Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[AUGradinTX 0]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

Well, "any reasonable person with half a brain" would recognize that having alternative options is no reason to make a more lethal class of weapons (say grenade launchers) more easily available.

Really? Grenade launchers again? Are we denying the obvious differences between grenade launchers that are much more destructive and cause unintended collateral damage unlike a semi-auto rifle? The class of weapon under discussion is semi-automatic rifles, not stuff that goes boom, shoots shrapnel, and ends with stuff burning to the ground.

Now if you insist that semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are no more lethal (effective) in mass shooting demonstrations, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Weegle thinks four pistols(!) would be just as efficient as an AR with taped 30 round mags. I say, what would you choose to "clear" a building by yourself?

I would agree that rifles, in general, are more lethal that forks, knives and spoons accomplishing that. Does that mean we should just get it over with and ban all rifles? You are trying, first of all, to fix a problem that you can't. The fact that more people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles (of any kind) and shotguns combined tells me that. Second, you are trying to stop murders by banning something that is very rarely used to commit them. How does this make sense to you?

http://www.fbi.gov/a.../10shrtbl08.xls

Finally, it's not "beside the point". The proposition that we would be better off restricting the availability of certain classes of weapons (like we already do) does not preclude doing other things, including addressing whatever you consider to be the "basic cause". Or if you prefer, it's in addition to "the point".

The point you're missing is that you are wanting to take away something that millions of Americans use everyday without indecent to prevent murders when the percentage of murders committed with that something happens 10x, maybe 20x (that's a generous estimate), less than people being struck by lightening. Do a little research and get back to me on how many lives would be saved every year by banning AR-15s. I'm willing to bet just as many, if not more, people used one to save their lives rather than take one from the innocent.

ive asked and no one has a link to this happening. someone posted a link where an unloaded AR was used to scare away a home intruder, nothing else. and you are right not a huge # of people are killed with assault weapons but we cant ignore the ones that are and for no reason. the other gun deaths you mention are with guns that have justifiable purposes and that is being addressed in other ways. the assault weapon imo is not justified, its a killing machine, period.

I remember you asking. I guess you missed this link I provided in response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE&feature=player_detailpage

I would like someone to provide stats on how many people are murdered by AR-15s every year. I can't find that number. Wonder why...?

[homersapien 11,388]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the only choices we have regarding restrictions on military-purposed weaponry which I am addressing specifically. Of course the choices on that particular subject have nothing to do with different proposals to address mass shootings.

I have never advocated that we shouldn't take actions on other approaches to deal with the same problem.

Also, I have never suggested that limiting the availability of any class of weaponry would prevent the use of a non-regulated class of weaponry. I am suggesting that limiting the availability of military-purposed weaponry would at least remove the easy option of using this (more effective) weaponry.

As I have said many times previously, I see no reason why semi-automatic assault rifles should be treated any differently than the same type of weapon with automatic capability.

[homersapien 11,388]

I would choose both the AR as a primary entry/clearance weapon and the side arms as backup.

Good choice. Seems obvious to me.

[homersapien 11,388]

I would like someone to provide stats on how many people are murdered by AR-15s every year. I can't find that number. Wonder why...?

Well, for one thing the NRA and Congress blocked funding on conducting such research.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57564599/nra-congress-stymied-cdc-gun-research-budget/

[homersapien 11,388]

Clarification on my answer to (1): On sane, non-Kamikaze acting law-abiding citizens -- without question.

Well if you have a way to positively identify them prior to the fact, the problem is solved.

Laws and restrictions will not completely do away with all gun related deaths.

Correct. That's undoubtedly why no one has made such a claim.

The mass shooters are like Muslim Terrorists.

Absolutely. In fact, we could simply use the term terrorism instead of "mass shootings".

Nothing will stop stupid. These nut jobs would just assume to make a pipe bomb out of all legal parts as take a gun with them.

There's no reason to resort to alternative means if you can readily obtain the most effective weapon for the job. After all, there's a reason that certain classes of weaponry are restricted now.

The part we can focus on are the other 99% of gun related criminal related deaths. Chicago had over 500 homocides - and not one mass shooter. Focusing on Sandy Hook is the wrong approach.

Simply because there are many dimensions to the problem of gun deaths doesn't mean that we cannot address any given one.

This thread, or at least my participation in it, is limited to the issue of proliferation of military-purposed weapons, specifically assault type rifles. I never proposed that restriction of this class of weapons would have much affect on total gun related murders. My contention is that having millions and millions of assault type rifles easily obtainable will increase the number of terrorist shootings of all types.

Even the Islamic terrorists recognize the availability of such weapons in the US market is an opportunity:

"A spectacular example of a complex large-scale operation is the “urban warfare” assault that brought the global megalopolis of Mumbai to a standstill from November 26-29, 2008. And an effective small-scale attack was the 2009 shooting in Texas’s Fort Hood, in which Major Nidal Hasan shot 13 people to death and wounded 29. Jihadi spokesmen have referenced Hasan frequently since then, trumpeting an assault that took place with no risk or expense to themselves. Indeed, in June 2011, al Qaeda’s media production arm Al Sahab released a one-hundred- minute video urging Muslims to undertake individual jihad. New al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri featured prominently, as did the group’s American representative Adam Gadahn, who advised sympathizers to attack targets of opportunity in the United States with firearms.5 Gadahn’s portion of the video offered a simple, practical method for future attacks. The faithful living in America, he urged, should take advantage of the country’s gun stores and gun shows. Gadahn said, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms.” Concluding with the overwrought flourish typical of his rhetoric, Gadahn asked his viewers: “So, what are you waiting for?”

http://www.defenddem...ms_Report.pdf (page 6,7)

[homersapien 11,388]

The point you're missing is that you are wanting to take away something that millions of Americans use everyday without indecent to prevent murders when the percentage of murders committed with that something happens 10x, maybe 20x (that's a generous estimate), less than people being struck by lightening. Do a little research and get back to me on how many lives would be saved every year by banning AR-15s. I'm willing to bet just as many, if not more, people used one to save their lives rather than take one from the innocent.

