Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 3,428 | Thanked: 2,856 times | Joined on Jul 2008
#201
in a civilian context it could be as little as 10 (for example) semiautomatic (please don't run with that statement as if it was an absolute).
Therein lies the problem. Not even you can tell me what exactly an "assault weapon" is in your strictly civilian context. So demanding a ban on a word or class of firearm that nobody can actually define is meaningless and silly. Unless we take the definition of the closest term related, which you don't seem to want to do.

In my opinion, the weapon is either an assault rifle.. or it isn't. Because the Military DO use these weapons IN urban environments, IN cities, around buildings, in exactly the same type of areas that the "civilians" would be using it.

The civilians may not have a need for them, as often, or for any reason as specific.. but that doesn't change whether the firearm itself is an assault weapon.

With the exception of training.. and the position of the shooter.. a civilian using a gun in his house is no different than a military member using a gun in someone else's house. The gun itself is being used in exactly the same manner.. with the exception that typically the Military guy will be on the Offensive.. while the civilian guy will be on the defensive.
__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#202
Originally Posted by fatalsaint View Post
Therein lies the problem. Not even you can tell me what exactly an "assault weapon" is in your strictly civilian context. So demanding a ban on a word or class of firearm that nobody can actually define is meaningless and silly. Unless we take the definition of the closest term related, which you don't seem to want to do.
You have GOT to be kidding me.

I'm not the one to define that term for the country, fatalsaint. I am one voice among many and that is all I claim to be. In my opinion such a concept needs to be defined at a greater level, and that is something we could surely discuss but you are in grievous error if you're one of those who sincerely believes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Just because I chose not to propose a solution in a single instance does not mean I am unable.

Sheesh. Get real.

And your further reasoning is just nuts. You have opened yourself up to so many opportunities for counterfire with the military/civilian line-blurring that I have to believe you either don't see it or are back to provoking for the sake of provoking.

Here's a hint though: you are oh-so-willing to accept a definition in a military context but then claim it's not even possible to do so in a civilian context. Sorry, that's sophomoric.

But I think I've endured my personal quota of illogical "debate" responses, so I'll bow out once more until some semblance of rationality resumes. Guess the ion storm blew in again...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Last edited by Texrat; 2008-11-13 at 23:43.
 
Posts: 3,428 | Thanked: 2,856 times | Joined on Jul 2008
#203
Come on Tex. It's not like I was actually telling you to define the word for the country.

What I was pointing out was that your argument is that it could potentially hold a different definition.. without actually giving a definition.. and with no sources of a definition in these assumed contexts.. and there I have no definition with which to debate. It's a blanket statement like briand said.. "It could mean that."

Well sure.. anything is possible.. but so far the only two definitions I have seen definitively are: The Federal "Assault Weapons" Ban.. which bans cosmetics.

In which my question is still unanswered: Why.

The other definition is the established and long-time definition, and definition held in most countries, of an "Assault Rifle".. which means fully automatic.

Which I accept. So far I have seen no attempt to actually define the word to mean anything else with which to debate.. including you. Is your only stipulation that it carry only 10 rounds? (You didn't want me to take your statement literally.. so I didn't.. but I guess you did?) If it's the case of mag-cap (here, we'll generalize) - my argument is the same as the Suzanna Hupp's.. It takes very little time to drop 1 mag, insert another, and drop the bolt.

So.. The only way around that is to ban all magazine guns.. and here we go again with a loop hole to ban perfectly fine rifles for hunting, sporting, any other reason people do agree we can use them for - not to mention hand guns.

Now.. if you're to tell me you can foresee absolutely no instance with which a military member and a civilian citizen would use their rifle in similar contexts than I retort that it is not me that is naive here. I did not say that the military member only uses that firearm in the example given.. I strictly limited my example to a specific instance.

Our military does use, and choose to use, these rifles for going in and using inside a home. Therefore.. a citizen using the gun in his home is using it in a similar fashion.

That isn't to say that the only time that .mil uses his gun is for going into houses. There is Sniping, Crowd Control, "Assaults", etc. But to imply that no aspect of shooting a gun in the .mil is in any way to a civilian shooting a gun is naive.

And again you're off with the sarcasm of Ion storms.. attempting to make me feel like an idiot for either missing your point.. or actually reading what you wrote - but not what you intended me to comprehend. I have tried, up to this point, to not attack you - as a person - and as far as I can tell, have succeeded and have only addressed your actual points. This post does imply a potential hit of naivety, but that is merely because I am responding in kind to yours. I'd prefer to keep the debate to the text written.. not the person writing.. but that's just me.
__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
 
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#204
You're still misconstruing my points, and playing with straw man materials. And I'm not meaning to make you look or feel like an idiot when I get facetious (not necessarily sarcastic)-- just expressing my frustration with some of your tactics. I admit to having low tolerance for logical fallacy...sorry. My own weakness.

