# Is a semi automatic rifle an assault rifle? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375 "2016-06-14T21:08:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/201 "2016-06-17T20:34:29Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > It’s been a long time, but I sure don’t remember the NRA Hunter Safety course being any longer than a day. In the military, I got a couple hours in the classroom and a half day on the range. There’s a few things that aren’t intuitive, but it’s all pretty easy. None of this was associated with concealed carry, just grab a gun off the wall and head out to shoot things. > > It’s not that difficult. I guess I have just seen too many guys at the range instinctively hold a gun with their finger inside the trigger guard or accidentally point the muzzle of the gun a direction that was not downrange. I’m sure they had all been told not to do either of those things but absent constant reinforcement, these seem to be natural habits that a lot of people need to break. I agree that guns are incredibly simple and easy to use. You can teach almost anyone to hit a mansized target from 100 yards using a rifle with iron sights in a weekend. That’s what makes them so useful. You can literally go to the range once a month and be a pretty good shot. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/202 "2016-06-17T22:26:14Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Would that not also be true of the guns that your family owned, too? I admit to naivety when it comes to detailed gun knowledge, but it seems like the guns you mention as belonging to your family would be considered hunting weapons, too (only one as what I’d call a “rifle”, but over here in the UK a shotgun of that sort wouldn’t necesssarily be uncommon for a farmer for much the same purposes). Sure. My point wasn’t about the effectiveness of various firearms or anything like that, but to just show that there was a time when having a gun in the house was a significant comfort to our family. In this case they were long guns, but if we had been walking down a street and been accosted by some thugs, it might have been a handgun that saved our bacon. > [@](#): > > When you say there’s no conceivable gun control legislation, do you mean that no possible law could be written, or that no possible law could be made into law, or that no possible law would get enough popular support, or that no possible law could actually be enforceable? I just meant that a total gun confiscation is not in the cards, so there was no scenario under which gun control would have prevented that guy from killing the police officers. This is one of the annoying bait-and-switch arguments the pro-gun control people always make. If there’s a shooting, they start talking about ‘common-sense’ gun control proposals, although typically not a single one of the proposals they offer would have done a damned thing. In the case of the Orlando shooter, he passed a background check, he bought his guns with all the proper permits, etc. There was no ‘gun show loophole’ involved, and there were no controls previously advocated for that would have stopped him. He wasn’t even on a terror watch list. So exactly what ‘common-sense’ gun control would have stopped him? Of course, a lot of us suspect that the gun control people will not stop if they win one battle. They won’t stop until they’ve managed to confiscate every gun, or until they’ve made ammunition insanely hard to get, or something. There will never be a time when we’ll hear about a gun-related murder and the gun control people will say, “Oh, that’s too bad, but we’ve got all the gun control we need now.” > [@](#): > > Or all or some or some other meanings? But the same standard, though, there would seem to be endless ways in which people could find themselves in a situation where a gun is a significant aid to their threatening or dangerous behaviour, too. A woman under threat _but who could have a gun_ can change the situation, but so too could a stalker or an abusive ex _who could have a gun_. Those particular threats also seem like examples of people who would not necessarily have access to law-evading gun ownership in particular, assuming a situation with strong gun control. The point is that a woman without a gun is at a massive disadvantage against a male stalker without a gun. A woman with a gun has the same power as a stalker with a gun. Guns are the great leveler of force. They proportionately benefit the small and the weak. They give power to the powerless. If you’re already in power you either want a monopoly on guns for yourself, or you don’t want anyone to have a gun. Big strong men have much less need to have a gun for defence than do small men or women. Look at the stats on violent crime in the UK vs the U.S. In the UK, criminals are less likely to run into a citizen with a gun, and the rates of home invasions, street assaults and other violent crimes are significantly higher. And I’ve heard, but can’t cite this right now, that home invasions in the U.S. tend to happen when no one is home, but in Britain they are more likely to happen while the people are home because there is no risk of being shot by them, and you can get them to tell you where the valuables are. In any event, the point remains that when everyone has a gun, physical differences matter much less when it comes to assault, intimidation, rape, and robbery. You’d think liberals would like that aspect of it. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/203 "2016-06-17T23:54:36Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > Okay, probably mostly to just get this out of my system, let me post some definitions of various types of firearms. These are the ones I use/think of, ymmv. > > 1. Pistol - Hand fired, effective range 40 yards, small rounds (generally). > 2. Carbine - Shoulder fired small rifle that fires pistol ammunition. Effective range to maybe 150 yards. > 3. Submachine Gun - Carbine capable of selective fire. > 4. Assault Rifle - Selective fire, intermediate cartridge, effective range maybe 400 yards. > 5. Main Battle Rifle - Semi auto or bolt action, full sized cartridge, effective range up to 1000 yards. > 6. Squad Automatic Weapon - MBR capable of Full Auto. > > Frankly, I don’t think of the US’s current M-4 as a carbine or a submachine gun. I think it’s just a shorty assault rifle. I’d suggest your definition of “carbine” is incorrect. A carbine is a rifle shorter than a standard-issue military rifle; two of the most famous examples are probably the [Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Carbine) (shorter than the Lee-Enfield No 4 rifle or the SMLE but firing the same full-size cartridge) and the [M4 Carbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) (shorter than the M-16 but chambered for the same round). The Model 44 carbine is a short version of the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 chambered for the same cartridge as the long rifle; you get the idea. A submachine gun is a select-fire or full auto weapon chambered for handgun cartridges. Another point I’d like to address: Guns are not banned in Australia. By American standards they’re heavily restricted but it is absolutely possible for the average person (assuming no serious crimnal record or mental illnesses) to get a licence to own double-barrelled shotguns or non-semi-automatic rifles. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/204 "2016-06-18T00:46:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And I’ve heard, but can’t cite this right now, that home invasions in the U.S. tend to happen when no one is home, but in Britain they are more likely to happen while the people are home because there is no risk of being shot by them, and you can get them to tell you where the valuables are. Wouldn’t be a burglary then? > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’d suggest your definition of “carbine” is incorrect. A carbine is a rifle shorter than a standard-issue military rifle; two of the most famous examples are probably the > [Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_Carbine) (shorter than the Lee-Enfield No 4 rifle or the SMLE but firing the same full-size cartridge) and the [M4 Carbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) (shorter than the M-16 but chambered for the same round). The Model 44 carbine is a short version of the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 chambered for the same cartridge as the long rifle; you get the idea. > > A submachine gun is a select-fire or full auto weapon chambered for handgun cartridges. > > Another point I’d like to address: Guns are not banned in Australia. By American standards they’re heavily restricted but it is absolutely possible for the average person (assuming no serious crimnal record or mental illnesses) to get a licence to own double-barrelled shotguns or non-semi-automatic rifles. Yes, a carbine is a shortened version of a rifle. **Ranger Jeff** ’s definition _does_ apply to something called “pistol-caliber carbines,” a more modern invention popularized by Beretta, Hi-Point, et al. They’ve become popular due to price of ammo, recoil, and fun. Pump shotguns are okay, I take it? In the US double barrel are less popular it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/205 "2016-06-18T04:28:46Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Pump shotguns are okay, I take it? In the US double barrel are less popular it seems. No, pump and semi-auto shotguns are restricted and very difficult to get a licence for unless you’re a farmer or a collector, and collectors aren’t allowed to fire theirs. Bizzarely, pump-action _rifles_ are fine for regular shooters, as (currently) are lever-action shotguns. However, the anti-gun lobby here has just discovered there are “modern”-looking lever action shotguns and are pushing extremely hard to have all lever-action shotguns categorised the same way as pump-action shotguns (ie not available to the average shooter), because they look scary and have more than two rounds in the magazine. Semi-auto .22 rifles are only available to farmers and functioning semi-auto centrefire rifles are effectively banned; it’s technically possible to get a licence for one (as in, literally one gun) but you need to be a farmer with a huge property and an extremely serious feral pest problem, or a professional pest controller; as a matter of policy the government really don’t like issuing semi-auto centrefire licences so they’re breathtakingly rare. ---
**Author:** ![obbn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/d6d6ee/32.png) [@obbn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obbn)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/206 "2016-06-18T05:03:38Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The odds are irrelevant. I am concerned with me and mine, and nothing else. The ability to help some random person never enters into my mindset. If I can help, great. If not, that’s too bad. In that respect I am no different than any other unarmed person. > > The point is this: a gun is an absolute last resort I’m going to die option. Which is as it should be. The responsibility, liability, and assumption of risk is too great for it to be otherwise. > > Or do you seriously think that gun owners dream of whatever silly motivation you assign to them? That’s not a dream, that’s a nightmare. I NEVER, EVER want to have to use my gun for any reason other