "article"... and have lost IQ points as a result.

I find it silly that this police chief can sit here and advocate for an assault weapons ban.. buy citing events like columbine and stockton yards.... both of which occurred while the assault weapons ban was in effect.

obvisouly this moron believes that the AWB ban was a smashing success, despite the stats to the contrary.... and he too believes these assault weapons are more powerful than "regular" weapons.. which is simply not factual

banning of assault weapon and hi-cap mags... according to him...is instrumental in reducing the number of violent crimes.... which, unfortunately for him, did not occur at the time of him writing that article.

he doesn't want to be outgunned by criminals... yet he fails to understand that criminals had him outgunned even under the ban ( he's another idiot who assumes criminals break all sorts of laws, but magically abide by gun laws)



do you know who else assault weapons and hi caps mags are regularly chosen by?... regular old responsible gun owners
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom