• 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!

Define assault weapon

Any weapon with automatic or selective fire that was issued by a government agency for the purpose of assaulting an enemy target should be considered an assault weapon.

Any semi automatic weapon purchased by a civilian should not.

I would be ok with banning high capacity magazines, those would be any magazine that increases the standard manufacturers magazine capacity by more than 5 rounds.
 
haymarket said:
Are there not experts in this matter who will write the definitions into the bill?

Isn't this just a pretty lame excuse for gun fanatics to pull the usual arguments about definitions and the inevitable "what about my favorite weapons that does the same thing" nonsense?
Click to expand...

Except those definitions are usually a list of specific weapons, and then criteria of possessing certain characteristics, none of which have any relationship to the functioning of a weapon.

The point is that "assault weapon" has no unique meaning.
 
MrWonka said:
1.) Any weapon that would allow a person of average skill level to fire a deadly payload at a rate of more than about 12 rounds per minute.
Click to expand...
That eliminates everything but muzzleloaders. It doesn't take particular skill to fire 1 shot every 5 seconds even with a single shot pistol or rifle.

That's the equivalent of two full six shooters. If you ever need to fire more than than in under a minute you're an incredibly ****ty hunter or you're probably not on the defensive.
Click to expand...
I am not particularly skilled with my revolver, but I can certainly fire more than 12 shots in a minute, even without a speedloader. You're making a qualitative judgement which cannot possibly be true for all ciRcumstances.

2.) Any weapon that is designed help a person of average skill level be accurate and lethal at a distance of more than 100 yards.
There's really no defensive reason why you would ever need to hit a target that's more than 100 yards away from you. If you're a hunter, you're not shooting at anything that far away either.
Click to expand...
So now you've eliminated even muzzleloader rifles

3.) Any weapon or modification that is designed to improve conceal-ability.
This obviously causes an issue with hand guns. I would like to see a requirement that all guns or at least hand guns be required to be painted blaze orange or bright pink at the time of manufacture. I would also like to do away with conceal and carry and replace it with an open carry requirement so that if you want to carry a gun legally in public it must be visible at all times.
Click to expand...
You already eliminated all handguns a with your 12 shots/minute rule.
 
Fledermaus said:
There are assault rifles.

Then there are "assault weapons" which is a artificial political catch all for 'ugly guns'.
Click to expand...

Which is your opinion. I used the verbiage of assault weapon intentionally, because I want this definition to be on their terms.
 
lurchadams said:
Weapons designed to kill multiple people in a short period of time such as weapons issued to the military. There is no reason for these type of weapons to be in the hands of private citizens.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Weapons currently issued to the military, or any weapon ever put to military use?

Its not simple, and as we go down the rabbit hole, I hope you start to see that.
 
MrWonka said:
1.) Any weapon that would allow a person of average skill level to fire a deadly payload at a rate of more than about 12 rounds per minute.
That's the equivalent of two full six shooters. If you ever need to fire more than than in under a minute you're an incredibly ****ty hunter or you're probably not on the defensive.

2.) Any weapon that is designed help a person of average skill level be accurate and lethal at a distance of more than 100 yards.
There's really no defensive reason why you would ever need to hit a target that's more than 100 yards away from you. If you're a hunter, you're not shooting at anything that far away either.

3.) Any weapon or modification that is designed to improve conceal-ability.
This obviously causes an issue with hand guns. I would like to see a requirement that all guns or at least hand guns be required to be painted blaze orange or bright pink at the time of manufacture. I would also like to do away with conceal and carry and replace it with an open carry requirement so that if you want to carry a gun legally in public it must be visible at all times.
Click to expand...

1. 12 rounds per minute is one shot every 5 seconds. That's slower than bolt action. So you would ban all bolt action?

2. So, all rifles? They're all designed to be easily accurate up to 100 yards, unless we go back to muskets.

3. How far? All guns can be disassembled, broken down into small parts...the ultimate concealment. How would you fix this?

Also, what about shotguns?
 