But when you arbitrarily redefine or extend what I've said, well, you ARE making it about me, not what I've written.

Here's another hint (a request actually): quit trying to predict what I will say next, what I'm really thinking, or what I may be implying. So far you're maybe 10% accurate on that (hope your shooting is better). Therein lies my frustration.

Originally Posted by fatalsaint View Post
as far as I can tell, have succeeded and have only addressed your actual points.
If that were true I would be using a much different tone in response.

I'm really not a bad guy.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (sound of ion storm, not sleep)
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Last edited by Texrat; 2008-11-14 at 00:24.
 
Benson's Avatar
Posts: 4,930 | Thanked: 2,272 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#205
The reason "assault rifle" should be taken as one term, and its meaning considered independently of the word "assault", is that it originated as a direct translation of the German military term "sturmgewehr", used to describe the same military concept, an automatic weapon using specialized ammunition intermediate between that used by pistols (and submachine guns) and that used by rifles (and light machine guns).

While the gewehr = rifle part is a perfectly clean translation, it's much less obvious (to me, who speaks no German) that sturm corresponds exactly to assault, in all prevalent meanings, so by trying to understand assault rifle as the term rifle modified by the adjective assault, you wind up projecting some meaning across languages, cultures, and over sixty years, and the result is unlikely to be valid.

For "assault weapon", I'm not aware of any demonstrable etymology, nor of any use of that term before the early 1990s, when gun control advocates pushed for, and got, a ban on semi-automatic guns with certain cosmetic characteristics. The only reasonable supposition that I can make is that it was intended as an extrapolation from "assault rifle" to include handguns and shotguns, and that somewhere along the way the gun control advocates either (charitably) became confused by terminology regarding devices they didn't understand (but still felt competent to regulate), or (less charitably) deceitfully confused others about either the intent of their proposed law, or the nature of the firearms it covered. In either case, whether honest confusion or malicious deceit, it seems a term better left to sunset with the '94 ban. I'm aware Obama supports reestablishing a similar ban, but at least until the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" is once again defined in the US Code, I can see no good reason to continue using it, and I honestly hope they come up with some better term.

FWIW, in the gun community, the labeling from 1994-2004* was simply "pre-ban" for those guns in "semi-automatic assault weapon" configuration when the ban took effect (and thus exempted from its provisions) and "post-ban" for those produced in modified form to comply with it, or for those few examples of pre-ban types that were actually in post-ban configurations when passed, and thus not exempted. Practically speaking, nobody who knew guns ever used the term "assault weapon" without the quotes, and everybody was some combination of angry and amused at the insane mislabeling, regardless of the actual ban. Since we won't call it that anyway, please pick a name without gross abuse of terminology this time, you guys! (Where "you guys" is meant in the abstract, not someone in this thread.)

*There was, after the ban expired, some humorous usage of post-post-ban, no-ban, ex-ban, and (for a post-ban, with, e.g. a collapsible/adjustable stock just added) ex-post-ban. Since the novelty wore off, we mostly just call them guns these days.
 
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#206
Originally Posted by Benson View Post
While the gewehr = rifle part is a perfectly clean translation, it's much less obvious (to me, who speaks no German) that sturm corresponds exactly to assault, in all prevalent meanings, so by trying to understand assault rifle as the term rifle modified by the adjective assault, you wind up projecting some meaning across languages, cultures, and over sixty years, and the result is unlikely to be valid.
The translation is not that hard with this one.
"Sturm" = "Storm", and they have basically the same meaning in German and English.
Here, obviously, not meaning the weather but the action of "storming in to attack", aka assaulting.
 
qole's Avatar
Moderator | Posts: 7,109 | Thanked: 8,820 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Vancouver, BC, Canada
#207
Yes, storm as in storm trooper. Storm = assault is a fair translation in this case.

I am so puzzled that those trying to regulate guns would use such fuzzy language. Didn't they try to specify how many rounds per second the gun could fire? Or how large the bullets could be? Stuff like that? If they didn't, then they were purposely trying to look like they were regulating, while not really doing any such thing.
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
 
Posts: 5,795 | Thanked: 3,151 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Agoura Hills Calif
#208
Well, they make the language vague because they are about to round up all guns, of course. This is the Bush agenda -- just before he leaves office, he grabs all the guns and gives them to Obama.

