benhargreaves defines assault weapons and explains what other purposes they have
reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/wzztb/jason_...Posted Jul 23, 2012, 8:15 PM UTC
4840
reddit.com
I was just coming here to post this one, but since there's a similar submission I'll just tag it on here. I think it adds to the same discussion well.
1
I personally disagree that all these tactical addons to semi-automatic rifles are necessary.
While it is true that they do serve purpose other than killing/maiming humans - that is really their intent.
It sucks that these guns do have dual purposes - its also unfortunate that the market is already flooded with the stuff. It really shouldn't have been allowed to go so far.
At the very least there should be some kind of extra registration or permitting process to go along with these things.
Again, just my opinion, you can dance around it but these devices really are for hunting humans. They were originally designed that way. I concede that there is some dual purpose but with the bad you have to take the good.
-1
It is true that "assault rifles" are particularly good at killing people. Though, all firearms are designed to be the most efficient instruments of death they can be for their various purposes.
In reality, the greatest risk to human life when it comes to firearms are handguns. They account for 50% of all homicides, while knives account for as many or more homicides as these assault rifles. A handgun, more so than any firearm, is designed to kill human beings.
In reality, all guns are lethal, and given a specific situation, some are more lethal than others. If we truly want to reduce gun violence we need to either severally limit the possession of all firearms, or we need to address the root causes of violence and crime. Poverty, inequality, mental health issues, and people just not getting along.
8
I'd just like to say I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the replies in this subreddit.
You raise valid points. Thanks, I agree that addressing underlying socioeconomic issues would probably be much more beneficial overall.
I'm curious if you have an opinion on countries like England which has virtually no guns and virtually no gun crime. Part of me has to believe some if it is to do with gun control - not that I'd ever advocate anything like they have in England.
2
Thanks, I put too much time into this discussion in the last day, but I hope it was worth it. I don't know enough about other countries gun laws to comment on them extensively. I will say that culture is an important factor when looking at gun laws from various countries.
In the US there is a strong gun culture, and it is born of the way this nation was founded. Average citizens formed up to fight, and would often use their own weapons in the fight. We have 200+ years of unfettered gun ownership. To change that culture is no easy task, and arguably impossible.
Each country has their own unique culture, history, and quirks that mean what is found in one place may not be applicable in another. In Switzerland, for example, they have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (due to most adult males being militia members and having a government issued assault rifle). Despite the level of gun ownership in Switzerland, they have very low rates of gun violence. Both gun culture and society at large play a role in that.
In the end, it is in the interest of law abiding gun owners to help foster a culture where firearms are understood, respected, and to create an environment where everyone feels safe.
At the same time, everyone should take a responsibility to know more about firearms and firearms law. That way we can continue these discussions and all speak about these issues with the intelligence and understanding required to create a safe and equitable environment.
2
England still has a high rate of violent crime - just not necessarily with guns.
1
From what I understand, England has a higher per capita murder rate than the US. Additionally, it is my understanding that most of those killings are committed using knives.
If the issue is the gun, a position I do not support, then gun control makes sense. If the issue is preventing death, then there are other more effective alternatives that don't brush up against constitutional law.
1
From what I understand, England has a higher per capita murder rate than the US
From what I understand this is a falsehood unless you have some information to support it. Please advise. My short time on Wikipedia does not support your assertion.
1
I kind of get where you're coming from, but I don't think you realize that you're drawing a super ambiguous line in the sand here.
All of these features basically make it easier to put bullets on target. You could therefore apply the same argument to all semi-automatic weapons, optics, sights etc - most parts of a gun are there to make it easier to put bullets on targets.
People naturally gravitate to these particular features because they see them on military firearms - that's not to say they don't have their place in the civilian sport / hunting world as well.
5
How many massacres are carried out with "assault rifles"? Most of the recent massacres have been done with relatively tame guns of modest caliber that not even the most sensationalist media outlets would label "assault rifles".
3
Nah, the media is very good at being sensationalist in order to raise a frenzy. I still occasionally see hollow points referred to as 'cop killer bullets'. Completely invalidates someone's argument when they can't even be bothered to do a bit of research.
2
I totally agree. I think that there is an answer to be found here, but unfortunately both sides of the argument tend to be unreasonably emotional about it.
1
Again, just my opinion, you can dance around it but these devices really are for hunting humans. They were originally designed that way.
Actually, that's not true at all.
These devices were originally designed for squad based warfare and the corresponding infantry tactics, namely suppressive fire and coordinated movement. That's why they put the large magazines in them, that's why they scaled down the cartridge weight to something that's really only considered a varmint round (so more could be carried), that's why the effective range of the assault rifle is considerably less than the battle rifles that predate them.
