4 ms·

I think I did clearly say that; what's unclear? The federal assault ban covers fully automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. Here's a pretty good explanation of

I think I did clearly say that; what's unclear? The federal assault ban covers fully automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. Here's a pretty good explanation of the differences. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/02/difference-between-automatic-and-semi-automatic-we/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/02/difference-be...

detaro 6y ago
From what I understand, you claim there is a clear legal category of "assault weapon" you base the definition on. So where is that defined? Your link only talks about fully- vs semi-automatic, the NFA linked from there doesn't use the term, ... Whereas past laws that used the term clearly considered it not to be fully-automatic only. E.g. the law that's commonly known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (1994-2008) literally regulated "semiautomatic assault weapons", a category which doesn't make any sense if you insist that assault weapons always are fully-automatic. So what's changed that you now can insist that including semi-automatics doesn't make sense? I won't claim I know all relevant legislation, but it seems pretty obvious that not that long ago, it wasn't as clear-cut as you present it.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  You can read the exact definitions here, if you have the patience to wade through a military document. https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Other-Available-Records/FileId/64737/ https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-R... Certain military-grade rifles that are semi-auto but can also be made to fire fully auto are classified as assault weapons, officially and militarily speaking. Civilian anti-gun activists just call anything "assault" that even looks kind of military, like a black AR-15 that might only fire .22 bullets, one at a time. By the way a .22 bullet might not stop a man unless it's a heart hit; this is why police (and bad guys) tend to use .45 or other larger caliber weapons. A .22 is quieter, less kick, cheaper ammo, and is good for killing rabbits.
- stale2002 6y ago
  The "assault weapons ban" basically cosmetic features illegal. Which is silly. This is precisely the problem that people have with the term "assault weapon". If you are using the words "assault weapon" you are basically saying that you want to ban guns that look scary, because this is what the original assault weapons ban did.
  - detaro 6y ago
    You'll note that the comment blisterpeanuts objected to didn't include any cosmetic features (unless you consider "compact" to be cosmetic I guess), but somehow that wasn't ok either. And note that he didn't object to the term being used, but to the term being used incorrectly. But after a bit of googling I guess I found the missing context: "Assault weapons" being full-auto amounts to a US gun scene shibboleth to make it easy to dismiss anyone making the mistake of using the term without having to engage the substance, even if many people, including law makers, define the term differently. "People call all kinds of things assault weapons based on stupid criteria, what specifically do you mean" would have been a far stronger point than this "haha, semi-automatics are normal guns and not assault weapons" game.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > "haha, semi-automatics are normal guns and not assault weapons" Specifically, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with banning semi-auto weapons. It has to do with banning things like bayonets on weapons. Thats the point. The only definition of assault weapon, that has ever existed in the law, has been regarding banning mostly cosmetic features of a gun. > without having to engage the substance The substance of the assault weapons ban, is regarding mostly cosmetic features. It is instead other people, who are trying to ignore talking about the actual substance and specifics.

detaro 6y ago

From what I understand, you claim there is a clear legal category of "assault weapon" you base the definition on. So where is that defined? Your link only talks about fully- vs semi-automatic, the NFA linked from there doesn't use the term, ... Whereas past laws that used the term clearly considered it not to be fully-automatic only. E.g. the law that's commonly known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (1994-2008) literally regulated "semiautomatic assault weapons", a category which doesn't make any sense if you insist that assault weapons always are fully-automatic. So what's changed that you now can insist that including semi-automatics doesn't make sense? I won't claim I know all relevant legislation, but it seems pretty obvious that not that long ago, it wasn't as clear-cut as you present it.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
You can read the exact definitions here, if you have the patience to wade through a military document. https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Other-Available-Records/FileId/64737/ https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-R... Certain military-grade rifles that are semi-auto but can also be made to fire fully auto are classified as assault weapons, officially and militarily speaking. Civilian anti-gun activists just call anything "assault" that even looks kind of military, like a black AR-15 that might only fire .22 bullets, one at a time. By the way a .22 bullet might not stop a man unless it's a heart hit; this is why police (and bad guys) tend to use .45 or other larger caliber weapons. A .22 is quieter, less kick, cheaper ammo, and is good for killing rabbits.
stale2002 6y ago
The "assault weapons ban" basically cosmetic features illegal. Which is silly. This is precisely the problem that people have with the term "assault weapon". If you are using the words "assault weapon" you are basically saying that you want to ban guns that look scary, because this is what the original assault weapons ban did.
- detaro 6y ago
  You'll note that the comment blisterpeanuts objected to didn't include any cosmetic features (unless you consider "compact" to be cosmetic I guess), but somehow that wasn't ok either. And note that he didn't object to the term being used, but to the term being used incorrectly. But after a bit of googling I guess I found the missing context: "Assault weapons" being full-auto amounts to a US gun scene shibboleth to make it easy to dismiss anyone making the mistake of using the term without having to engage the substance, even if many people, including law makers, define the term differently. "People call all kinds of things assault weapons based on stupid criteria, what specifically do you mean" would have been a far stronger point than this "haha, semi-automatics are normal guns and not assault weapons" game.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > "haha, semi-automatics are normal guns and not assault weapons" Specifically, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with banning semi-auto weapons. It has to do with banning things like bayonets on weapons. Thats the point. The only definition of assault weapon, that has ever existed in the law, has been regarding banning mostly cosmetic features of a gun. > without having to engage the substance The substance of the assault weapons ban, is regarding mostly cosmetic features. It is instead other people, who are trying to ignore talking about the actual substance and specifics.