Which two terms?
“Assault weapon” and “semi-automatic weapon”
Some of the pics on this page are assault weapons, some are not.
They’re all the same gun.
An “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and two or more of the following features:
1)a folding or telescopic stock
2)a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
3)a bayonet mount
4)a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor)
5)a grenade launcher
As the term was invented for the express purpose of defining them so that they could be banned, that is the exact definition. Therefore, a semi-automatic rifle that fires the same caliber and has a detachable magazine but has none of the above features is not an “assault weapon”, even though it is functionally the same as a firearm classified as one. Thus the controversy.
this is venturing into IMHO territory, but in my mind “assault weapon” when applied to handheld arms means a rifle or carbine which has three modes: safe, semi-auto, and burst- or full-auto fire.
others call anything which resembles a military rifle an “assault weapon.”
I mean, (again IMO) simply being semi-automatic doesn’t make a gun an “assault weapon.” for example, this is a semiautomatic rifle which fires a .223 Remington cartridge:
http://remington.com/en/products/firearms/centerfire/model-750/model-750-woodsmaster.aspx
Is this an assault weapon?
Here is another semiautomatic rifle which fires a .223 Remington cartridge:
http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/XM-15.asp
is this an assault weapon?
A semi-automatic fires a round with each pull of the trigger
An assault rifle has several defining characteristics
Shorter round than a rifle of the same caliber, less powder, less recoil, less range, less weight
Shorter barrel length, less long range accuracy
More compact design overall
The assault rifle was born in the last days of WWII. The Germans invented the Sturmgewehr and this was followed by the AK-47 a few years later. The basic idea is that military rifles up till that point were very long range and powerful but most combat took place at 100 yards or less, th. Old rifles were over kill. Smaller rounds meant that a soldier could carry more ammunition and stay in combat for a longer time before resupply. The early designs were fully automatic/semi-automatic or select fire but for the most part among NATO allies they are semi-auto or burst fire. The automatic ones are almost impossible to get as a civilian in the US as they require a class 3 license.
The subject of what is and is not an assault rifle has been used on both sides of the gun debate to distort and confuse the issue, also Hollywood has made the issue even more confused.
AK-47, M-4(bulk of what our troops use now) are assault rifles
The semi-auto I can buy at Academy that looks like a M-4, shoots the same ammo, has parts that can be interchanged with said rifle, depends on who you ask IMHO
Sorry if that was not at all clear
Capt
ETA I think Airman has the definition correct per the Clinton era ban
And ‘the thing that goes up.’ 
nonsense.
any shoulder-fired arm with a barrel shorter than 16" is a Title II weapon and is a pain in the ass to legally own in this country.
It doesn’t “depend on who you ask.” You cannot legally take a rifle which “looks like an M4” and make it a selective-fire rifle. if you have an unlicensed AR-pattern rifle and its barrel is shorter than 16", then you’re a felon. If you have an AR-pattern rifle which you’ve modified to be able to fire burst- or full-auto without a license, you’re a felon.
On the ammo I am correct, try again
I never made a claim about an illegal weapon, I was trying to clarify for someone who doesn’t know the difference between what the Brady Campaign and the NRA would call an assault rifle. Also the difference between semi auto and assault
Capt
Capt Kirk’s definition is the military/historical definition of “assault rifle.” Airman Doors’s is the technical legal definition under the old ban.
“Assault weapon” is a legalistic nonsense term, as the weapons distinguished by the Assault Weapon Ban are in many cases virtually identical to un-banned weapons in terms of function. But yeah, “assault weapon” is a Washington nonsense term.
Assault rifle is an older, military term that refers primarily to the standard service rifles of almost all modern armies, they are characterized as having select fire and detachable magazines. Assault rifles have been tightly controlled in the United States since the National Firearms Act (1934) because they all typically have a mode of selectable fire that is classified as automatic (although some it is a modified “burst” style of automatic fire.)
Probably useful in any gun thread with persons very unfamiliar with firearms:
Semiautomatic - You pull the trigger once, the gun fires once. You need to pull the trigger again to fire again.
Automatic - Hold the trigger down, the gun fires until it runs out of ammunition, malfunctions, or you let go of the trigger.
Automatic fire is what a lot of people think goes on during these shooting rampages, but I don’t know that any mass shooting I’m personally aware of involved true automatic weapons. Well, I guess the recent shooting Afghanistan in which a soldier went off the reservation and slaughtered a bunch of civilians did, but that’s not really the type of mass shooting we’re talking about.
In all reality, most mass shootings I’ve read about involve the shooter killing a few people at a time at most. Take the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, a man walks into a restaurant and kills 12 people and injures 10. He then moves on, killing 8 more people and injuring 2 others in the gift shop area of the restaurant. At that point 20 people of the total 35 who will die that day are already dead.
