I know. That’s why I’m confused. You said “The same thing happened after WWII. The 30-30 rifle, based off of the M1 rifle”. IME, when someone uses the term “30-30 rifle”, they are referring to either a Winchester 1894 or a Marlin 336, neither of which bare any resemblance to an M1 Garand. The Mini-14 however was based off of the M1.
That’s the history of nearly everything; I think a lot of people don’t realize just how much military requirements in peace or war drives technological innovation. The internet? Originally devised by DARPA as a nuclear-war resistant network. Turbine engines? Devised for powering jet fighters. Steam turbines? Devised in large part for military ship propulsion. Computers? Devised for wartime calculations. Synthetic rubber? Industrial scale production perfected in order to alleviate wartime shortages.
The other thing is that the whole mention of “assault rifles” is meaningless. There’s no fundamental difference between an AR-15 and this Remington Model 8 from 110 years ago. The only real differences are in the furniture- the stock, handgrip, etc… and in the magazine size. Otherwise, both rifles fire a rifle cartridge for each pull of the trigger, and can be reloaded with a box magazine in certain models.
But the Model 8 looks kind of quaint, while the AR-15 is “scary”. :rolleyes:
Let’s just take this a step further. There is little functional or meaningful difference between a so-called “assault weapon” and a so-called “assault rifle.” The US military has long since known that fully automatic [standard issue infantry] weapons are just a waste of ammo, which is why the M16 was limited to a 3-round burst, and then the infantry was basically instructed to [almost] never use it. If our soldiers are told that a semi-automatic M16 is more effective than a fully-automatic M16, then why are we making a huge distinction between an “assault weapon” and an “assault rifle?” Because the AR-15 would be perfectly at home on any battlefield and nobody would miss the fully automatic capability. It is, by all reasonable considerations, the same damn thing.
Of course, we can take that further still – an AR-15 isn’t really more effective for mass shootings than a mini-14, and VT showed us that neither are really more effective than a couple of run-of-the-mill semi-auto handguns, which SCOTUS has enshrined as the de facto self defense weapon which will forever be protected by 2A. My being that the cat’s out of the bag, and we can never ban our way into stopping mass shootings, but at the same time, continuing to harp over the distinction between a semi-auto “assault weapon” and a full-auto “assault rifle” is beyond stupid.
I have tried making this argument to vocal gun enthusiasts for at least twenty years. Every single time my argument has been treated with outright contempt. I even had one who argued that requiring a driver’s license to drive a car is unconstitutional.
You’re correct, my mistake
No argument here.
Surely we don’t expect our legislators to be experts on everything they vote on. What we do expect is that the public servants who draft the legislation will take expert advice and draft accordingly.
Since there is some legislation already, however ineffective, is it easier or harder to amend that to beef it up?
Moderator Action
Not really a surprise, but this thread is wandering into gun control debate territory. Since the factual aspect of the OP has been answered fairly well, I’ll go ahead and move this to a more appropriate forum.
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
Sure, but what are we saying? That Clinton / the media should use a term like assault rifle? But isn’t that term more specific?
If we’re saying we need to stop with the silly distinctions and just work out what guns are inappropriate for defence or hunting, then for now we need a generic term, right?
“Assault weapon” makes sense in that context: can’t get more generic than “weapon”, and “assault” is something we think of militaries, militias and the police doing.
But if there’s a better term that avoids the 1994 baggage, go ahead.
Well, as I pointed out, you were a little careless about how you threw the term around yourself, meaning it within the same sentence to mean weapons as defined in the 1994 ban, and in the generic sense. But I don’t think any less of you 
It’s because a training requirement appears to be focused on unintentional death and injury. The rate of unintentional death and injury has been on the decline, and the overall rate is low compared to many other things such that imposing an additional cost on a wide swath of people wouldn’t appear to have a large benefit. The other reason is it can appear to be an additional hurdle purely for the sake of a hurdle.
Lowered death rates doesn’t mean that licensing shouldn’t be required. Do you think people who never got into an accident for X number of years should not have to renew their license until they do, or register their car? Its yet another deflection by the gun lobby trying to get their industry another layer of protection that makes no sense. Licensing and registration should be the minimum of ownership, no exceptions. The benefit is akin to car licensing: government ensures standardized quality, enforces safety measures, is able to more easily track the item when its used illegally, etc.
The problem is that as phrased above, owning a firearm is conditional on the government’s gracious permission,which is what irks Second Amendment proponents.
In principle I would approve Stranger’s plan, provided it was coupled with two things:first, an absolute no-ambiguity, non-infringeable guarantee that owning and carrying weapons is a personal and individual right (what gun proponents claim the 2nd Amendment already means, and gun control proponents dispute); and second, that the training and licensing would be Shall Issue, meaning that the government MUST permit gun ownership to anyone who isn’t actively disqualified.