If you want to know what a rifle that was meant for "hunting" humans looks like, take a look at a full sized battle rifle, such as the M1 Garand, or a modern sniper rifle like the M40. They fire full sized cartridges that are considerably more lethal and have an effective range well past double that of the assault rifle.
2
In an urban war scenario like you described - fit for the weapon's purpose...
What would you be fighting against? Not white tail - I assure you. There is no defense for a clips worth of cover fire in a personal protection situation. I'm sorry but there just isn't.
Not trying to bust on you I just strongly disagree and doubt we'll come to a compromise.
Obviously when I said "hunting humans" I meant - hunting humans as you'd hunt a human in its natural habitat - an Urban center - quite likely.
I did not mean hunting-humans-as-though-they-were-an-animal-at-extreme-distance.
I don't understand how "its not meant for killing humans because it was designed by the military" makes any sense whatsoever.
1
It's hard to even know where to start with all of the places you're incorrect, so we'll just start from the beginning.
There is no defense for a clips worth of cover fire in a personal protection situation.
First of all, it's a magazine, not a "clip". Those have very different meanings, and it's worth it to do basic research about a topic (especially a controversial one) when discussing it. Precision in language is still important.
Second, yes there is. At the very least, suppressive fire is meant to prevent an aggressor or antagonist from doing all of the things that he/she is attempting to do. This is actually the very reason that Charles Whitman was unable to kill more people... he was under suppressive fire from other students that prevented him from sticking out his head to shoot more people.
Not trying to bust on you I just strongly disagree and doubt we'll come to a compromise.
That may be true, but your disagreement is based on ignorance. I'm not saying that in an derogatory way, or as a personal insult to you. You misunderstand both the devices and their intended use.
Obviously when I said "hunting humans" I meant - hunting humans as you'd hunt a human in its natural habitat - an Urban center - quite likely.
"Hunting humans" was something of a metaphor, I suppose, so no, I did not understand what you meant. I still don't understand what you mean then. Just going around shooting unsuspecting people? That's clearly not what they were designed for, so if that's what you meant your original assertion was clearly wrong.
I did not mean hunting-humans-as-though-they-were-an-animal-at-extreme-distance.
That's not what I meant either. I meant "hunting humans" as in simply killing people in warfare... as in a war of attrition at any distance or range. The older battle rifles were far better at that in their historical context than the modern "assault rifles" are today.
I don't understand how "its not meant for killing humans because it was designed by the military" makes any sense whatsoever.
This is because you clearly do not know much about the military or modern infantry warfare. The goal of the "assault rifle" is not specifically to kill people. The goal of the "assault rifle" was to take ground, to develop a tool which let a group of infantry "assault" a position, to take a fortified position through the use of coordinated movement and cover fire.
This is why the "assault rifles" we're talking about are FAR LESS LETHAL than the full sized rifles they replaced. The goal of taking ground against a dug in enemy required cover fire, and cover fire requires a lot of ammunition. When you need a lot of ammunition, you have to start making it smaller so that enough of it can be carried. Smaller ammunition is less powerful, and therefore less lethal. This was a compromise made to allow more effective tactics to be used at the cost of reduced lethality.
2
The rifle has military purpose - it was designed with the military in mind.
It has no business being in public hands - I understand that the AR15 is meant to maim - but that really doesn't make it a hell of a lot less lethal when you've got 100 rounds at your disposal and you're in fairly close and open quarters such as a movie theater.
We can argue semantics and you can correct my jargon but...
It doesn't have applied use in a public citizen scenario. 100 rounds worth of fire would never ever be necessary in a personal defense scenario in the USA - I challenge you to find one where it would be.
1
I think I should clarify my position at this point.
I am very much pro 2nd amendment - and I believe it grants us the right to protect us from our government.
I don't specifically have a problem with the AR15 as a .22 caliber rifle. With a sensibly sized magazine (10 or less perhaps?).
I believe however - when you allow people carte' blanche to customize their weapons in increasingly deadly manners - the end result is crime of passion with an easily obtained weapon.
Magazines are the first and worst offender - they need to be legislated in my opinion in all states or federally.
I think it becomes more of a gray area when you get to telescoping stocks and pistol grips - they do seem to have some real world application other than to be used against human beings.
Hope that clears things up.
1
I would like to point a few things out about the weapons features that are typically targeted in an attempt at control. Keep in mind that this knowledge is from my personal and military experience. Feel free to consider this anecdotal until I have the opportunity to source this information.
