Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   So just what the heck is an "assault weapon," anyway? A clip? A magazine? Here's your handy-dandy gun glossary so you can sound infromed for the next flamewar   ( wtop.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, flame wars, semiautomatic firearms, design change, private ownership, target shooting, Uzi  
•       •       •

10304 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:53 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-01-25 09:19:50 AM  
4 votes:
Why would we need an article like this? Every time a reasonable debate on guns breaks out it's immediately hijacked by the nomenclature nannies  so we've got this covered.
2013-01-25 10:32:58 AM  
3 votes:
Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

www.tri-eagle-firearms.com

fark an assault rifle. I'm getting a battle rifle
2013-01-25 10:04:22 AM  
3 votes:
www.noisyroom.net
2013-01-25 09:49:51 AM  
3 votes:
It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation.

An "assault weapon" is a political term only, and unless you live in a state like California or Connecticut with a state law, there is no such thing as an assault weapon under current laws.
2013-01-25 07:31:31 PM  
2 votes:

CPennypacker: Yes, you keep telling yourself that. You're being "reasonable" and rest of us are just derpers. Whatever makes you feel better.

Some of you aren't, but you definitely are



No. You're a cretin, plain and simple. You're one of the current idiots infesting the US that thinks that their ignorance is just as good as someone else's knowledge, because after all, it's a democracy. You don't know jack squat about magazines, guns, tactics, or how to shoot. You've probably never worn combat boots a day in your life. You're just another mealy mouthed civilian who thinks their innate brilliance trumps the knowledge of people who have worked with guns their whole lives.

You're lazy. You can't be bothered to research the basics of guns. You can't be bothered to go down to a range. You don't know why firearms are configured the way they are. Knowledge is overrated, you need to argue yourself to a win because a keyboard doesn't take effort.

You're sloppy. People who tend to blow off terminology tend not to have coherent ideas.

You're afraid to be wrong. No matter how many people who actually know how to shoot tell you you're an idiot, you're still convinced that you know more about guns than they do.

There - did I miss anything? Oh, and good luck getting all those magazines back. Most of my buddies have theirs from their combat tours, so it will be interesting to see who exactly is going to be knocking on our doors for them.
2013-01-25 10:18:54 AM  
2 votes:

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


Heck I can win this argument without even trying:

I hereby define high capacity as anything more than six. Only a fool would disagree with me. Therefore I have one the argument and you have lost.


www.ebbemunk.dk


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
2013-01-25 10:12:27 AM  
2 votes:
I have yet to see a weapon that cannot be used to assault someone.
2013-01-25 10:04:30 AM  
2 votes:
Assault is a behavior, not a device.

But it sure is a scary word, so it's good for spinning political agenda's.
2013-01-25 10:01:47 AM  
2 votes:

Glicky: It's a marketing term and therefore useless...


The term is in fact political, not commercial. By grouping a subset of firearms as "military-style assault weapons", politicians and political advocates are able to present the implication that such firearms serve no legitimate civilian purposes (such as hunting or target shooting) to members of the public with no understanding of firearms. This implication is further reinforced by inclusion of civilian rifles that cosmetically resemble known common military firearms, and only using images of such firearms when advocating a ban upon them, not showing images of more traditional-looking rifles (such as the Mini-14 or the M1 Carbine) because those rifles appear to be less "menacing" and because advocates of such a ban do not wish to openly admit that they are attempting to prohibit civilian ownership of many popular civilian sporting rifles with demonstrable legitimate civilian use.
2013-01-25 09:57:48 AM  
2 votes:
The difference is obvious.


kbensema.files.wordpress.com

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


www.thefirearmblog.com

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.
2013-01-25 09:57:14 AM  
2 votes:
A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.
2013-01-28 12:50:25 AM  
1 vote:

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand?

Thunderpipes: The price now for an M1A like mine has more than doubled, if you can find one at all. Cheapest I have seen was an auction starting at $2500. I cannot find a matching numbers WW II Garand, which is my goal

djh0101010: Matching numbers on any Garand is going to be a tough one. Most didn't even match from the factory...

RidgeRunner5: I've got a 6 digit Springfield, but it was rebarrelled in .308. Looking through websites, the serial puts it at around Spring '42.


