5 ms·

> with a machine gun Ugh. I wish reporters would stop embellishing stories like that with words they don't understand. An AR-15 is not in any sense a "machine

> with a machine gun Ugh. I wish reporters would stop embellishing stories like that with words they don't understand. An AR-15 is not in any sense a "machine gun".

maxerickson 10y ago
It is in a US legal sense. (The National Firearms Act doesn't analyze the tactical utility of the weapon, just whether it fires multiple rounds per trigger pull or is easily converted to do so)
- bmelton 10y ago
  > It is in a US legal sense You'll need to cite that. It is not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of considered to be a "machine gun". "Readily converted" is a legal term that is defined by the BATFE, and AR-15s are saleable to the public expressly because they are NOT considered readily convertible to firing multiple rounds. If they were, they would be barred from regular sale per the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. As an AR-15 does not require a tax stamp, it is not legally considered a machine gun. Nor is it fully automatic, easily converted to fully automatic, nor capable of select fire.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-appendix-b/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-... That's the specific part I guess, not "the AR 15". Once it has been modified to full automatic fire the ease of conversion also isn't relevant.
    - bmelton 10y ago
      Right. In the same sense that a Subaru Legacy isn't considered a sports car, but with an engine / suspension change, it becomes one. Regardless, the AR15 is not in any way considered a machine gun until and unless it has been converted to be one.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Yes, sloppy delivery on my part. The weapon in the link had apparently been converted and thus fell under the NFA. I was pointing at the NFA definition and included the broader provision in my summary, I didn't mean to imply that the convertibility would have been an issue in the incident being discussed.
        bmelton 10y ago
        No worries, I just find it's important to be specific when dealing with firearms and legal terms, because the average person really doesn't understand these issues, and the political landscape is muddied by a bunch of folks who think they know things that are false.
user5994461 10y ago
Indeed, that's an assault rifle, predecessor to the M16. Only available as semi-automatic for civilian, if not modified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variant I don't know how you American call that, but I'd consider that as war equipment.
- grzm 10y ago
  I don't know how you American call that, but I'd consider that as war equipment. The rest of your comment is informative and adds to the discussion. Your parent is making a similar point, which you expand on. This last statement you add is can be read as inflammatory. Gun discussions are contentious enough as it is, particularly on the internet, and they all to often derail into all manner of increasingly flamewar topics which are tangential to the story. Can you clarify why you added this?
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Because there are different culture surrounding firearms, particular classifications and regulations. In most countries, this sort of equipment is definitely classified as war guns. You are prohibited from possessing one, let alone use it. In the USA, it's more opened, some stuff you can buy, some stuff you can't buy, not sure where this one is. I believe it's being discussed in another thread here. This has implications on the story. Knowing the kind of weapon and the local norms would give more context about the situation. Expect the police to react differently against a handgun and a military grade assault rifle (not the same type of individual on the other side either). Judging by the "hundreds of rounds", it might have been modified to automatic or it's an old model.
    - tomschlick 10y ago
      > Judging by the "hundreds of rounds", it might have been modified to automatic or it's an old model. Most likely not, you can empty 30 round mags in 15 seconds or so.
      - 10y ago
grzm 10y ago
Do you have a reference for knowing the firearm was an AR-15? The original CBS Sacramento article[0] (which the above Ars Technica story references), a neighbor was reported as "firing up to 100 machine gun rounds at a home across the street". From this alone, it's pretty ambiguous as to the firearm involved. Granted, often journalists all-to-often misreport "automatic" vs "semi-automatic" and "machine gun" and "assault rifle", so that may be what happened here as well. [0]: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/bystander-with-cellphone-shot-by-deputies-during-rancho-cordova-standoff/ http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/bystander-with-cel...
- Rebelgecko 10y ago
  I don't have any info to add about this particular case, but in CA the law he was charged with breaking (the articles I've found just say "assault with a machine gun" ) covers actual machine guns, 50bmg rifles, anything that California deems an assault weapon (which more or less means centerfire rifles with adjustable stocks or pistol grips, eg most AR-15s).