Things the 1994 assault weapon ban targeted, and why they don't matter:
Bayonet Lug: The danger presented by a weapon with a bayonet lug is not intrinsically more dangerous than weapons without. While guns that have bayonet lugs are more likely to have other illegal features, the most likely effect of this part of the ban is to prompt owners and dealers to simply cut off the lug. Not to mention the fact that potential violent criminals are unlikely to find a practical benefit from having the lug in the first place. Bayonets are not effective in the present "street" tactical environment. Police are not likely to be as concerned about the bayonet, so much as they are concerned about the bullets...
Flash Suppressor: There is no strategic, tactical, or ballistic benefit of consequence that is provided by a flash suppressor. Flash suppressors are bits of metal on the front of a gun's barrel that are intended to limit the visibility of muzzle flash from viewing angles greater than approximately 17.5 degrees. This is a useful attachment for weapons in military applications because they make it difficult for opposing troops to identify muzzle flash along the entirety of a front. They will only be able to see muzzle flash of units directly in front of them, and may find it more difficult to see the muzzle flash of units to their right or left. As this is not an issue when not in a battlespace, This feature has no effect on gun applications in non-military contexts. Muzzle flash is not a significant factor in police response, gun performance, or in hunting efficacy. Flash suppressors do not make a gun more dangerous.
Forward Grips: This does add to the effectiveness of a weapon that is used illegally. Pistol grips make a gun more controllable in a tactical situation by moving the forward point of user control away from the shoulder, and towards the muzzle of the weapon. This has the effect of allowing the shooter to "steer" their weapon more effectively. Tactical shooters don't usually aim with their sights when in close quarters (such as a movie theater...), instead they rely on the same physiological ability that allows humans to point accurately and without thought, this technique is aided by a forward grip. However, legislating this feature is unlikely to be effective. Forward grips do not make such a difference that a criminal would be dissuaded from action by their absence. Furthermore, legal weapons are easily modified to have a forward grip, either through clamp-on accessories or through "home" modification.
Box magazines: Large capacity box magazines are the best target, in my opinion, for effective gun control. A thirty round magazine has so many potential benefits to a criminal that they cannot be listed here. Larger ammo capacity greatly increases the lethality of a weapon by drastically increasing its effective rate of fire. However, present attempts at control are not effective. All box magazines for a given weapon possess the same "mechanical interface" and will fit in an appropriate magazine well regardless of capacity. What this means is that weapons sold legally can easily be modified to include a higher ammo capacity simply by buying a magazine stamped with the appropriate year. Again, legislation of this issue is unlikely to be effective due to the ease with which a user can acquire higher capacity magazines. Only legal use is likely to be curtailed through legislation of this feature.
Pistol Grip: A common feature on military weapons that usually simply allows ambidextrous usage. A pistol grip allows the user to reach a weapon's controls more easily despite right/left handedness. A limited ballistic effect can be measured as well. However, the same ballistic effect can be achieved through the use of several other stock designs such as thumb-hole stocks. Legislation of this feature is unlikely to have an effect due to the fact that legal alternatives exist, and that the military benefit of a pistol grip is due to the fact that it eases weapon design and not combat effectiveness to a great degree.
Folding stock/collapsing stock: Allows the shooter to more easily conceal a weapon, or more likely, to adjust "length of pull" for various applications. In short, a longer distance from shoulder to trigger typically increases accuracy at the expense of maneuverability and vice versa. While potentially effective, so many other methods of concealment are available that legislation of this feature is unlikely to have the desired effect. For example, an ak-47 user might simply saw off a piece of the stock if he desires greater concealability.
"Capable of automatic fire": Speaking from experience, even legal users of assault weapons do not typically use automatic weapons settings. The control/rate of fire equation is much more effectively manipulated through pulling the trigger faster or slower than through use of a fully automatic setting. However, it must be conceded untrained shooters are more likely to produce casualties through the use of an automatic setting. However, criminals with access to a public range can certainly gain a high level of proficiency without the benefit of military style training.
List of Weapons that are perfectly legal, but can fill the same role as an "assault weapon" in the hands of a criminal. Unless noted, these weapons were designed to be semi-auto:
TLDR: Legal language in gun control legislation is very difficult to define effectively. Furthermore, current gun control legislation is unlikely (in my opinion) to prevent criminal use, as legal alternatives exist in profusion. Much better to attack the sociological causes of crime such as poverty, drug addiction, and mental disease rather than spending money on a mostly ineffective and constitutionally dubious ATF (2nd amendment, search/seizure issues, improper detention, etc)
Thanks for this post. I didn't have the energy to go into detail as you have, but these are import points to make. Thanks for taking the time to add to the discussion. Cheers!
Thanks! Can't say that I am "anti gun control" or "pro gun", but I am definitely a pragmatist.