Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Assault Weapons
What classifies one?
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
Jul 11,1999
25 KB |
|
|
 |
 here is all this talk of banning assault weapons, and how dangerous they are and so on -- so I felt I should clarify on what exactly is an assault weapon.
City of Trenton's Deputy Police Chief, Joseph Constance noted for a Congressional subcommitte (investigating the necessity of banning "assault" weapons) that these guns are used in .022% of all crimes (that is 2 in 10,000). He said that his police officers had a higher chance of having to deal with an escaped tiger from the local zoo, than with dealing with a hoodlum with an assault weapon. Someone else cracked wise that you have a greater chance of being run over by a purple bus than deal with a man armed with an assault weapon. None of the facts prevented federal and state politicians from banning Assault Weapons "for public safety".
Of course the legislators are mostly ignorant of guns and don't even understand what an assault weapon is -- let alone being able to define it in law. And I don't just mean normal politician clueless, I mean they are flaming ignorant types that have no clue about guns, the terms they are using, how guns operate or how they are used (in sport, hunting, collecting, play or crime). So these are the stellar geniuses (extreme sarcasm) that write the laws that usually mean something completely different than what they think they mean! Then they sell the public on an issue -- and the public in general understands the terms and concept even LESS! For arguing with moronic laws that are poorly written or so vague that they would outlaw every gun in a single swoop, the pro-Second Amendment types are often vilified as "gun nuts" or "red necks that wanna own howitzers". The truth is that the laws or so bad or vague that they basically outlaw everything (or nothing) depending on how the law is interpreted, and no one wants to leave it up to judges to decide (on a case by case basis).
Remember, Justice is supposed to be blind -- which means it applies equally to all men. In this day and age that means that the law has to clearly state what it means and NOT leave a lot of wiggle room for judges and lawyers. And if you want to read something that will make it tough for you to decide whether you should laugh or cry, read the article on Knife Control -- how California tries to protect the masses by outlawing pointy objects, with the same effectiveness of reasoning as many of the Gun Control laws.
             
By definition an assault weapon would be a weapon you could use for assault. Of course we know that assault is already a crime, as is aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon -- so it isn't like "Assault Weapon" bans does anything functional by punishing criminals any more and it doesn't give the District Attorney some new ability to prosecute criminals (it only goes after the previously law abiding). If criminals use an assault weapon in a crime, then they are doing something wrong and there are dozens of laws that cover their activities and could be used to punish them effectively. So these laws are not by their very nature for stopping criminals -- they should be called what they are, "fear of your neighbor having an big, bad, ugly gun laws". They are attack laws, that blame tools (and miscategorize them) as a way to ban all guns -- one at a time.
Real assault weapons (those used by the police and military) are fully automatic (one trigger pull can release a burst of fire) or do bursts (of 3 rounds per trigger pull). Those have been felonies in the United States since the 1930s -- so we aren't talking about real-assault weapons when we talk about "Assault Weapons Bans" we are talking about look-a-like's (but not behave a-like's). That is the first public misperception to get over -- assault weapons have been illegal for 60 years.
Every time they show guns on T.V., seized at some drug dealer or gang members places they lay out this arsenal of weapons. The irony is that many (or most) of the weapons displayed have been felonies for 6 decades! The laws are being broken when these items are smuggled in, stolen from the military or police, and so on, and the media claims that more gun laws will fix the problem! In fact, since most of the people arrested are already felons (convicted of violent crimes), they are not allowed to own ANY guns under the law! How is making guns and behaviors that are already illegal even MORE illegal going to make a difference? The laws aren't being enforced as they are! You can't stop criminals from breaking the law -- you can only punish them after the fact, when caught. More types of gun bans is about as effective as outlawing shoes to try to stop those criminals! Stop adding more unenforcable laws when you aren't enforcing the ones we have.
So we know that "assault" weapons bans aren't going after real assault weapons, so what exactly classifies an assault weapon to the legislators? Since all guns share more in design than is different it is near impossible to tell.
Again, this is why groups like the NRA protest most of these bans, because it is impossible to categorize a certain "type" of gun when the type is so arbitrary. If they don't fight the generalizations, then all guns get banned -- and when you outlaw a particular model, the Gun Manufacturers are smart enough to change the model number (and a feature or two) and still sell the same weapon. And when you do get bans, there is politics and so on. The last "assault weapon" ban only applied to foriegn made guns -- so many moved manufacturing over here. Do we really want to create a battle of special interests over this stuff? This is all a distraction by legislators and politicians to avoid addressing the issue (crime and criminals).
Here is a partial list of what qualifies as an "assault weapon". Remember, the laws (State and Federal) go after a variety of functions/features, but most of the features they hate are nonfunctional. In modern nomenclature it usually refers to any one of more of the following qualifications:
- semiautomatic (or fully automatic)
- has a pistol grip (or is small)
- looks like a military gun (looks seem to be the biggest reason)
- has a mount for a bayonet on the end (or has threads for a flash suppressor or compensator)
- gun/clip that holds more than a few rounds
   
Since 99% of the "assault weapons" that are being banned are semiautomatics (and probably about 70% of all weapons today are semiautomatic) lets ask the obvious question -- why? Why are semiautomatics (and the already illegal fully automatics) banned? The answer you get from the ignorant multitudes of gun control advocates (in less technical terms) is "rate of fire". It is just too easy to pull the trigger quickly and get results. So when they are talking about "semiautomatic" they just mean if you go "jerk, jerk, jerk" on the trigger, and get "bang, bang, bang" that it is too dangerous (to them). Well revolvers do that too -- and generally aren't considered semiautomatics or assault weapons (though they can shoot as quickly). Some guns like shotguns or pepper guns can shoot many bullets with a single trigger pull -- so are beyond automatic in some ways, but those don't qualify as "semiautomatic". Some people can operate bolt-action, lever action or pump action guns to within plus or minus a few percentage points as fast as a semiautomatic. We fought WWI and WWII with lots of bolt action weapons -- and pump and lever action are even easier to operate (just not as cheap to make). And while a semiautomatic or fully automatic is a little easier to operate it is not that big a difference in real firepower.
A good shooter with a bolt action weapon can deliver more bullets on-target than a bad shooter with a semiautomatic (or arguably a fully-automatic) -- and they can deliver more bullets total than a bad/average shooter with a semi. So the rate of fire is not really what defines an assault weapon -- and Second Amendment supporters have to fight restrictions on firepower since those terms are so ambiguous.
The point is that skill can make anyone dangerous with any tool, or escalate the danger of a tool. A criminal only needs a single shot gun, or something that looks like a gun to commit a gun crime or a murder. Some lower round guns (like shotguns) are far more effective for widespread mayhem than an "assault" rifle in the average shooters hands. But if you are trained and trying to shoot people at 100 yards, then an "assault" weapon is a more dangerous weapon -- but shotguns are a bigger threat (and used more often in crime) than assault weapons. And the truth is about 99% of gun crimes are committed with the cheapest guns possible -- little stolen revolvers. Criminals almost never use high capacity (very expensive) assualt rifles, or weapons that are being categorized as that. Outlawing "assault weapons" is a way to attack collectors, plinkers and sport shooters, and not effect criminals at all. All the hype and myths about superior firepower of criminals is bullshit -- the police have more firepower at their disposal and are exempt from assault weapons bans and have been for years! That is just an excuse to empower some more, and take more rights away. And in any circumstance the firepower of the tool doesn't matter nearly as much as the ability of the shooter to hit the target.
   
Technically a semiautomatic is not talking about the rate of fire to classify a gun -- it is about how the next round gets in the chamber. If the mechanism use the bullets power (gasses) or recoil (reactive energy), along with a spring, to load the next round for you (without you having to flick your wrist, or squeeze the trigger a little harder to put the next chamber in place with a revolver) then it is classified as a "dangerous" semiautomatic weapon.