I doubt however there would be much support for this, because there’s a fundamental divide between the pro and anti gun sides. Broadly, the pro side believes that people should be able to privately own instruments of deadly force, and the anti side thinks the government should have a monopoly on armed force. A number of people would in practice accept some intermediate compromise, but both extremes would consider that a betrayal of their fundamental positions.
You may have missed it - but I was responding to the training aspect.
I would also note though than the ‘intermediate cartridge’ requirement in the Wikipedia definition isn’t even matched by the M16. That term refers to ‘full caliber’ ie around .30 caliber/8mm cartridges shorter than those of ‘full power’ rounds (like 30-06 or 7.62 NATO), but longer than pistol rounds. The definition fit the original ‘assault rifle’, the German Sturmgewehr, and the AK-47 it inspired. But it didn’t fit the small caliber high velocity (original, military) AR-15 later designated M16, nor the 5.45mm AK variants or almost any other widely used military weapon now except insofar as the AK-47 is still used.
And the earliest reference I’ve ever found to the English term ‘assault rifle’ is the title of a 1969 book about the German Sturmgewehr (which can be translated ‘assault rifle’). This was of course years after the AR-15/M16 entered US military service, and the term didn’t become common until long after that book. The original late '50’s AR-15 was definitely not called ‘assault rifle’ at the time.
So definitions change. I however personally don’t see an honest non-political reason to call weapons like the modern (civilian semi-auto) AR-15 (and clones) anything other than ‘high capacity semi auto rifles’. The rational public policy debate would be about those features, semi auto action, high capacity magazine (subject to defining what’s ‘high capacity’, and perhaps considering low power cartridges like .22 in a different category). Focus on stuff like bayonet lugs is transparently nonsensical IMO.
Somewhere, somehow, the M-16, and by extension the AR-15 got branded “high power” rifles. I’d like to know where the heck that came from.
A .22 long cartridge holds 29 grains of power … the .223 NATO cartridge holds 55 grains powder … of roughly equal bullet size, we pack almost double the powder in … thus “high power”.
Since I wouldn’t try to shoot anything bigger than a raccoon with a .22 long, almost any other cartridge would be “high-powered” by that definition.
Hmmm.
.223 is well below a humane round for mule deer. I know of at least two western states where it wouldn’t be allowed. (the ones where I have deer hunted: NM & CO)
The 7.62 x 54 NATO round would be fine.
Whitetails perhaps…never lived where they make up any substantial part of the population.
Where bears are in issue, A bolt action rifle or a large caliber revolver are the protection of choice. Anyone relying on a .223 as bear medicine might as well be wearing condiments.
Well, a 30/30 is .30 caliber and 30 grains of powder or an old Colt .45 which had 40 grains of powder …
Yes, although it should be noted that the rifle doesn’t care how big its magazine is. It just has a place to attach it. A magazine is basically a box with a spring in it. You can stick a 10 round, 30 round, and 200 round magazine in the same rifle. Default capacity just tends to be considered standard based on the ergonomics and the original design requirements.
What if some ignorant legislator decided that flat-bed trucks were ideal bomb carrying vehicles and banned them? But they didn’t know what the fuck they were banning, so they actually banned all vehicles with a certain set of features like having wide tires and a seperate cargo compartment, so now your pickup truck is banned too?
This isn’t just how the media is reporting it. Legislators will attempt to push through new laws based on ignorance that won’t accomplish anything except to inconvenience people.
Huh? Who has banned “assault weapons” and how do we measure their success?
It’s very silly. Even with a very generous definition of “assault weapon”, they’re used in less than 5% of crimes in the US. Even if you got rid of them all, you’d barely put the tiniest dent in anything.
Really, handguns are where it’s at when it comes to crimes with guns. You can tell who’s focused on reacting with their emotions (or exploiting people reacting with their emotions) by how much they care about scary looking rifles which are used in a negligible amount of crime vs handguns which are very commonly used in crime.
Come on. 22LR are little baby bullets, used for cheap plinking and teaching your 10 year old how to shoot. If anything with more energy than that is “high powered” then the vast majority of guns are “high powered” and the term is meaningless. Plenty of common calibers have 5 times the kinetic energy of .223 rounds. Are they super-duper-ultra-high-powered?
The whole point of assault rifles is actually that they’re low powered - their recoil impulse needs to be controllable - and they have significantly less energy than most rifles. So anytime people talk about “high powered assault rifles” it’s a pretty clear sign of ignorance.
I think people often pick scary looking weapons for killing sprees exactly because they want the infamy, to inflict the terror. So it’s all black trenchcoats and scary looking guns. Most likely a run of the mill Remington 870 shotgun like your grandpa might have would kill more people in this sort of scenario, but the people who commit these sorts of things imagine themselves romantically being portrayed as badass villains on the 24/7 news coverage for a month, and scary “assault weapons” are part of that image.