than to put holes in paper. That is, contrary to popular opinion, true of virtually all law-abiding gun owners. None of us want to carry the guilt of having killed someone, or face potential jail time, or face ludicrously expensive lawsuits. That’s your reality. Amen Brother. I’m a concealed carry licensed person and I pray that I’ll never need to use my weapon for any reason. But I’m also aware that the world has evil people in it. Now just because I don’t want to use my weapon doesn’t mean I won’t if needed. If anyone thinks that the vast majority of gun owners are just waiting for the day they can play hero, they’re sadly mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/207 "2016-06-18T14:40:55Z")
Huh … I think shooting guns is fun … sure, self-defense and overthrowing tyranny is fine … but clear cutting a forest with twin-mounted 50 caliber machine guns is a hoot ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/208 "2016-06-19T02:57:25Z")
A very articulate defense of the AR-15: [Why I “Need” an AR-15](https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c#.xalicnfr1) ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/209 "2016-06-19T03:14:14Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > No, pump and semi-auto shotguns are restricted and very difficult to get a licence for unless you’re a farmer or a collector, and collectors aren’t allowed to fire theirs. That’s weird, but then US has some weird self-contradictory laws. Don’t they know that double barrel shotguns are capable of shooting over 200 rounds per minute on average (if your minute is based on less than a second :)) It looks like firearms are more expensive over there, but in the US a decent pump shotgun is $200-250, whereas the cheapest double barrels are $500. Are they still more expensive than you’d expect there, too? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/210 "2016-06-19T03:29:26Z")
An M16 is an assault rifle. (I think US Army doctrine is to use it as a “battle rifle,” but it’s built like an “assault rifle.” And the distinction is functionally unimportant, as it is in fact used as both and as a sniper rifle.) An AR-15 without selective fire is still basically an M16. It’s not like the other two shots in the burst usually really hit much without enfilade. I guess you can call it a sniper rifle if you want to be sort of technically correct but still make it sound menacing. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/211 "2016-06-19T03:36:38Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > An _assault rifle_ is is an intermediate caliber autoloading rifle with selective fire capability. An _assault weapon_ is basically whatever some politician or media head wants to describe as this week’s Most Evil Weapon regardless of functionality. > > Stranger Well, sort of. But an AR-15 really is an assault rifle with one or two pieces changed out. A hypothetical skilled machinist could turn it into an M16. In this case it is worth noting that it is basically the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/212 "2016-06-19T07:13:02Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > That’s weird, but then US has some weird self-contradictory laws. Don’t they know that double barrel shotguns are capable of shooting over 200 rounds per minute on average (if your minute is based on less than a second :)) > > It looks like firearms are more expensive over there, but in the US a decent pump shotgun is $200-250, whereas the cheapest double barrels are $500. Are they still more expensive than you’d expect there, too? Australia’s gun laws are pretty much a textbook example of why you shouldn’t let people who don’t know anything about guns (or are scared of them) write firearms laws. Guns are quite expensive here generally and ammunition is ludicrously expensive (well over $1/rnd for most centrefire rifle cartridges) - mostly because it nearly all has to come from overseas, and also because of what’s colloquially known as [The Australia Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Tax) (the propensity of things here to cost far more than they do overseas, even taking into account exchange rate differences and shipping costs, Because Of Reasons which no-one has ever adequately been able to explain.) ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/213 "2016-06-19T12:47:47Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > This is the kind of logic often touted by the gun lobby, but the simple fact is, gun bans in general and assault weapon / assault rifle / SMG bans in particular, _actually work_. We see examples of that all around the world, both in countries that have effectively always banned guns, and in countries that have recently tightened their laws, such as Australia and the UK. > One only needs to compare homicide, gun deaths and mass killing deaths to other countries to get a very clear idea of this (and yes, as a proportion of population, obviously) > > Now, you may object to bans on civil liberties grounds. Fine. > But I think it’s totally erroneous to claim that attempts to restrict the sale of guns or assault weapons are counterproductive and just political showboating. Please, PLEASE tell me you’re not quoting Australia as proof positive that gun control works? If you are, you clearly have no idea about what was ACTUALLY legislated after the Port Arthur massacre. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/214 "2016-06-19T13:31:58Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > \ > > Semi-auto .22 rifles are only available to farmers and functioning semi-auto centrefire rifles are effectively banned; it’s technically possible to get a licence for one (as in, literally one gun) but you need to be a farmer with a huge property and an extremely serious feral pest problem, or a professional pest controller; as a matter of policy the government really don’t like issuing semi-auto centrefire licences so they’re breathtakingly rare. Kudos to you Martin for being an Australian who calls it “as it is, as averse to calling it how the myth says it is.” There are two very distinct conversations we can have when we’re talking gun control, and there are two completely separate metrics which we can use to measure the success of that gun control. One metric is the percentage of homicides caused by firearm (the metric which I believe is valid) and the other metric is the number of mass murders by lone wolf shootings, and as much we’d liek to believe they’re related, they’re not. They follow their own trend lines. People have agendas and we quote all these stats which suit our agendas… and at the moment I’m hearing some doozies. Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to Port Arthur and none since. Australia had 11 mass shootings in the decade before Port Arthur and they’ve had none since. Whatever, lies can figure and figures can lie. Here’s an example of how we fudge figures to suit our agenda. If we use the FBI definition of a mass shooting, that is, 4 people shot by one person (regardless of whether they’re injured or killed) it turns out we’ve had 7 since Port Arthur. If we apply the metric that 5 people have to be killed by one shooter (including the shooter), it turns out we’ve had one, in 2014. If we apply the metric that 5 people have to be killed (excluding the shooter) then finally we have a metric which fits the current myth where Australians are bragging to the world what smartypants we are. Australians love to use that last metric because it suits us. But I say to people, look, we HAVE had a mass shooting since Port Arthur, a dude killed his family with a handgun in 2014 including himself, 5 people died. Well that’s different they say, it wasn’t a public shooting spree killing random strangers. Oh, is THAT the metric you wanna use then? Must be 5 or more deaths, excluding the shooter, in a public setting shooting up total randoms. Yes, they’ll say! To which I respond, have you any idea how few of THEM we’ve had in the history of Australia? Your list is whittled down to I think 4 incidents in the history of the country. My point is this, when you finally pin people down as to the exact metric they wish to use to prove their claim is true since Port Arthur, that same metric doesn’t exactly prove their case prior to Port Arthur. it turns out we didn’t have 13 public shooting sprees or 11 or even 7. In the history of the nation all we had was 4 genuine lone wolf shooting sprees where a nutcase started shooting random people in a public setting. It was so rare, so infrequent it’s impossible to claim anything with certitude. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/215 "2016-06-19T14:14:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Sure. My point wasn’t about the effectiveness of various firearms or anything like that, but to just show that there was a time when having a gun in the house was a significant comfort to our family. In this case they were long guns, but if we had been walking down a street and been accosted by some thugs, it might have been a handgun that saved our bacon. But you felt threatened because of someone else who had a gun in his home. Remove that - if only in theory - and in that instance you wouldn’t have needed to feel safer. That said, it seems like in that case this is a story in which it doesn’t actually seem to matter what the status of realistic gun control legislation was. Whatever the state of the law, the killer and your family would each have been armed. > [@](#): > > I just meant that a total gun confiscation is not in the cards, so there was no scenario under which gun control would have prevented that guy from killing the police officers. I understand that that’s what you’re saying, but I was curious as to the why. What makes it not on the cards, out of the suggestions I gave, or of others I as someone not intimately connected with Canadian (or US) gun ownership legislation wouldn’t be aware of? > [@](#): > > This is one of the annoying bait-and-switch arguments the pro-gun control people always make. If there’s a shooting, they start talking about ‘common-sense’ gun control proposals, although typically not a single one of the proposals they offer would have done a damned thing. In the case of the Orlando shooter, he passed a background check, he bought his guns with all the proper permits, etc. There was no ‘gun show loophole’ involved, and there were no controls previously advocated for that would have stopped him. He wasn’t even on a terror watch list. So exactly what ‘common-sense’ gun control would have stopped him? > > Of course, a lot of us suspect that the gun control people will not stop if they win one battle. They won’t stop until they’ve managed to confiscate every gun, or until they’ve made ammunition insanely hard to get, or something. There will never be a time when we’ll hear about a gun-related murder and the gun control people will say, “Oh, that’s too bad, but we’ve got all the gun control we need now.” I have to admit I’m not seeing what the bait-and-switch argument is there. For that matter, suggesting that people for “common-sense” gun control legislation are wrong in the specifics - and then that it doesn’t matter anyway, because “we” suspect that those people want anything and everything anyway, seems a little bait-and-switchy. That said, I don’t believe I personally have advanced such arguments, though if you believe I am a person in favour of a total confiscation policy I’m don’t