PirateMk1 said:
All of the above to include rifles, pistols, cannon, rotary cannon, belt fed, automated to include manual, semi automated, and automated firing modes, manual and automated target acquisition and tracking. Guided and automated munitions to include any missile (missile defined as any object deliberately object thrown or fired or launched by other means) fired from rifles, tubes, catapults, etcetera. Any other projected energy device designed for deliberate destructive use. Any device meant to be deliberately suicided into people or property, manually or automated.
Click to expand...

so you consider all guns to be assault weapons?
 
pinqy said:
That eliminates everything but muzzleloaders. It doesn't take particular skill to fire 1 shot every 5 seconds even with a single shot pistol or rifle.


I am not particularly skilled with my revolver, but I can certainly fire more than 12 shots in a minute, even without a speedloader. You're making a qualitative judgement which cannot possibly be true for all ciRcumstances.


So now you've eliminated even muzzleloader rifles


You already eliminated all handguns a with your 12 shots/minute rule.
Click to expand...
Smooth bore firearms only. None of that pesky rifling to increase accuracy allowed.
 
iguanaman said:
We can simply start with the weapons of choice for nearly all mass shooters of note in the last decade, the AR series of weapons. I also believe we should ban all rifles with removable magazines.
Click to expand...

so you want to ban just about every gun in existence, or when you say rifle, do you specifically mean long barreled gun with rifling?
 
haymarket said:
Are there not experts in this matter who will write the definitions into the bill?

Isn't this just a pretty lame excuse for gun fanatics to pull the usual arguments about definitions and the inevitable "what about my favorite weapons that does the same thing" nonsense?
Click to expand...

Thus far those experts have done an incridably poor job, which is why both sides keep talking past each other.
 
jonny5 said:
A thing which has a primary purpose of initiating harm. Assault weapon does not refer only to firearms.
Click to expand...

So you would define assault weapons as all purpose built weapons...fighting knives, guns, bows, swords, etc.
 
mrjurrs said:
A weapon designed to mimic military weaponry, with no specific recreational features.
Click to expand...
What type of firearms "mimic"military weaponry with automatic fire or burst fire? Does "military weaponry" have some recreational feature that is or was designed into them?
 
Felis Leo said:
Doubtlessly true that they would write those definitions in, haymarket. But my argument would not be "Well, what about this gun that does the same thing but is not as scary looking as an AR-15?" My argument is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect individual ownership of what we would now term military-grade small arms, for the purpose that citizens of the various states could form militias to protect their state and their country's freedom from foreign and domestic enemies. Nowhere in the Second Amendment is hunting, sport or personal home defense mentioned. With that in mind, a reasonable argument could be made for more strongly-regulating most concealable small-caliber handguns as many are not useful in the context of intensive military use. Though I am sure many of my fellow Second Amendment advocates would disagree with me.

In my view, the proper argument from those who wish to wish to ban assault rifles or "assault weapons" as they are termed now, is to propose a Constitutional Amendment striking or modifying the Second Amendment, making the Second Amendment apply only to firearms useful for hunting and home defense. I am against this, naturally, but it is the most sound argument and best way forward for advocates of strong gun control.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as they are done defining and explaining how one is useful for hunting, and the other not. How one is any more or less dangerous than another.
 
Chillfolks said:
Any weapon with automatic or selective fire that was issued by a government agency for the purpose of assaulting an enemy target should be considered an assault weapon.

Any semi automatic weapon purchased by a civilian should not.

I would be ok with banning high capacity magazines, those would be any magazine that increases the standard manufacturers magazine capacity by more than 5 rounds.
Click to expand...

the M1 was disigned and issued to assault enemy targets. So, just to be clear, the qualifier, here, is auto or select fire?
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
Except those definitions are usually a list of specific weapons, and then criteria of possessing certain characteristics, none of which have any relationship to the functioning of a weapon.

The point is that "assault weapon" has no unique meaning.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And until we get over this, there will be no reasonable debate. So, I put the ball in their court. Define it, lay it out for me.
 
KevinKohler said:
the M1 was disigned and issued to assault enemy targets. So, just to be clear, the qualifier, here, is auto or select fire?
Click to expand...

Yes. I wouldn't consider a cap and ball revolver an assault weapon evwn though they have been issued by the military at some point.
 