Or could it be that some legislation is better and more precise than other legislation?

By the way, can someone give me a link to the language that is being criticized for not being specific enough?
 
tso's Avatar
Posts: 4,783 | Thanked: 1,253 times | Joined on Aug 2007 @ norway
#209
 
Benson's Avatar
Posts: 4,930 | Thanked: 2,272 times | Joined on Oct 2007
#210
Originally Posted by qole View Post
Yes, storm as in storm trooper. Storm = assault is a fair translation in this case.
Well, if sturm does not also carry associations like "beating someone up", that assault does, it becomes problematic; I didn't doubt it's a fair translation (that it's cognate to "storm" was obvious), but if it's not a direct equivalent, decomposing it out as an English word adds invalid connotations.

I am so puzzled that those trying to regulate guns would use such fuzzy language.
It's not fuzzy at all, it's just almost entirely irrelevant to suitability for crime.
Didn't they try to specify how many rounds per second the gun could fire? Or how large the bullets could be? Stuff like that?
No, they didn't. Rate of fire could have gone through, except that these guns are all semi-auto, so the rate of fire is user-dependent. Caliber (i.e. bullet diameter) is straightforward; other parameters like muzzle velocity, or kinetic energy, are trickier because they depend on both the gun and ammo. But any ballistic parameters would make the ban insanely unlikely to pass, because the same characteristics that make a gun lethal on a human make it lethal on roughly man-sized game, such as white-tail deer, and people would never stand for a ban on all semi-automatic hunting rifles.
If they didn't, then they were purposely trying to look like they were regulating, while not really doing any such thing.
It does certainly look like some sort of bad-faith legislation. To satisfy hoplophobes that action was being taken is certainly one possible motive, though some supporters clearly misjudged their constituencies if it was their motive, as a lot seem to have lost their seats over it. The quote from Krauthammer I posted earlier in the thread suggests another:
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
As for the actual legislation, I'm unable to deeplink, but here's the whole 1994 crime bill. Title XI contains the assault weapons ban and the high-capacity magazine ban.

The relevant definition is reproduced below, with my comments in red.
The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
  1. any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
    Some of these have the same names as fully-automatic weapons, but these all refer to the semi-automatic versions produced for civilian purchase. The full-auto versions have been LE/Mil only since 1986...
    1. Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
    2. Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
    3. Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
    4. Colt AR-15;
    5. Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
    6. SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
    7. Steyr AUG;
    8. INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
    9. revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
  2. a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
    1. a folding or telescoping stock;
      This is the only which seems at all plausible (given use of rifles in drive-by shootings). It also happens to discriminate against women, as telescoping stocks are typically adjustable, and the recourse on new manufactured weapons was to permanently fix the stock in the fully-extended position...
    2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
    3. a bayonet mount;
    4. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
      Because civilians don't need night-adapted vision! (or maybe we just always pull the first shot true...) This also affected barrels threaded using the standard thread, even if the intent was for a muzzle brake or compensator.
    5. a grenade launcher;
      Note that live grenades are NFA-regulated destructive devices. Launchers on rifles can only readily be used with dummy grenades, which (from a crime perspective) is about the most expensive way imaginable to conk someone with a rock.
  3. a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
    1. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
    2. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
    3. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
    4. a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
      (Hate to be pistol-whipped with anything over 3 pounds!)
    5. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
      AFAIK this was never tested, but it's conceivable this one could count against a Glock 17, from which the Glock 18 machine-pistol was derived, and similarly for a couple of other pairs where a machine-pistol was derived from a semi-auto.
  4. a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
    1. a folding or telescoping stock;
    2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
    3. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
    4. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
The thing these regulations, taken as a whole, seem to fit is that they matched almost all military-looking guns on the market at that time. Of course, once the ban was effective, changes were made to some of those designs to make post-ban versions, which retained the military appearance. Only a few guns were almost totally blocked by the ban; the AR-15 pistol was, to me, most notable. You may recall I suggested earlier an AR-15 pistol as a good home-defense pick (to say nothing of a cool space-gun), but look at the posted picture and try to imagine its use in a criminal context. Why spend close to a k$ on a gun that you'll have to wear a trenchcoat to conceal?! But for 10 years, they were largely out of production, while all the guns criminals actually use (the handy, convenient ones, sub-50-ounce, magazine-through-the-grip, and all, just like the military and cops use) were completely unaffected.
 
Reply

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:13.