[B[Bryan,** I was in the Canadian Forces during the changeover from the FNC1 to the C7.
It’s a side note, but I think the C7 is a vastly superior weapon in every conceivable way; I never had one jam on the range OR in exercise, and we seemed to have fewer problems with them than we did with the C1’s. Keep 'em clean and they work for years. I wouldn’t have switched back to the C1 for a zillion dollars.
And yes, the “killing vs. maiming” round bit is mostly nonsense. If you are hit in the torso with a round from a C7, you’ll die.
My understanding was that a bunch of anti-gun types got a list of scary-looking guns and tried to figure out what physical features they have in common. Idiotic criteria like “bayonete lug” were added just to cover some of 'em.
No, I don’t have a cite for this, but I can back it up with evidence.
A Mini-14, for instance is a 30-shot semi-auto that is functionally identical to an AR-15 (same number of shots, same cartridges, etc) but it has a pretty wooden stock, no scary-lookin’ black plastic, etc. It’s completely exempt from the “assault weapon” rules. The only difference between the two is the “scary looking” features.
The famous M1-Carbine is completely exempt from the “assault weapons” law: it was the WWII rifle by the U.S.A. It’s a 30-shot semi-auto. It’s similar to the semi-auto version of the AK-47. But again, it has a pretty wooden stock without the scary-lookin’ black plastic. Of course, it has an evil bayonet lug, but that’s only one of the forbidden characteristics so it gets a pass…
Look, to put this in a non-gun context, imagine if a group of people thought that speeding was a problem, and decided to tackle it by banning/regulating cars that had spoilers, air foils, aerodynamic rear-view mirrors, those seatbelts that buckle in the driver’s crotch (as opposed to the side) and were colored red. Every characteristic they used to identify “assault weapons” is an appearance thing, NOT a functionality thing.
You guys listen to Alessan… he knows what he’s talking about.
The defining characteristic for an assault rifle is that it is self-loading and fires an intermediate cartridge. I don’t believe that automatic fire is a necessity, but I could be mistaken. Bernse’s FN 49 would be a rifle, but not an assault one based on the cartridge- it’s in the same category as the M1 Garand.
The lines between automatic rifle(e.g. BAR or SAW) and a “machine gun”(GPMG) blur. As far as I know, it’s more of a matter of doctrine and ammunition than anything else. Automatic rifles are used as integral squad/section level support and fire the same ammuntion as the riflemen’s rifles. GPMGs usually are higher-level unit support and fire the full-sized cartridge(M240).
Submachine guns are defined by automatic fire and pistol cartridges.
Carbines historically have been a shorter, lighter version of a nation’s rifle, but in the early 1900s, the carbine vanished for a while when rifles became smaller.
The M1 carbine is sort of an odd-duck because it doesn’t really fit any of the definitions.
My point, gentlemen, is that there were legitimate reasons why those particular features were chosen as the criteria for “assault weapons.” Asserting that they just wanted to get rid of “scary looking guns” is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish and wholly unworthy of a GQ response.
Congress was looking to regulate military-style semiautomatic weapons precisely because some of the features that made them so suitable for military use also made them wholly unsuitable for civilian use. So Congress examined the broad class of weapons it wanted to regulate and looked for the features that distinguished them from the broad class of weapons that they didn’t want to regulate (i.e., hunting rifles). Feel free to argue that the resulting criteria are stupid, but asserting that the legislative intent was to get rid of “scary looking guns” is exactly the sort of scare-mongering tactic of which you’re accusing the other side.
I’ve given you two real-world examples of guns that are exempt from the Brady Law. The only functional difference in the gun is cosmetic (it’s already illegal to own a grenade launcher: weapon of mass destruction) so please explain why a Mini-14 is fine but a AK-47 isn’t. The only real difference between the two is the way it looks. Bayonet lugs somehow make a gun unsuitable for civilian use? Please. How many drive-by bayonettings have there been?
