What makes a firearm an assault rifle

Be nice, 2ndsojourn, when someone asks an honest question.

The point of a flash suppressor is to cool the gases that leave the muzzle when a shot is fired, so that there's less muzzle flash. The idea is that the shooter isn't blinded by the latter in low light conditions. The purpose of a barrel shroud is to protect the shooter from a hot barrel.

In practical terms, for regular civilian use these are basically cosmetic features. These, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc. have been used by legislators to define a category called "assault weapons" or "military-style rifles" -- the rifles themselves, of course, are just semi-automatic rifles of a different design from a typical wood-stocked hunting rifle.

You're right -- they're harmless. But they look scary to people who don't know anything about guns; such people, through ignorance, usually don't get that the rifles in question aren't select-fire. I remember talking about them with a friend who wasn't particularly anti-gun -- she wasn't bothered by my owning and shooting them -- but she kept saying things like, "Why would you use one for hunting???? It would destroy the meat!!" Couldn't get her mind around the idea that a rifle could look like that and still function like a common-or-garden semi.

As to why...? well, they just want to ban something. IIRC, the "assault weapons" thing was cooked up mostly by the Brady Campaign when they realized they were getting nowhere trying to ban handguns... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Vanya, my comment was no way intended as a jab at possum. Sorry you took it that way, I hope she doesn't.

It was just a roundabout way saying that a lot of us here don't agree with the arbitrary restrictions based on the cosmetic features.
 
Anybody remember bolt action sniper rifles? Those were to be banned. So a 338 Lapua - evil sniper gun with a scope?

Used by military and hunters. So what is it?

Who cares - we have the right to own it.
 
So then, does the AR-15 have the select fire switch? If it does, can it be made without it? If it doesn't... then the only thing, if I understand this right, that could be considered hazardous is the larger magazine capacity (and I understand that that is debatable, whether it makes a difference -- personally, I doubt it). So then... shouldn't the focus be on removing semi's that have a select fire switch, or changing their manufacture so that they don't have the switch? That makes sense to me. The rest of it does not.

Thank you, Vanya! :)

and no worries, 2nd. :o
 
Possum, AR15s are semi-automatic -- by definition, no semi-automatic has a select-fire switch: one pull of the trigger equals one shot fired. It's basically the civilian version of an M16, which does have a select-fire switch, so an it can fire in semi-automatic mode, in three-round bursts, or as a fully automatic rifle.

There's a decent discussion of the differences in this Wikipedia article.
 
Then if the gun does not have a select fire switch... and a part cannot be legally bought to make it automatic? Then... this whole assault weapon thing makes no sense. If it had a select fire, then yes, but not without. I guess it comes down to magazine size, and whether limiting the mag size makes a difference. But it takes two seconds to switch mags, so that doesn't make much sense, either, not if it's going to be effective.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think gun-free zones have got to go, they're just "don't shoot, we're unarmed!" zones. Much more mental health access, for sure, perhaps a National Kendra's Law. Tighter carry requirements (more extensive training) to go along with more carry permits. Officers and carry in schools. I don't know, this whole thing is so friggin' sad.
 
...this whole assault weapon thing makes no sense...
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. ;)

Assault weapon is a made-up category; it pretty much means "scarier-than-usual semi-automatic rifle."

Assault rifle is (or was :mad:) a valid term for the kind of smallish, relatively low-power, select-fire rifle we've been talking about. (They came into use during WWII)The two terms are getting more and more mixed up these days, which makes it even harder to have any rational conversation about guns.

Again, Wikipedia has a wealth of information on this stuff.
 
Last edited:
The magazine size mantra has two components:

1. It can be used to make the gun scary and thus push for banning guns totally. If someone did an atrocity with a lever action, there would be a push to limit those tubular mags.

It's just a way to ban guns.

2. The tactical argument that it is easier to shoot lots of people with a large mag. That's probably true as it cuts out the reload. Remember you are supposed to charge the guy at the reload. That has been done sometimes. The question being do you charge after 10 shots or 30? Shotgun Joe says that more reloads give the cops more time to get to you. Since response time is at it's best about 5 minutes - that's a lot of reloads before the cops arrive.

But rampages have been done with 10 round mags - Cho at VT, IIRC. The charge may not work.

What would work is shooting the guy after the first shots fired. But Shotgun Joe won't like that, nor would most antis.

So we offer a ban such that 10 get killed before the IPod Ninja attack as compared to 30 killed. I would prefer an efficacious response at first shots fired, assuming you are not killed immediately.
 
"So we offer a ban such that 10 get killed before the IPod Ninja attack as compared to 30 killed. I would prefer an efficacious response at first shots fired, assuming you are not killed immediately. "

Glenn, that assumes that the shooter really cares that there's a ban on 30 round magazines and he's not supposed to have one. As long as they're out there....
 
My understanding is as follows:

Any rifle with selective fire capability, I assume all here know what selective fire capability means, is an ""Assault Rifle"". Absent selective fire capability, it is simply a semi-automatic rifle, no matter how military like is appears. End of story, so far as I can see.

By the way, Winchester and Remington first offered semiautomatic rifles prior to World War 1, about 1908, which is more than 100 years ago.

I'm opposed to the theory and the practice of the fairytale commonly known as Gun Control, as well as the proponents thereof.

In conclusion, the following thought comes to mind, re the relationship between the citizenry and government. Any government that does not trust law abiding citizens with personal arms, no matter how "deadly" they might appear, likely does not deserve the trust of it's citizens.
 
I wish that people would understand that the meeting of violence with violence, the armed guards at school thing, isn't some version of MAD scaled down to handguns.

I find that argument about as intellectually weak as the cosmetic componets of any AWB legislation.
 
a TRUE " assault rifle " ..... is a FULL Auto made for use by the military.

Nothing you own, unless you have a Class 3 license & spent over $20K for it, is a true assault rifle.

what you own, is a semi-auto rifle, with a 'stock' that to them is evil looking and no different really than any other semi-automatic that has been made over the last 100 yrs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

good explanation by Leroy Pyle, San Jose, Calif Police officer.
 
Of course, a dedicated madman could find a 30 rounder. But that doesn't entire the mind of the banners - UNLESS - they pass a law that they must be turned in. The madman will certainly comply.

I suppose the argument is that the impulsive madman will just go buy 10 rounders and not go looking for a 30. Cho seems to have.

The charge on the reload mantra is just cover for wanting to ban all guns. If you wanted to talk reasonable tactics - it would be to have a gun. I assume Shotgun Joe would want to be number 11 in the room, so he could safely charge over the 10 bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top