After that, he walks around the area picking people off, killing a few people he sees hiding under a bus, and then he eventually carjacks someone and holds them hostage in a house nearby (he kills the hostage) before being arrested by police.
At no point did he use an automatic weapon, all the carnage in the restaurant/gift shop was with a semiautomatic weapon, and in all reality an automatic would have probably been no more effective. Military forces use automatic weapons in specific scenarios, suppressive fire, storming locations and etc where it can be useful in a directed manner. If you’re doing a spree killing you actually probably want semiautomatic fire, for the same reason semiautomatic fire is sometimes used by special forces. It conserves ammo and at close range automatic fire will often waste ammunition hitting the same person excessively or missing. Semiautomatic fire you’re more inclined to take quick aim, fire, and move on.
Most spree shootings involve lengthy periods of time in which the shooter is confronting small groups at a time and picking people off. It’d be difficult to do this with a single shot rifle, much easier with a revolver, but the real problem is people are focused on hiding and not trying to disarm the guy. Breivik casually walked around Utoya for 90 minutes picking people off hiding in the wilderness, swimming for safety and etc. If even a relatively small group had rushed him early on, he would not have killed nearly so many.
But, that’s why these spree killings “work” almost no one is naturally going to want to go after an armed murderer. There’s an old canard (reproduced in the movie Tombstone but seen as a trope in Western fiction) where a Western sheriff fights off an unruly crowd who could tear him to pieces with only a double-barreled shotgun. He does it by telling the crowd “you’ll take me, but the first to me who come at me are going with me.” While not based on a real historical event (to my knowledge) it is reflective of human behavior. As a group it’s easy for a decent crowd to overrun a single armed man, but as individuals no one wants to be the ones to take the first bullets.
Nitpick: “shoulder thing that goes up.” Because, you know, it isn’t anywhere near your shoulder, and doesn’t move.
Martin covers “assault weapon” well. The definition is not synonymous with assault rifle, although I can concede that the latter is often used to describe semi AR/AK type things.
Also, most fully automatic weapons expel all their rounds (~30) in about four seconds. Not much time to change your target.
Now, I present a deadly assault bolt action: Mad Minute. Granted, his accuracy may be crap, but the British soldiers did similar and had to keep it on target.
Were any “assault weapons” used in CT? Reports are all over the place, seems like the guy had an unused semi auto rifle in the trunk of his car, but the killings were committed with handguns owned by his mom.
I guess the only point is that, intentional or not, “assault weapons” get dragged into any debate.
In the last 10 years I’ve gotten fairly good at following media hooplas in the wake of tragedy. I’d say first off, take most of anything the media reports with a grain of salt for about 72 hours, and then take about 90% of it with a grain of salt for about a week. Then as some reports come out through the officials who have actually had access to the crime scenes and evidence you’ll hear more of the truth.
But, with that in mind, it seems like the word now at least is two semiautomatic pistols were used and the shooter had a weapon of the AR-15 or variant families in either the trunk or passenger area of the car he drove to the shooting.
An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary…
Adding to the confusion is people say “automatic” when the mean “semi-automatic”. Question: were semis referred to as “automatics” before true “automatics” were developed. I seem to recall a lot of the Hardy Boys books had gangsters with “automatics”.
I had to laugh when a news reporter referred to the “Bushwacker” rifle.
I think yes, I’m not sure but a lot of older media (like pre-WWII) novels and such I’ve also noticed it seems like they call almost any double action weapons “automatics.” Later on automatic seems to be used exclusively to refer to weapons we’d consider to be true automatic weapons today.
I’m not sure what the overall intent of the new series Panic 9-1-1 is supposed to be, but intentional or not it’s this. Call after call to 9-1-1 is reenacted with someone pleading on the phone for the police to hurry as they keep cutting to a timer ticking the minutes away.
This. Unless you’re legitimately concerned about people being stabbed with bayonets or beaten with rifle butts, it really should not matter whether a particular rifle is classified as an “assault weapon” or not.
Bushmaster?
That usage of automatic generally refers to semiautomatic pistols, and is a contrast with revolvers. It makes me think mafia or Dick Tracy, too. At this time in the 30s or so, fully automatic weapons have been around for decades, e.g. the Thompson from 1919, or the 1918 BAR. Hell, if you include non-portable weapons, the Gatling gun is 1861.
Occasionally, the news will report an “automatic rifle” when there is a mass killing or gang-related violence. My reaction is that it’s a tragedy, but bullshit! Do they not know how rare automatics are, whether legally or illegally owned?
Thank you for that definition. I plan on bookmarking it for the next time the term “assault weapon” is bandied about.