Explain why M1 Carbines ais exempt from laws regulating “miltary stile semiautomatic weapos” when it was the (IIRC) MOST USED MILITARY RIFLE IN THE WORLD until fairly recently.
And drawing a distinction between hunting rifles and military rifles is a sign that you’re not familiar with guns. I go deer-hunting with a FN-49, the only modification being that I have to stick a wooden magazine-plug into the rifle so that the gun only holds the legal number of shots (um…3? I think… A military rifle makes a great hunting rifle. ) This phoney distinction of “military” guns vs “hunting” guns is as annoying as a creationist who keeps demanding that you show them a missing link.
And in any case, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so let’s just abandon that line of argument, ok?
Until someone shows me how a bayonet lug somehow alters the gun’s ablity to shoot, the rate it shoots or the accuracy of its shots, I’ll stand by my car analogy. The only thing those features have in common is that the public percieves them as "scary-lookin’ ".
So, SMGs **can’t ** have selective fire? Why does everyone call the H&K MP5 a SMG then? Seems like it’d fit in that “compact assault rifle” classification of yours.
I dunno, Fenris - while I agree with most of your post, I’d still say that there’s a difference between military and hunting rifles - the first were designed for military use, while the second were designed for hunting.
Certainly, you can use something for a purpose other for what it was designed. HMMVs are painted fire-engine red and used to pick up kids from soccer practice, while Delta Force troops wear bicycle helmets. That’s all true… but you mustn’t forget the original intent of the designers. The Barret .50" may make a kickass elephany gun, but that’s still not what the original contract was for.
I believe our Scots friend was mistaken - any pistol-calliber weapon capable of automatic fire (but not necessarily limited to it) is a sub-machine gun. Thus, the Uzi, MP5 and all their variants have always been SMGs.
Except for the Uzi Pistol - but that’s a different story.
Fenris, if this thread makes its way to GD, I will be happy to address your questions. My sole point was to rebut the factual assertion that Congress was motivated by a desire to eliminate “scary looking guns.” Such rhetoric has no place in any respectable GQ answer on a hot-button political issue.
Oh, and allow me to assure you that I am quite familiar and comfortable with the use of firearms, thank you very much.
I am not super familiar with Federal firearms law, but had a good look at what California was doing while I was out there.
Fenris’s critiques seem to fit what they were doing to a “T”. That may not have been there goal or mission, but looking at the regs, legality was largely determined by looks rather than performance. It would appear those laws were written by people “going after scarey looking guns”, or people who were to stupid, lazy, or ignorant to tell the difference.
Then I eagerly await your rebuttal as I have yet to hear one. Simply stating “You’re wrong.” isn’t a rebuttal. Or not a GQ worthy one. And I appreciate it if, in your rebuttal, if since you don’t subscribe to the “scary lookin’ guns” reason, you’d explain why the rifles I listed are acceptible, even though they do exactly the same thing as weapons covered by the Brady Law. The only difference is cosmetic. C’mon. This is a factual topic. I’ve made my case. I’ve given specific examples. Gimme a rebuttal if you disagree or conceed. Don’t play the “I’ll wait for GD” game.
Fact: Rifles that were covered by Brady all had a similar look
Fact: Rifles that had the same exact functionality as Brady-covered guns, but did NOT share that look were/are exempt.
Conclusion: Guns were banned based on looks, not functionality.
Rebuttal: ?
Pardon me, that came out unnecessarily snotty. What I should have said is that the GQ question of what is the (legal) distinction between a machine gun and an asault weapon has been fully and accurately answered. Whether you like it or not, the legal answer is that an “assault weapon” either appears on a specifically enumerated list, or it bears certain distinguishing characteristics. Everything else is a value judgment, and I prefer to keep value judgments where they belong.
True enough, Johnny. But I wasn’t the person who brought up the (federal) legal definition, and that’s as close as you’re going to get for an “assault rifle.”
(In point of fact, I assume Congress used the broader “assault weapon” because is establishes definitional critieria for semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns under that umbrella term. Again, see 18 U.S.C.