3 ms·

As a veteran of the US Marine Corps, I want to clarify this a bit for people. Yes, caliber does not make an Assault Rifle. No, it's not a, "made up term." Sh

by lbayes 5y ago

As a veteran of the US Marine Corps, I want to clarify this a bit for people. Yes, caliber does not make an Assault Rifle. No, it's not a, "made up term." Shotguns, hunting rifles and pistols are optimized for specific activities and generally become less effective as the circumstances diverge from that optimized range or shooting position. This makes them less ideal for killing humans everywhere we are found. Assault rifles are optimized for human to human combat. They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances. These tools are far more effective and efficient at killing human beings over an extended duration firefight in arbitrary circumstances. It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform that we're referring to when we say, "Assault Rifle." Please don't muddy the waters here simply because the US legal system isn't able to overcome NRA bullshit.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
The far left is using “assault rifle” as a scare tactic to get their foot in the door. They absolutely want to ban all guns from civilian hands. That's why I push back. I would be what most people call a liberal (socially and economically), but I also support the Second Amendment, so I know why the NRA pushes back on this non-legal definition. Plain old pistols, rifles, and shotguns kill FAR more people in a given year than assault rifles, so why isn't there push back on those? Because the anti-gun left wants a precedent to take guns and “assault rifle” demonization is one prong of that attack. So I will continue to "muddy" the waters. I guarantee you I have as much experience with guns as you as I have been around them and used them and studied them since I was a youth, so I guess there's that appeal to authority as well much like your own.
polartx 5y ago
There are hunting rifles, and there are sport rifles. >They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances. This is precisely where a blanket term like “assault rifle” becomes pretty impossible to specifically define, and consequently regulate. >large number effective rounds down range Based on this comment, you’re referring caliber? And capacity? And perhaps action? So what about a semi-auto 5.56 with a pencil barrel and a 5 round magazine? Still an “assault weapon?” >from a variety of positions at a variety of distances How would you interpret this into characteristics of a rifle? Does this mean it has to have a folding bipod? It has to be under a certain weight? *Any* rifle can be more or less effective at a variety of ranges. The cartridge and shooter have more influence over that criteria than the rifle. >It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform This is feels territory. Because none of these are concrete characteristics inherit to this claim. Define “effective”, or define “ineffective”. Tell me how the “shape” would designate or exclude one specific rifle over another…
hajile 5y ago
This isn't a compelling argument. Those "hunting rifles" are the designs that killed millions from 1910-1950 (probably more than any small arm before or after). In the US, there are something like 3-400 rifle shootings compared to 40-50,000 pistol shootings. When you look up mass shootings, you'll see pistols used all the time because 20-30 rounds in a tiny pistol are about as lethal as 20-30 rounds in a rifle at close range against unarmored targets while being TONS more maneuverable. Tavor x95 is 26.4" with a 15.5" barrel. The M1 carbine (already cut down from the M16) is 7.5" longer despite having a shorter 14.5" barrel and although the weight is technically the same, the Tavor seems 2-3x lighter because the weight is right next to the body rather than a foot away. Tavor x95 Carbine (22.5" long) is almost a foot shorter and 3/4 lb lighter than the M4 carbine. The M4 CQRB blinds the shooter in dark rooms and loses tons of stopping power with the 10" barrel, but is still a quarter-pound heavier and 3.5" longer. Those inches have a huge impact on time to target which is critical indoors. Despite this, countries like Canada which ban the "assault rifles" like the AR-15 still allow the Tavor. It's not about the style of rifle. I'd also put forward that if efficiency were the goal, 6.5 Grendel would be used instead of 5.56 as it has almost 2x the momentum, 20% more kinetic energy, and 4x lower ballistic coefficient while only increasing weight 10-15% (still half the weight of 7.62). The US has tried to move away from the AR-15 platform numerous times (and a ton of special forces who have the option already have). Each time, they run into the issue where the training costs (hundreds of hours for millions of people), rifle costs, and cost to replace billions of rounds of ammo are just too high despite the efficiency increases. AR isn't the best. It's just the most pragmatic at the moment.

by lbayes 5y ago

stjohnswarts 5y ago

The far left is using “assault rifle” as a scare tactic to get their foot in the door. They absolutely want to ban all guns from civilian hands. That's why I push back. I would be what most people call a liberal (socially and economically), but I also support the Second Amendment, so I know why the NRA pushes back on this non-legal definition. Plain old pistols, rifles, and shotguns kill FAR more people in a given year than assault rifles, so why isn't there push back on those? Because the anti-gun left wants a precedent to take guns and “assault rifle” demonization is one prong of that attack. So I will continue to "muddy" the waters. I guarantee you I have as much experience with guns as you as I have been around them and used them and studied them since I was a youth, so I guess there's that appeal to authority as well much like your own.

polartx 5y ago

There are hunting rifles, and there are sport rifles. >They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances. This is precisely where a blanket term like “assault rifle” becomes pretty impossible to specifically define, and consequently regulate. >large number effective rounds down range Based on this comment, you’re referring caliber? And capacity? And perhaps action? So what about a semi-auto 5.56 with a pencil barrel and a 5 round magazine? Still an “assault weapon?” >from a variety of positions at a variety of distances How would you interpret this into characteristics of a rifle? Does this mean it has to have a folding bipod? It has to be under a certain weight? *Any* rifle can be more or less effective at a variety of ranges. The cartridge and shooter have more influence over that criteria than the rifle. >It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform This is feels territory. Because none of these are concrete characteristics inherit to this claim. Define “effective”, or define “ineffective”. Tell me how the “shape” would designate or exclude one specific rifle over another…

hajile 5y ago

This isn't a compelling argument. Those "hunting rifles" are the designs that killed millions from 1910-1950 (probably more than any small arm before or after). In the US, there are something like 3-400 rifle shootings compared to 40-50,000 pistol shootings. When you look up mass shootings, you'll see pistols used all the time because 20-30 rounds in a tiny pistol are about as lethal as 20-30 rounds in a rifle at close range against unarmored targets while being TONS more maneuverable. Tavor x95 is 26.4" with a 15.5" barrel. The M1 carbine (already cut down from the M16) is 7.5" longer despite having a shorter 14.5" barrel and although the weight is technically the same, the Tavor seems 2-3x lighter because the weight is right next to the body rather than a foot away. Tavor x95 Carbine (22.5" long) is almost a foot shorter and 3/4 lb lighter than the M4 carbine. The M4 CQRB blinds the shooter in dark rooms and loses tons of stopping power with the 10" barrel, but is still a quarter-pound heavier and 3.5" longer. Those inches have a huge impact on time to target which is critical indoors. Despite this, countries like Canada which ban the "assault rifles" like the AR-15 still allow the Tavor. It's not about the style of rifle. I'd also put forward that if efficiency were the goal, 6.5 Grendel would be used instead of 5.56 as it has almost 2x the momentum, 20% more kinetic energy, and 4x lower ballistic coefficient while only increasing weight 10-15% (still half the weight of 7.62). The US has tried to move away from the AR-15 platform numerous times (and a ton of special forces who have the option already have). Each time, they run into the issue where the training costs (hundreds of hours for millions of people), rifle costs, and cost to replace billions of rounds of ammo are just too high despite the efficiency increases. AR isn't the best. It's just the most pragmatic at the moment.