You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 08:42:34 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Assault Weapons Discussion  (Read 412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Assault Weapons Discussion
« on: August 11, 2015, 06:22:45 PM »
A child topic of the What's in the News thread, springing from here

Why do you think those people were in Ferguson, with their weapons and ammunition clips on display?

Who are you asking?

  ..what does that have to do with the idea that its useful to have a term to refer to military imitation guns?

Because, if you look at the images I posted, you'll see that Assault Weapons and Not Assault Weapons can look rather similar. 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 06:23:55 PM by eBadger »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2015, 06:27:44 PM »
Because, if you look at the images I posted, you'll see that Assault Weapons and Not Assault Weapons can look rather similar.

  So come up with a better word, until then assault weapon is the best one the media has, so that's what they will use. It conveys a mindset pretty well, and plenty of words we use everyday fall apart when pressed to specifics. You mentioned sport cars. What exactly is a sport car?

  Also, this statement:

the salient detail about assault rifles is the ability to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull,

  Would appear to be false, since you can legally buy weapons which fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Oklahoma for example, merely requires you to register them with the police. Unless I misunderstood the wording of the law here.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 06:31:38 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2015, 06:56:56 PM »
So come up with a better word, until then assault weapon is the best one the media has, so that's what they will use. It conveys a mindset pretty well, and plenty of words we use everyday fall apart when pressed to specifics.

Again, it's trying to make a distinction where none really exists, and not providing the one you want it to, while simultaneously trying to work in lots of emotional baggage, but I'll leave that to a different interpretation of what is "best" to use. 

The mindset you mention is part of that emotional baggage.  Again, maybe useful, but I don't feel it's very accurate to equate the five of them with millions of others with the same guns who aren't trying to escalate the tension.  Nor do I feel a bunch of racist, irresponsible attention seeking pricks would be okay wandering around Ferguson with weapons if they looked like this:



...or even this, frankly. 

And none of the people I've seen at the gun range (who commonly used AR-15s) concern me like those twats, so I'm inclined to say their attitude - and their problem - springs from more than what they're carrying. 

You mentioned sport cars. What exactly is a sport car?

This would inevitably wander far astray into pointless digressions.  So I'll simply point out that assault weapons - by any of the common definitions - fire the same bullets, in the same way, in the same quantity, at the same rate as 'non military looking' rifles. 

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2015, 07:07:30 PM »
The mindset you mention is part of that emotional baggage.  Again, maybe useful, but I don't feel it's very accurate to equate the five of them with millions of others with the same guns who aren't trying to escalate the tension.

  If there were just five of them, we also had the open carry protest, people carrying rifles around in public, meeting in front of supermarkets, restaurants, drinking coffee at cafes. They too tended to favour the military look in their weapons.

And none of the people I've seen at the gun range (who commonly used AR-15s) concern me like those twats, so I'm inclined to say their attitude - and their problem - springs from more than what they're carrying.


  Oh there is certainly more to it than that, but you cannot deny that knock off military hardware isn't favoured by "these twats".

This would inevitably wander far astray into pointless digressions.

  So a sports car isn't a clearly defined concept? And yet you don't mind using it? So emotional baggage is the only real problem with "assault weapon"?

  Also I am wrong about automatic weapons being legal? I'm generally curious.

Offline Tairis

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2015, 07:26:26 PM »
Fully automatic weapons are federally legal but require the owner to pay a tax on each such weapon and it must be approved by the local sheriff or police chief. Said weapons also generally cost three to four thousand dollars apiece.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2015, 07:27:30 PM »
Fully automatic weapons are federally legal but require the owner to pay a tax on each such weapon and it must be approved by the local sheriff or police chief. Said weapons also generally cost three to four thousand dollars apiece.

  Okay, so there's more to assault rifles being illegal than just the fact that they are fully automatic.

Offline Cycle

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2015, 08:49:14 PM »

Who are you asking?


You, Sara Nilsson, anyone who wants to respond.


Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2015, 01:34:57 AM »
If there were just five of them, we also had the open carry protest, people carrying rifles around in public, meeting in front of supermarkets, restaurants, drinking coffee at cafes. They too tended to favour the military look in their weapons.

It's a stylistic choice with it's own baggage, sure.  Although, the AR15/M4/M16 series is, by far, the most common rifle in the US, and many others also use modern materials and ergonomics ("modern" is apparently the adjective you were looking for, btw).  Applying the notion that extremists like military style weapons to imply military style weapons indicate an extremist is a logical fallacy. 

Per the articles I read there were 5 oathkeepers in Ferguson.  Not sure which protests you're referring to, but most of them seem to be pretty peaceable and focused on gun rights rather than inciting race riots, although even the NRA calls them "downright weird." 

So emotional baggage is the only real problem with "assault weapon"?

Nope.  As I said, it's a vague, meaningless term that redirects a legitimate discussion about gun safety into a digression about cosmetics and erroneous psychological assumptions.  It panders to both sides of the debate with the deliberately false impression that such weapons are more dangerous (thereby implying non-assault weapons are less dangerous) when, in fact, assault weapons were used in less than 2% of shootings prior to the 1994 ban (which had little to no effect on gun violence). 

Basically, it's a way for the talking heads to create drama and the politicians to avoid doing anything useful, and that is my problem.  Whether for or against gun rights, I would rather the debate focus on something more important than styles of grips and where the clip should be positioned. 