believe I know of any way to convince you otherwise. To that extent, what you’ve said here seems a little like setting up your own arguments in order to be able to break them down; I can understand if they’re accurate and reasonable descriptions of your political opposition on this (though I hope you won’t take it personally if I make a basic some bias assumption, which I’d equally do for them). But, regardless as to their accuracy or not - they aren’t arguments\* I’ve\* made. > [@](#): > > The point is that a woman without a gun is at a massive disadvantage against a male stalker without a gun. A woman with a gun has the same power as a stalker with a gun. I would strongly disagree with this - and I think your story from earlier is a good example of why that isn’t necessarily so. The killer with a gun managed to shoot two armed police officers. How? Well, he was prepared, and the police officers weren’t. Even if the RCMP two had been “equally” armed as the killer, they were at a distinct disadvantage to a prepared shooter who knew that there was about to be a situation where having a gun would be an advantage because he was about to provoke it. An attacker has an advantage over a defender because any conflict must be to the attacker’s schedule. To go back to your situation here, the stalker with a gun may select his target; the victim may not even know they are at risk. He can wait until a good opportunity comes around; the victim would have to wait around the clock to counter it. He can prepare for the situation, choose a time when his victim is most vulnerable; the victim would have to be constantly alert and in a defensive mindset to counter that. And, at the end of the day, the stalker can step up with gun already in hand already pointing at his victim, and the power of the victim’s gun is negated. And then, as with your story earlier about the farmer - now the killer has _two_ guns. Guns seem like they’re only a “great leveller” for a very limited subset of options. Yes, a small, weak person is likely going to do much better against a larger, more powerful foe if each are armed with a gun than if each are armed with a knife, or not armed at all. But power is only power if it can be leveraged. > [@](#): > > Look at the stats on violent crime in the UK vs the U.S. In the UK, criminals are less likely to run into a citizen with a gun, and the rates of home invasions, street assaults and other violent crimes are significantly higher. And I’ve heard, but can’t cite this right now, that home invasions in the U.S. tend to happen when no one is home, but in Britain they are more likely to happen while the people are home because there is no risk of being shot by them, and you can get them to tell you where the valuables are. I have to admit I’ve heard people talk about stats and explanations for such stats from either side of this (and I’m sure you have too!). I’d certainly be willing to look over any you provided, though. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/216 "2016-06-19T21:50:17Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Well, sort of. > > But an AR-15 really is an assault rifle with one or two pieces changed out. A hypothetical skilled machinist could turn it into an M16. In this case it is worth noting that it is basically the same thing. Those one or two peices would change pretty much ANY semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. there is nothing different about an AR-15 compared to any other semiautomatic rifle. So by your reasoning what you are really saying is that we ought to ban all semi-automatic firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/217 "2016-06-19T23:12:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Those one or two peices would change pretty much ANY semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. there is nothing different about an AR-15 compared to any other semiautomatic rifle. So by your reasoning what you are really saying is that we ought to ban all semi-automatic firearms. Indeed, by USA law semi-automatic versions of full-auto firearms are required to be next to impossible to convert to full-auto without more or less tossing out the inner works and starting over (which is why the BATFE considers an upper to be a gun in its own right). ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/218 "2016-06-19T23:24:35Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Indeed, by USA law semi-automatic versions of full-auto firearms are required to be next to impossible to convert to full-auto without more or less tossing out the inner works and starting over (which is why the BATFE considers an upper to be a gun in its own right). I think you mean the lower. That’s where the trigger and “fun parts” go. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/219 "2016-06-20T00:59:33Z")
Yes, lower. Really though, a lower is just a chunk of aluminum. Converting to FA is at least 10 years in a PMITA prison. I am unaware that doing so is a “thing,” though. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375/220 "2016-06-20T03:14:11Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Yes, lower. Really though, a lower is just a chunk of aluminum. > > Converting to FA is at least 10 years in a PMITA prison. I am unaware that doing so is a “thing,” though. And that right there is an example of legislation failing to keep abreast of contemporary reality. The Bump Stop system converts a lot of semi automatic rifles into de facto full automatics for what, $99? And it’s perfectly legal, at this point in time. Please correct me if my understanding on that is incorrect of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-semi-automatic-rifle-an-assault-rifle/757375.md?page=12)