I met a man at a gun show a month ago trying to offload a Springfield garand for $1600. Since everybody was busy buying/selling scary black rifles he wasn't able to sell it right then, but I got his number and picked it up off of him a few days later.

The price was almost a little ridiculous, I know... except for that it is a has a serial number in the 500,000 range, stamped spring of '42. The numbers all match where they can, and it looks like the rest are all the original parts too. I've still gotta swing by my local C&R/FFL to see what accoutrements he can get me, but I'm pretty excited overall.
i1061.photobucket.com
And then a couple weeks later I totally blew my budget on a used m1a socom from a local swat sniper's collection... sigh.
2013-01-25 11:20:40 PM  
1 vote:

djh0101010: I don't know, ask Jared Loughner

Sorry, which clever point are you making?

So, I have a suggestion. Instead of an assault weapons or big magazines ban, can we do something that actually works and historically both sides of the gun control debate have supported? Project Exile was an experiment in the 90s in Virginia. It created mandatory jail time for felons in possession of a gun, mandatory additional jail time for a criminal who uses a gun in a crime. Violent crime went down, double digit percents, year after year, as a result.

Can we do that instead? Punish the actual offenders of the 97% of gun related deaths? The brady campaign, AND the NRA both supported this measure, by the way. Can we try that nationally, instead of focusing on something that punishes the law abiding people?


My apologies, CPennyPacker, if I missed your answer to this, but, how about we punish actual criminals when they do bad things which accounts for 97% of the murders involving guns, instead of infringing on the rights of the innocent rifle owners with an approach which had 10 years to work, and accomplished nothing?

Project Exile: Double digit drops in violent crimes per year. Assault weapons ban: "Effect too small to measure". Tell me again why you want to infringe on MY rights, for something that doesn't work? Why not embrace Project Exile, instead?
2013-01-25 05:27:09 PM  
1 vote:

the_han: panty waisted effeminate anti gunners


NOT A FETISH.
2013-01-25 02:56:59 PM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: ...
i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs to be able to fire more than ten rounds at a time. and that goes for handguns, too, not just ARs...


May I have everything in your house that I don't think you need?
2013-01-25 02:44:34 PM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: i've been told repeatedly on this forum that there is NO DIFFERENCE between an "assault rifle" and a regular rifle other than cosmetics.


No you haven't. You've been told there is not difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular rifle other than cosmetics.

There is a big difference between "assault rifles" and regular rifles other than cosmetics: Assault rifles are capable of full-automatic fire, and regular rifles and "assault weapons" aren't.
2013-01-25 02:37:44 PM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: i'll speak slowly: i'm talking about not needing an AR with a 30-round clip. i'm saying you can still play soldier with a 10-round clip that's made to look like a 30-round clip.



Ahh I see, you're an asshole. You think it's all symbolism and looks.
2013-01-25 02:11:42 PM  
1 vote:

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


world.guns.ru
100 rounds. Standard.
2013-01-25 01:49:40 PM  
1 vote:
2013-01-25 01:45:47 PM  
1 vote:
Why don't we just ban murder?
2013-01-25 12:59:26 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: dittybopper: ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.

They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.

This.

It's not just an appeal to their base. So far, the old guard in that party appears to be willing to put it all the line just to climb onto that aging hobby horse one more time.


Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.
2013-01-25 12:33:48 PM  
1 vote:

CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Longer prison terms for criminals might do more to prevent gun violence than anything esle seeing as how a majority of people committing gun violence have prior convictions.
2013-01-25 12:29:07 PM  
1 vote:
I went to gym (25 minutes blah blah), are lunch, went to Lowe's and checked this thread and exactly what happens when people discuss guns is happening.
People for gun control are trotting out the same tired arguments about owning nuclear weapons and stinger missiles and saying the constitution was written before repeating arms so they're not covered by the constitution.
People against gun control (usually the people who know about guns) are trying to explain that generally, the proposed legislation does very little to address the problems of gun crime and gun violence.
And this is what is so frustrating.
I am on the left side of virtually ever debate. I voted for Obama twice (the first time I stayed awake until ass late at night to watch the inauguration because I was in Iraq at the time). Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2000 (from South Carolina, so my vote didn't count anyway). But as soon as you talk about guns, the left gets all derpy.
You're not going to get the type of gun control you want. I'm very sorry, but there are enough people in the country who think differently than you do that can match your votes and keep it from happening. So instead of focusing on things that make no difference like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, folding buttstocks, or other military style features that you don't understand. Bring something to the discussion that will help. Listen to the people who know about what you're trying to regulate.
The President's executive orders are a good start. I agree with all of them. I have taken advantage of the gun show loophole myself and as much as I enjoy not having to pay a transfer fee, I can see how someone could use it to get around a background check that they cannot pass. It should go.
I'm all for licensing tests. I'd be OK with having serial numbered and registered gun safes so when they look up your background you have to have a gun safe registered with the government in order to purchase a gun. I think that could help with stolen guns being used in crimes.
The right needs to realize that not every piece of legislation dealing with guns is an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. The guns aren't going away, but you have to make sacrifices, too. If that means buying a $500 gun safe before you can purchase a gun in order to ensure it's harder to steal your gun, that's fine, too.
2013-01-25 12:13:31 PM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?


There's that word again.
2013-01-25 12:11:36 PM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.


How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.
2013-01-25 11:42:36 AM  
1 vote:

justtray: kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?

To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.


Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice
2013-01-25 11:40:06 AM  
1 vote:

HeadLever: FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?

Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.


This. Lol thank you
2013-01-25 11:39:14 AM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?


Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.
2013-01-25 11:32:05 AM  
1 vote:

DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming


"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?
2013-01-25 11:23:07 AM  
1 vote:

StoPPeRmobile: Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


It's funny when liberals come into gun threads wanting registration for firearms yet biatch and moan when conservatives suggest that someone should need an ID to vote.
2013-01-25 11:12:16 AM  
1 vote:

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Nor was the 4th written when computers and automobiles were around, yet they're still covered. Your point?
2013-01-25 10:49:08 AM  
1 vote:

Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.


You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.
2013-01-25 10:34:08 AM  
1 vote:

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

[www.tri-eagle-firearms.com image 850x558]


hey, look! clips!
2013-01-25 10:21:26 AM  
1 vote:

Giltric: The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.


I think it is becuase they are racists and many assault weapons are black.

images.politico.com
2013-01-25 10:18:40 AM  
1 vote:

syrynxx: An "assault weapon" is a political term only, and unless you live in a state like California or Connecticut with a state law, there is no such thing as an assault weapon under current laws.


That's more or less what TFA says, including a short blurb about how ineffective the lack of real definition made the previous AWB (manufacturers just shrugging, modifying products enough to rename them, and keeping on rollin').

It is nice that someone's at least trying to make media articles about guns less outright retarded, honestly, I appreciate what the writer is trying to do.
2013-01-25 10:13:51 AM  
1 vote:

Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.


Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.
2013-01-25 10:11:43 AM  
1 vote:
Please don't say "clip". It's a magazine. Always.
2013-01-25 10:06:51 AM  
1 vote:
Infromed is a perfectly cromulent word.
2013-01-25 10:05:40 AM  
1 vote:
Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?
2013-01-25 10:00:55 AM  
1 vote:
The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
2013-01-25 10:00:27 AM  
1 vote:
This:

images.politico.com
2013-01-25 09:59:03 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com

in before the "crazy"
2013-01-25 09:58:30 AM  
1 vote:
hope this helps

stolen from another poster
2013-01-25 09:41:13 AM  
1 vote:
For what it's worth, I'VE SEEN THAT DAMNED JOURNALIST'S GUIDE A MILLION TIMES ALREADY. I think we've all got it memorized by now.
2013-01-25 08:16:15 AM  
1 vote:
It will be whatever a court decides it to be, despite what any reporter or politician says.  Legals definitions are outlined by these people, but their accuracy and adjustment is done in court. And that really should be the way it stays. Whatever definition is determined, there will always be someone able to skirt around it. Think they are called loopholes, and so the back and forth continues. Courts make a decision. Rest of world look for loopholes. So long as the loopholes are small, the world should be a better place. But not always.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report