A couple good quotes from that article:

“We spent a whole bunch of time and a whole bunch of political capital yelling and screaming about assault weapons,” Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu of New Orleans said. He called it a “zero sum political fight about a symbolic weapon.”
...
More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.


Also I am wrong about automatic weapons being legal? I'm generally curious.

I was in error; it's illegal to sell new ones to civilians, but automatic weapons are not inherently illegal.  They do fall under much stricter legislation and licensing is much more intensive.  To the point that, since 1934, there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons. An interesting article here about it

Why do you think those people were in Ferguson, with their weapons and ammunition clips on display?

I think they're a bunch of racist, irresponsible attention seeking twats willing to escalate a violent situation for the sake of their own egos.  Ferguson seems to be shit for that particular fly, though, on both sides of the issue. 
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 04:07:37 AM by eBadger »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2015, 04:28:17 AM »
It's a stylistic choice with it's own baggage, sure.  Although, the AR15/M4/M16 series is, by far, the most common rifle in the US, and many others also use modern materials and ergonomics ("modern" is apparently the adjective you were looking for, btw).  Applying the notion that extremists like military style weapons to imply military style weapons indicate an extremist is a logical fallacy.

  Cool, let me know if someone ever says that. In the mean time, I'll just be wondering why weapons with such cosmetic changes are so popular, to the point they can apparently be synonymous with "modern".

Not sure which protests you're referring to

  The ones inciting panicked dialings of 911 when then entered a store with a modern rifle strapped to their back, or congregated outside a supermarket, or sat in a cafe drinking coffee and yelling "Just enjoying my freedom" when his gear inevitable drew some stares. Also what do you mean by peaceful? Aren't the oath keepers peaceful, in that they haven't shot anyone yet?

A couple good quotes from that article:

“We spent a whole bunch of time and a whole bunch of political capital yelling and screaming about assault weapons,” Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu of New Orleans said. He called it a “zero sum political fight about a symbolic weapon.”
...
More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

  Skimmed the article. This stood out to me: "It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” that's not true, the term was used by the gun industry in marketing campaigns for about a decade before that. Not sure how accurate the rest of the article is, but that's a bad start.

I was in error; it's illegal to sell new ones to civilians, but automatic weapons are not inherently illegal.

  Interesting. I wonder if people bitched about the government coming to take their guns when that change was introduced, or is that just a modern thing.

  In any case, I think this is about as far as this goes. In this case I do actually understand what you mean about the term, perhaps it shouldn't be used in the political scene, but I do think an alternate one is important, because such a trend does strike me as culturally significant.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2015, 06:30:30 AM »
Why do you think those people were in Ferguson, with their weapons and ammunition clips on display?

The statement from the Oath Keepers claims that they are there to protect a journalist from the Infowars.com website although Infowars.com claims not to have invited them or requested their protection. (Source)

Offline Far eyes

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2015, 09:27:21 AM »
  Okay, so there's more to assault rifles being illegal than just the fact that they are fully automatic.

In general they also use a much larger caliber round with much more punch, i think most people would be shocked just how much more even the nato 5.56×45mm much less 7.62×51mm. In a lot of way its the definition of "You do not fucking need this" but carrying around such a weapons plays into Americans rape fantasy. I think deep down all these guys are waiting to re enact Red Dawn 84 or something equally unlikely. 

And at the same time they are the most dangerous kind of half trained moppets, and yes lets assume they spend a lot of time at a gun range it probably still means they are training in a bunch of bad habits and mistakes. Hell there os plenty of futage from cops in Ferguson handling assault weapons like total fucking idiots.   

Offline eBadgerTopic starter

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2015, 10:15:38 AM »
Cool, let me know if someone ever says that.
until then assault weapon is the best one the media has, so that's what they will use. It conveys a mindset pretty well

That certainly seemed to equate a style of firearm with a given mindset.  Or am I reading that wrong? 

In the mean time, I'll just be wondering why weapons with such cosmetic changes are so popular, to the point they can apparently be synonymous with "modern".

I assume the same reason furniture, appliances, tools and most other things are moving away from wood and toward more comfortable, lighter, durable ergonomic designs that are easier to manufacture. 

Also what do you mean by peaceful? Aren't the oath keepers peaceful, in that they haven't shot anyone yet?

Do you feel they are?  Again, you'd have to link me an article before I could discuss any specific instance, but most of the open carry protests I'm aware of aren't trying to intrude into or create a violent situation or "guard" anyone, they're just being sensationalist. 

Skimmed the article. This stood out to me: "It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” that's not true, the term was used by the gun industry in marketing campaigns for about a decade before that. Not sure how accurate the rest of the article is, but that's a bad start.

NY Times is usually fairly reliable IMHO.  Yes, the term was used prior, but a huge issue surrounding the '94 ban revolved around defining the category, which I think is what they were trying to get at. 

In this case I do actually understand what you mean about the term, perhaps it shouldn't be used in the political scene, but I do think an alternate one is important, because such a trend does strike me as culturally significant.

What trend, specifically?

Offline Cycle

Re: Assault Weapons Discussion
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2015, 06:57:59 PM »
I see the whole "don't use the term assault weapon" argument as something created and pushed by the NRA as a counter to gun control efforts.  Read this.  They want people to argue over what to call a weapon, instead of discussing whether it is appropriate to buy/sell/carry/use/possess said weapon.  It is a nice distraction tactic.

But no one has to buy into the NRA's game.  I certainly won't. The term assault weapon can, and will, still be used by me when I feel it is appropriate.