The problem is that the majority of guns manufactured today are gas or spring powered semiautomatics. This is why all shooter fight against a definition that "semiautomatic" means assault weapon. Semi-autos are nothing new -- the most popular pistol used for competition today is variations of the Browning 1911 .45 ACP. It is called the 1911 because that was the year it was put into service. Some semi-automatics and fully-automatics are a generation or two older. Gun owners are supposed to be limited to using only guns designs 100+ years old to appease the paranoid and ignorant? I don't think that is a good idea at all. Fortunately because of constant pressure by the "evil" gun/shooter groups (like the NRA), not all semiautomatics are considered assault weapons yet (though that has been tried). If it wasn't for them, then the legislators would have already outlawed about 70% of all guns by misinforming the public about what they are doing.
    
One of the most important things qualifying what is an assault weapon is the look. Some rifles (and all pistols) have a pistol grip for holding and steadying the weapon. For some reason, the antigun people don't like the look of pistol grips on rifles. The gun may not be any shorter and can still have a regular butt (stock) -- and all rifles have a place for your hand, it is just that if the hand grip is too vertical (instead of slanted) and composite instead of wood, why THEN it is an assault weapon.
If you don't think this makes sense, then maybe you will understand why gun "nuts" complain about the laws. The assault weapon for WWI and WWII (basically the M1A1 Garand) is not considered an assault weapon (yet) because it doesn't have a pistol grip. Here is a real military weapon that doesn't count. You get other guns like the Colt AR-15, which is almost mechanically identical to the Ruger Mini-30/Mini-14/Ranch-Rifle and some are "Assault Weapons" and others are not. Wood stocks usually aren't Assault Weapons, unless it looks like an AK-47 or SKS. Many companies just made their guns to not have a pistol grip, but instead have a stock with a thumb hole (which serves the exact same purpose) and it is magically "no longer an assault weapon"! It just gets impossible to tell which is which. Usually the "Assault" Weapons are the more expensive models that use composites instead of wood, or are what look like military guns to lay people.
Basically what you have are either very specific laws which pick out certain models and say, "that is an Assault Weapon", but it doesn't count other models that are mechanically the same (and companies come out with new models to get around the law). Or you get other laws/exclusions that are trying to qualify all semiautomatic rifles as assault weapons -- which is like trying to outlaw almost all guns. It is really stupid stuff.
The assault weapon bans are about as sensible as letting the Government decide what it a "Sport Utility Vehicle" or what classifies as a "Sports Car". Lots of non-SUV's have 4WD. Some cars handle like a sports car but seat more than two people, others look like a sports car but don't have the power or handling. Putting absolute standards on motor size don't make sense because you get dramatically different performance out of the same size motor. Horsepower would be better, but as mentioned above, guns have pretty close to the same "firepower" so that is near impossible to differentiate. Do you really want the Government saying that more than 60hp is a sportscar? We know that bureaucracy is incompetent at these regulations are all arbitrary! That is what the populace doesn't understand! And we keep tolerating some "concerned citizens" attacking other people's interests in the name of the public good -- kinda like the KKK was just preserving a way of life in the south! This doesn't succeed at doing anything but creating contempt for the law and persecuting some other groups interests -- or tolerate the intolerable.
Another thing that seems to classify "assault" weapon is the tip of the barrel. Guns create a flash when fired -- so often there is a "flash suppressor" at the tip. These are vents in all direction that let the burning gasses escape (and shields them a bit) -- thus reducing the flash. At long range hunting, Animals (like deer) can move before the bullet gets there (if they see the flash). It doesn't change the firepower of the weapon or anything -- so naturally that is one thing that the legislature attacks. It looks "bad", so it must make the gun more dangerous! So they outlaw it -- but only if it is a removable accessory, if it is part of the barrel itself it is ignored. (Try to figure out laws).
Compensators are flash suppressors that are only vented on the top. This directional venting keeps the tip of the gun from rising (as much) when firing -- and is important for rapid fire sporting events, hunting and is used in some military weapons. So naturally those are attacked too -- it looks bad, and that is actually a functional part of guns (pistols and rifles -- but they only ban them on rifles... for now).