> with a machine gun Ugh. I wish reporters would stop embellishing stories like that with words they don't understand. An AR-15 is not in any sense a "machine gun".

maxerickson 10y ago

It is in a US legal sense. (The National Firearms Act doesn't analyze the tactical utility of the weapon, just whether it fires multiple rounds per trigger pull or is easily converted to do so)

bmelton 10y ago
> It is in a US legal sense You'll need to cite that. It is not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of considered to be a "machine gun". "Readily converted" is a legal term that is defined by the BATFE, and AR-15s are saleable to the public expressly because they are NOT considered readily convertible to firing multiple rounds. If they were, they would be barred from regular sale per the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. As an AR-15 does not require a tax stamp, it is not legally considered a machine gun. Nor is it fully automatic, easily converted to fully automatic, nor capable of select fire.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-appendix-b/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-... That's the specific part I guess, not "the AR 15". Once it has been modified to full automatic fire the ease of conversion also isn't relevant.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    Right. In the same sense that a Subaru Legacy isn't considered a sports car, but with an engine / suspension change, it becomes one. Regardless, the AR15 is not in any way considered a machine gun until and unless it has been converted to be one.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Yes, sloppy delivery on my part. The weapon in the link had apparently been converted and thus fell under the NFA. I was pointing at the NFA definition and included the broader provision in my summary, I didn't mean to imply that the convertibility would have been an issue in the incident being discussed.
      - bmelton 10y ago
        No worries, I just find it's important to be specific when dealing with firearms and legal terms, because the average person really doesn't understand these issues, and the political landscape is muddied by a bunch of folks who think they know things that are false.

user5994461 10y ago

Indeed, that's an assault rifle, predecessor to the M16. Only available as semi-automatic for civilian, if not modified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variant I don't know how you American call that, but I'd consider that as war equipment.

grzm 10y ago
I don't know how you American call that, but I'd consider that as war equipment. The rest of your comment is informative and adds to the discussion. Your parent is making a similar point, which you expand on. This last statement you add is can be read as inflammatory. Gun discussions are contentious enough as it is, particularly on the internet, and they all to often derail into all manner of increasingly flamewar topics which are tangential to the story. Can you clarify why you added this?
- user5994461 10y ago
  Because there are different culture surrounding firearms, particular classifications and regulations. In most countries, this sort of equipment is definitely classified as war guns. You are prohibited from possessing one, let alone use it. In the USA, it's more opened, some stuff you can buy, some stuff you can't buy, not sure where this one is. I believe it's being discussed in another thread here. This has implications on the story. Knowing the kind of weapon and the local norms would give more context about the situation. Expect the police to react differently against a handgun and a military grade assault rifle (not the same type of individual on the other side either). Judging by the "hundreds of rounds", it might have been modified to automatic or it's an old model.
  - tomschlick 10y ago
    > Judging by the "hundreds of rounds", it might have been modified to automatic or it's an old model. Most likely not, you can empty 30 round mags in 15 seconds or so.
    - 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Do you have a reference for knowing the firearm was an AR-15? The original CBS Sacramento article[0] (which the above Ars Technica story references), a neighbor was reported as "firing up to 100 machine gun rounds at a home across the street". From this alone, it's pretty ambiguous as to the firearm involved. Granted, often journalists all-to-often misreport "automatic" vs "semi-automatic" and "machine gun" and "assault rifle", so that may be what happened here as well. [0]: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/bystander-with-cellphone-shot-by-deputies-during-rancho-cordova-standoff/ http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/bystander-with-cel...

Rebelgecko 10y ago
I don't have any info to add about this particular case, but in CA the law he was charged with breaking (the articles I've found just say "assault with a machine gun" ) covers actual machine guns, 50bmg rifles, anything that California deems an assault weapon (which more or less means centerfire rifles with adjustable stocks or pistol grips, eg most AR-15s).