So far, the most popular definition for assault weapon is any gun, or any weapon.


We have some takers on being more specific, but we have details to hammer out.

Several posters have mentioned mimicking military weapons/features, while others have focused on weapons that make the average guy a more efficient killer.

I'd like to focus in on that.
 
And for the record, I kinda sorta don't really have much of a dog in this fight. I don't own any guns, and likely never will. Grew up around them, though. Used to be an avid hunter.

I could give 2 ****s about the AR15, in just looking to those that want to ban them to define why, exactly. What about them makes them more or less dangerous?
 
"I'm going to win the internets and the gun control debate at the same time by demanding that people define a thing to my satisfaction, but then insist that no proffered definition is sufficient."

Lazy thread.

:roll:




The problem with this thread, which is gleefully exploited by those arguing in favor of maximum gun rights over any other right, is that there isn't a dictionary definition. By using "assault weapon" (rather than, say, "assault rifle"), the thread sets up a straw man: A weapon, by definition, is designed to assault, so any attempt to define "assault weapon" is hamstrung at the outset. [It also seems built to allow easy back-references to the last federal ban, which indeed was stupid in some respects; ie, adding a ****ing grenade launcher did not earn the gun the "assault" title, but if you had a bayonet mount AND a grenade launcher, suddenly it was for assault]

Any definition would be contained in any legislation about it, but then none of that is ever going to be passed because just about every suggestion is shot down as a step towards Obama taking everyone's guns. (Juvenile insults aimed at those making suggestions are only icing).



Really, the straight question would be: what guns are within the core self-defense right and which are outside the core-self defense right (alternately, why was SCOTUS wrong to identify the core of the 2nd as being self-defense)? As to those outside that self-defense right, what are the costs/benefits of allowing those weapons to be sold, and where should the line be? Worrying about labels is useless.

But it's pointless because reasonable suggestions are always treated like an impermissible first step to gun confiscation. The built in assumption around here seems to be that the maximum possible gun ownership rights should be protected at all costs, which tends to make discussion pointless.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
"I'm going to win the internets and the gun control debate at the same time by demanding that people define a thing to my satisfaction, but then insist that no proffered definition is sufficient."

Lazy thread.

:roll:
Click to expand...
There is no objective, generally accepted answer. That's the point. If there's no wrong definition, then there is n right one.
 
lurchadams said:
Weapons designed to kill multiple people in a short period of time such as weapons issued to the military. There is no reason for these type of weapons to be in the hands of private citizens.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...

The Spencer carbine, Volcanic, Henry and Winchester...
 
=lurchadams;1070492624]Weapons designed to kill multiple people in a short period of time such as weapons issued to the military. There is no reason for these type of weapons to be in the hands of private citizens.
Click to expand...
Since there is probably 300,000-350,000 machine and sub-machine guns legally owned,where are the mass killings at? And don't even say Vegas since that was a cobbled up job with a bump stock(also the only time with a bump stock). Guess I missed the news about the lunatic(s)going on killing sprees with their machine guns.
It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Yes simple,since we don't have the same weapons.
 
MrWonka said:
1.) Any weapon that would allow a person of average skill level to fire a deadly payload at a rate of more than about 12 rounds per minute.
That's the equivalent of two full six shooters. If you ever need to fire more than than in under a minute you're an incredibly ****ty hunter or you're probably not on the defensive.

2.) Any weapon that is designed help a person of average skill level be accurate and lethal at a distance of more than 100 yards.
There's really no defensive reason why you would ever need to hit a target that's more than 100 yards away from you. If you're a hunter, you're not shooting at anything that far away either.

3.) Any weapon or modification that is designed to improve conceal-ability.
This obviously causes an issue with hand guns. I would like to see a requirement that all guns or at least hand guns be required to be painted blaze orange or bright pink at the time of manufacture. I would also like to do away with conceal and carry and replace it with an open carry requirement so that if you want to carry a gun legally in public it must be visible at all times.
Click to expand...

12 rounds per minute?

A bolt action can do that.

And many a hunter shoots longer than 100 yards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom