|
United States24513 Posts
I want to bring up a few misconceptions about guns that are commonly spread (whether it be on TL or by the media). Note that this is not a gun control thread.
1) The gun used in recent high-profile shootings were assault rifles. For example, read the first line of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120722/us-colorado-shooting/
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The military version, an M-16 is. Rarely do these high-profile shootings in the USA or elsewhere involve assault rifles as they are actually quite difficult to obtain. The key difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is that the M-16 allows the operator to switch between different shooting modes, including fully-automatic mode (like a machine gun). The AR-15 is purely semi-automatic (only one bullet will fire at a time with a squeeze of the trigger).
Let me use Wikipedia to get an alternate wording on this, although feel free to look up legitimate sources if you take issue with any of this.
semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable
So why are semi-automatic rifles, which are fairly easy to acquire, referred to in news reports as assault rifle?
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
Simply put, it sounds more dramatic, or bad to say someone used an assault rifle (imagine that... the media trying to exaggerate!). You might think it is just semantics, but lumping together the weapons usually used by crazy non-military shooters in public with military-grade light/sub machine guns leads those ignorant on the actual gun situation in the respective country to believe the availability of advanced guns is worse than it really is. I wish the term 'assault rifle' were only used for guns that are fully-automatic.
However, I do want to point out that a fully-automatic weapon is not necessarily more effective for killing unarmed civilians than a civilian semi-automatic weapon for most untrained people; these are two separate issues.
2) The purpose of assault rifles (as well as civilian models like the AR-15) is to kill.
What the original/design purpose of a type of gun is doesn't really seem relevant to me in any type of a gun-control debate, but I'm not here to argue that. Assault rifles were actually designed with the specific intention of stopping/wounding. In war, when two armies were shooting at each other, killing an enemy soldier instantly wouldn't stop his friends from shooting at you. However, if your weapons wounded enemy soldiers, their friends would stop shooting at you to tend to his wounds. So the goal was to A) stop him from fighting and B) get the attention of other soldiers in the process. There has been debate about how much to focus on stopping VS how much to focus on not killing, but assault rifles were not developed for the purpose of killing. As I said earlier, the original intention doesn't matter much to me when discussing modern use of gun models, but people are often making statement #2 so I felt it should be addressed anyway.
Summary:
This blog only addressed what classifies as an assault rifle, why this distinction does/doesn't matter, and what an assault rifle is designed to do. These are all open to discussion. If you want to discuss gun control, I suggest you go to the gun control debate thread (note that I have not offered an opinion on this topic here). If you want to discuss the Colorado shooting from last week, I suggest you go to that thread.
If you feel the topics of this blog are pointless to discuss, then I suggest you do not post here instead of making a post to explain how pointless you think this discussion is (yes, I actually am expecting that).
  
|
Amongst civilians, does gun type really matter? A pistol and an M16, both can kill someone unarmed with relative ease.
|
United States24513 Posts
On July 23 2012 01:21 Azera wrote:
Amongst civilians, does gun type really matter? A pistol and an M16, both can kill someone unarmed with relative ease.
This is going outside the scope of the thread. I did address the fact that an M-16 doesn't necessarily give the average person a 'killing' advantage over an AR-15.
However I wouldn't say that gun type doesn't matter unless it's a situation with a hostage being shot in vital areas at point-blank range (not the case in most shootings in public areas).
|
On July 23 2012 01:28 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:21 Azera wrote:
Amongst civilians, does gun type really matter? A pistol and an M16, both can kill someone unarmed with relative ease. This is going outside the scope of the thread. I did address the fact that an M-16 doesn't necessarily give the average person a 'killing' advantage over an AR-15. However I wouldn't say that gun type doesn't matter unless it's a situation with a hostage being shot in vital areas at point-blank range (not the case in most shootings in public areas).
Yep, and I completely agree with you.
|
I'm just going to leave this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces."
|
I think your first distinction is not really relevant : I've been told that the automatic mode on the FAMAS (the equivalent of the M-16 in the French army) is almost never used, and when it's used, it is as a deterrent. If the only difference between a M-16 and an AR-15 is the lack of autmatic mode, I don't see a problem with assimilating both weapons.
This being based on the saying of sub-officer who spent 18 months total in Afghanistan in the French army, so... take it with a grain of salt
|
United States24513 Posts
On July 23 2012 02:01 ninazerg wrote:I'm just going to leave this here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces."
I don't see what point you are making.
|
I agree that it's important to maintain a distinction between automatic and semiautomatic guns, but it's not that outlandish for media to call an AR-15 an assault rifle. To the average person who doesn't know much about guns, there are (1) handguns, (2) shotguns, (3) guns with a stock and a long barrel ("rifles"), and (4) guns with a pistol grip and a magazine and a longish barrel ("assault rifles"). Ignoring more specialized weapons (sniper rifles, etc), everything gets lumped into those four categories, and I think that's perfectly adequate terminology.
|
It's not very hard to convert a ar-15 into an automatic weapon through auto sear or otherwise. Let's not forget the image as well: the ar15 looks like the m4 and m16 we see in combat, allowing them to be grouped. Same reasons semi -auto ak's are considered assault weapons.
Also 100 round drum lol
|
It might be appreciable to add the words "semi-automatic" in front of these statements, but for the general public an "assualt rifle" just means a big black gun held with two hands with a huge clip. As differentiated from other generic ideas of weapons, like the pistol and the shotgun and the hunting rifle.
It's a reasonable complaint, I suppose, but there are many more important details the short articles of a newspaper have to omit to satisfy peanut-brained readers before they nod off. As far as sensationalism goes, this is a little lower on my scale of offences. I think a full automatic weapon would mostly likely include those words "Fully automatic" in an article to emphasize the point. I also think such a weapon fired into an unsuspecting crowd would be much more gorey and dangerous. At least some of those bullets are going to be fatal, and I think the talk of supressing fire / stopping power is pretty generous. It's no bullet to the head, but it's still deadly.
edit: someone basically made my point while I was typing ;p oh well.
|
On July 23 2012 02:33 micronesia wrote:I don't see what point you are making.
What point are you trying to make yourself? O_o
|
Hong Kong9148 Posts
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
an AR wouldn't even meet the definition of battle rifle, considering its 5.56x45. battle rifles are 7.62x51 nato or above
for reference, a bolt-action lee-enfield or mosin-nagant is a battle rifle. (.303 british, and 7.62x54r). you wouldn't certainly call them the politically-charged assault rifle though, because they don't look scary enough.
also cheers micronesia on a sane blog
|
On July 23 2012 02:01 ninazerg wrote:I'm just going to leave this here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces."
If you're trying to make the point that the AR-15 was designed as a selective fire assault rifle, it makes sense that you would leave out the rest of the paragraph.
"Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle."
The first-built model is that of the M16.
|
2) The purpose of assault rifles (as well as civilian models like the AR-15) is to kill.
but assault rifles were not developed for the purpose of killing.
Moving on, you strike me as a card carrying member of the NRA trying to get the word out on all the great uses of an AR-15 killing machine recreational tool so that there isn't a big push to get it banned. Amirite?
|
United States24513 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:41 ridethecatbus wrote:Show nested quote +2) The purpose of assault rifles (as well as civilian models like the AR-15) is to kill. Moving on, you strike me as a card carrying member of the NRA trying to get the word out on all the great uses of an AR-15 killing machine recreational tool so that there isn't a big push to get it banned. Amirite?
What? Most AR-15 use near me is recreational. Maybe I'm fortunate that people in my neighborhood aren't gunned down in the street by AR-15s...
I've pointedly avoided taking a stance on the things you accuse me of. Are you saying that I'm wrong with my assertion that people are wrong when they say #2, or are you saying that pointing out the inaccuracies in what someone said means I have an agenda?
Disclaimer: I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I own any firearms.
|
The big difference is that that ar-15 round is going to go into your chest and start bounching around killing you and shredding your internal organs. That is what you use to fight wars. A hunting rifle has the power and accuracy to shoot a clean shot straight though an animal . A hunting rifle is designed to minimize the amount of waste on an animal so you can eat more of it.
Its an infinity clear difference between weapons that you use to hunt (and probably better to defend yourself from the evil Chinese or government when you arn't trained to fight wars) and those that are designed to kill someone. No one is actually going to take an ar-15 out hunting or an ak-47.
What I'm trying to say is all guns are designed to kill but the ones that I want to keep are obviously and infinity different then war fighting guns. Any gun that has a clip larger then 5 is really not needed for civilian use in any light.
|
On July 23 2012 03:15 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s. an AR wouldn't even meet the definition of battle rifle, considering its 5.56x45. battle rifles are 7.62x51 nato or above for reference, a bolt-action lee-enfield or mosin-nagant is a battle rifle. (.303 british, and 7.62x54r). you wouldn't certainly call them the politically-charged assault rifle though, because they don't look scary enough. also cheers micronesia on a sane blog
Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
5.56mm is still a very powerful round, offering tons of damage and penetration. In fact, the greater control compared to a 7.62 might make it deadlier.
On July 23 2012 03:46 Sermokala wrote:
The big difference is that that ar-15 round is going to go into your chest and start bounching around killing you and shredding your internal organs. That is what you use to fight wars. A hunting rifle has the power and accuracy to shoot a clean shot straight though an animal (the rifle I like to use goes though a ton of brush and could take down an elephant if aimed right). A hunting rifle is designed to minimize the amount of waste on an animal so you can eat more of it.
Its an infinity clear difference between weapons that you use to hunt (and probably better to defend yourself from the evil Chinese or government when you arn't trained to fight wars) and those that are designed to kill someone. No one is actually going to take an ar-15 out hunting or an ak-47.
What I'm trying to say is all guns are designed to kill but the ones that I want to keep are obviously and infinity different then war fighting guns. Any gun that has a clip larger then 5 is really not needed for civilian use in any light.
I do know people who have used ar-15's for hunting (albeit with a 5 round clip). I also a person who's hunted with the .50AE desert eagle (lol). To be fair, these weapons are quite unorthodox, but hey, some people might like the feel. Also, there is the whole "collector's" sector when it comes to power weapons.
Also, you might need more than 5 round clips for pistols.
|
Hong Kong9148 Posts
On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote:
Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. A lot of factors influence how things will go. But this is a discussion about the event.
Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
|
On July 23 2012 02:50 Chef wrote:
It might be appreciable to add the words "semi-automatic" in front of these statements, but for the general public an "assualt rifle" just means a big black gun held with two hands with a huge clip. As differentiated from other generic ideas of weapons, like the pistol and the shotgun and the hunting rifle.
It's a reasonable complaint, I suppose, but there are many more important details the short articles of a newspaper have to omit to satisfy peanut-brained readers before they nod off. As far as sensationalism goes, this is a little lower on my scale of offences. I think a full automatic weapon would mostly likely include those words "Fully automatic" in an article to emphasize the point. I also think such a weapon fired into an unsuspecting crowd would be much more gorey and dangerous. At least some of those bullets are going to be fatal, and I think the talk of supressing fire / stopping power is pretty generous. It's no bullet to the head, but it's still deadly.
edit: someone basically made my point while I was typing ;p oh well.
This is basically the reasoning why the media calls it an assault rifle, it's because a two handed large clipped rifle is what people imagine when they say assault rifle. Saying it was a semi-automatic rifle is more accurate, but I dismiss your claim that it is called an assault rifle in order to exaggerate.
|
On July 23 2012 03:49 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:47 101toss wrote:
Pretty sure lee and mosin are not assault rifles, considering they're bolt-action. You can't effectively massacre a movie theater with a bolt-action rifle (in fact, you could probably only kill one person before you get taken down), which is why they aren't so politically charged (plus that a bolt-action has a clear hunting purpose).
Yes you can. You have a firearm. Your targets do not, because it was a supposedly 'gun free zone.' There were no police on hand because they only arrive after people have killed each other. But this is a discussion about the event. Bolt-action rifles carry a cartridge that laughs at level IIIA and even military level IV armor. that they arent considered 'assault' rifles is essentially a concession that 'assault' rifle is based on scary-factor and not actual capability.
You have a firearm that let's you get tackled every time you're rechambering a round, there's no way you can deal with multiple people charging you. Not to mention these rifles are subpar in CQC. The armor penetration doesn't offer much against unarmored civilians as it is, only offering higher penetration through objects like chairs (though it will help if you were to fight the police).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