And the thing that legislators seem to fear the most, and really quickly qualify a gun as an assault weapon is if it has a bayonet mount. I guess antigun people figure that if you can put a pointy stick on the end of a gun, then it is suddenly far more dangerous to the masses than the gun itself (which can often shoot someone from a few hundred yards away). I don't believe there has been a single case of a crime where someone actually used a bayonet on a rifle -- but that won't stop legislators from attacking that dangerous little tang of metal hanging below (or above) the barrel. Imagine you are a collector though that values having original weapons and a piece of history and you can't, the pointy stick makes a gun much too dangerous!
 
The last thing that defines an Assault Weapon seems to be the magazine -- how does the gun store the bullets. Some guns have internal magazines, other have removable "clips", drums, belts, rails (gravity fed), and so on. The one thing that legislators have semi-effectively gone after is the magazine size. This is logically like attacking a model of car as too dangerous because its gas-tank is too big and so can extend a police chase too far! Just imagine if the politicians said, "no one needs more than 15 gallons or 300 miles per tank", and started passing laws to enforce it. That is the kind of lunacy that gun owners are attacked with regularly. But in the case of cars, suddenly the public would be up in arms over their righs because they understand the issue and it would be their rights being stomped on -- but they will hypocritically ignore others rights and not know or care (or worse, do know and want to oppress another group).
When I target shoot, I use a standard pistol used the world over -- Baretta 92f. This is (and a Glock) are the standard side arm used by police (and military) the world over. Of course according to many politicians these ordinary pistols are "assault weapons". The Magazine carries more than 10 rounds (15 actually), and so must be attacked as an assault weapon. In typical political manner they can't go after the gun because even they realize how stupid that is, so they outlaw the magazine (clips). Some states, like my beloved but completely moronic state of California, are trying to turn all collectors and people that own any of the older clips into criminals as well -- by making the larger clips themselves a crime. This means our police are allowed to carry assault weapons on the streets as their side arms -- think about that!
You can buy 10 round clips, and you can buy large capacity clips (anything bigger) if it was made before the lay passed (1994) -- but if you buy a large capacity clip that was made after that, even if you don't know that (and the date stamped on the clip says pre-1994), then you are guilty of a crime. You can modify many non-assault weapons to take the large capacity clips of assault weapons, and you can still get some drums and the like that hold hundreds of rounds -- if it went with the gun, for now. I also don't think integral magazines don't count -- so a drum or clip built into a gun is OK. All sorts of stupid rules and conditions that fail to address the point (which is the criminals and their actions).
California is now passing a law that any semi-automatic rifles (and most pistols) with clips are considered assault weapons. It doesn't matter if they were designed for the military or not, or if they have any military application. Ironically, the M1A Garand was the assault weapon of WWII, and uses a non removable clip so that doesn't qualify. And you can (of course) load it quicky using these special strips to push many rounds into the internal magazine all at once -- achieving the same results. Most manufacturers will figure out ways to rapid reload guns without clips as well (through systems like this) and of course those won't be covered. So guess what -- you will still have the same capacity and firepower -- only authenticity will be banned. California will either have to outlaw all guns with integral magazines (revolvers and so on) as well (for our own safety of course) or they have achieved at doing nothing but once again attack collectors and sports-shooters. Remember, as each of these laws is passed, it is promised that it is the final step towards "safety" and that no more attacks on gun-owners rights and the tools will be necessary -- and each time, they immediately start the next campaign as soon as the current intrusion is passed.
California also had a "use a gun, go to prison" law -- pushed through by gun supporters in the late 70s early 80s! It said anyone convicted of crime with a gun would get an immediate 5 years tacked on to the punishment. Gun crimes started to plummet (and criminals were being locked up) -- so the anti-gun people got it repealed. They claimed it was "sentance fixing" and unfair because it was too objective (and didn't let judges set the criminals free on whims). So it was repealed, the California judges continued to be soft on crime, gun crimes started going up, and then the anti-gun groups used those increases in gun-crimes (since the law was repealed) as excuses to put more restrictions and bans on the guns themselves (to punish the law abiding), and continued the trend of being soft on crime to let the criminals out. Many against guns don't want to attack criminals (or behavior), they want to turn gun owners into criminals!
The thing is, when you are target shooting or in big competitions you are likely to need / want large capacity. Clips are $20 - $40 a pop, and you don't want to have to buy 10 of them so you can get through an entire match without having to reload (and having to switch clips or reload all the time). Most criminals use cheap revolvers ("Saturday Night Specials") -- not expensive hi-capacity 9 mm pistols. Police certainly shouldn't have high capacity weapons and be spraying areas with rounds (because of the endangerment to others). So naturally we've said that the Police get exclusions to any of these laws (because they shouldn't use them), and target shooters, collectors, and others gun owners are criminals if they have them (because they have a use for the large capacity clips).
Of course all these bans aren't going to prevent the criminals from getting these weapons -- and crimnals almost never use these guns in crimes anyway. When criminals do use "assault" weapons they often just smuggle-in REAL (fully automatic) assault weapons, or they steal real assault-weapons from the military or even police. But imagine you are collector or sport shooter that wants to use the same gun that you were trained on in the military, or compete with military personelle in shooting events using the exact same tools as them (without the fully automatic mode) -- why then you must be stopped, we don't want civilians having the same tools as the criminals or Government. None of this has to do with any reason -- it isn't about firepower, or threat to society -- it is about power and attacking the smaller group. There are far bigger threats to society than these guns, criminals almost never use them because they far too expensive and bulky for what they need to be to commit a crime.
Like a thug is going to carry a $1,500 AR-15 into a bank, when a $50 Revolver is much smaller, cheaper and easier to conceal. The public is brainwashed with Bruce Willis Action movies, and ignore that even his crooks are smart enough to smuggle in illegal military weapons (with fully automatic) and grenades and the like, which have all been illegal for generations, and aren't being stopped by assault weapons bans! Hollywood has sold this false image of thugs with assault weapons, and the public believes what they see on TV or in the movies. Of course this type of thing has happened (a few times ever) -- and it can still happen with all the guns illegal. In fact, when it does happen, the criminal often uses fully illegal assault weapons anyway (not usually the street bought type). Also when it has happens it was by done by really bad guys that kept getting let out of prison (and had long lists of crimes to their name). The problem in America isn't too many guns, we've had guns from the beginnning (and didn't have this type of crime) -- the problem is that we let too many criminals out and aren't holding them accountable. About the time we got soft on crime, and sensationalized guns in Hollywood (and started vilifying them in the media) -- is about the same time that gun crime (and violence in general) started going up. So if you want to attack something, then going after Hollywood's sensationalism of violence is far more likely to be effective -- but they have a stronger lobby, and have been scape-goating gun owners as a bunch of wacko's for 20 years, and many people who don't know any better are buying in and persecuting a group / hobby that they don't know anything about. (There is a whole article on the subject of Guns, Violence and Crime in America).
It is as difficult to classify guns as it is to classify cars (or computers), and arguably more so. What is a "workstation" instead of a desktop computer? When does a laptop become a sub-laptop? These things are really hard to define, and they don't really make a bit of difference to the intent or results of usage. Criminals who want to use computers for crime can use any computer for their ends. The faster and more powerful computers make it a little easier at most -- but not much. What is a family vehicle? What is a sports car? Cars are used more in crime and cause more deaths each year. Cars are used too flee from almost every crime -- should we put speed limiters, and gas-tanks-size restrictions on them? It just doesn't make sense, and our laws are once again being used as a weapon of persecution by the simpletons that don't know any better, or by the masses that just don't care about intrusions on others. Slowly I am watching society entropy, as each and every part of a gun (or way of making one) is being miscategorized as an "Assault Weapon" -- and we have the systematic vilification of groups like the NRA that know better and resist (through trying to inform the masses or by trying to stop more bad laws). What a free nation we are becoming.
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