First, I am not sure there are "millions" of Americans using assault type rifles every day. My understanding is there are "only" about 1.5 million of these rifles in the population.

Secondly, (again) this thread is not about addressing the causes of the most deaths. If it were, we would be talking about heart disease and cancer. These are worthy subjects of discussion but our topic here is gun regulations, or specifically regulations on military-purposed weapons. The number of people killed by lightening (for example) is quite irrelevant to the topic.

[selias 2,398]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

[alexava 6,973]

Thats what i said. You cant predict when or who. So lets get the military artillery off the streets and take our chances against against guns that actually have other legitimate uses than killing large groups of people in a few seconds.

How do we do that? Buy back programs? I don't know if we could get the artillery out of the hands of the thugs even if the law abiding gave into a program like that. Then we'd have to send in the National Guard. Then what? We are where we are and I don't think a new law will fix anything like this.

Apologies to Alexava for butting in, but they have a saying in the army, that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. (I started to say take away the shovels, but I don't want to imply I am recommending we take away the guns.)

As I see it*, the choices we have are 1) institute regulations/restrictions designed to halt or at least stem the proliferation of military-purposed weaponry in our society, or 2) do nothing.

What, if anything, to do about the weapons already out there is really a different question. In other words, they don't constitute a reason to allow the problem to get worse.

*as I see it, means I am presuming things which you may not agree with, such as AR/AK type weapons belong in the same class as the fully automatic versions and other weapons like RPG's. It also presumes a problem associated with having millions and millions of these sort of weapons "readily available" (i.e.: the way they are now). If you want to take issue with those presumptions, fine. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree. My point in this post is to respond to the logic of doing nothing because there are already 1.5M(?) out there.

Likewise, IMO, getting these weapons out of the hands of "thugs" is side issue that should not determine whether or not we do nothing. In other words, I don't see how having 30, 50M - or more - of these weapons out there would help address that issue.

Those are the only two choices we have? Can we not acknowledge the fact that a gun did not commit any of the crimes sparking this conversation? All of them were mentally ill. What I take from the highlighted portion of your post is that we shouldn't help the crazies, just take away ONE of the tools SOME of them used to kill. That just doesn't make any sense. Any reasonable person with half a brain knows these guys would still have killed if they didn't have access to an AR. This is undeniable by simply looking at the weapons they took with them. Pistols, shotguns, etc. They would have killed anyway. Even if they wouldn't have been able to kill as many people, which is debatable (see Va Tech killer), many people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. That's beside the point, however, and ignoring the basic CAUSE of these crimes.

Well, "any reasonable person with half a brain" would recognize that having alternative options is no reason to make a more lethal class of weapons (say grenade launchers) more easily available.

Really? Grenade launchers again? Are we denying the obvious differences between grenade launchers that are much more destructive and cause unintended collateral damage unlike a semi-auto rifle? The class of weapon under discussion is semi-automatic rifles, not stuff that goes boom, shoots shrapnel, and ends with stuff burning to the ground.

Now if you insist that semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are no more lethal (effective) in mass shooting demonstrations, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Weegle thinks four pistols(!) would be just as efficient as an AR with taped 30 round mags. I say, what would you choose to "clear" a building by yourself?

I would agree that rifles, in general, are more lethal that forks, knives and spoons accomplishing that. Does that mean we should just get it over with and ban all rifles? You are trying, first of all, to fix a problem that you can't. The fact that more people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles (of any kind) and shotguns combined tells me that. Second, you are trying to stop murders by banning something that is very rarely used to commit them. How does this make sense to you?

http://www.fbi.gov/a.../10shrtbl08.xls

Finally, it's not "beside the point". The proposition that we would be better off restricting the availability of certain classes of weapons (like we already do) does not preclude doing other things, including addressing whatever you consider to be the "basic cause". Or if you prefer, it's in addition to "the point".

The point you're missing is that you are wanting to take away something that millions of Americans use everyday without indecent to prevent murders when the percentage of murders committed with that something happens 10x, maybe 20x (that's a generous estimate), less than people being struck by lightening. Do a little research and get back to me on how many lives would be saved every year by banning AR-15s. I'm willing to bet just as many, if not more, people used one to save their lives rather than take one from the innocent.

ive asked and no one has a link to this happening. someone posted a link where an unloaded AR was used to scare away a home intruder, nothing else. and you are right not a huge # of people are killed with assault weapons but we cant ignore the ones that are and for no reason. the other gun deaths you mention are with guns that have justifiable purposes and that is being addressed in other ways. the assault weapon imo is not justified, its a killing machine, period.

I remember you asking. I guess you missed this link I provided in response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE&feature=player_detailpage

I would like someone to provide stats on how many people are murdered by AR-15s every year. I can't find that number. Wonder why...?

yes i did miss this, thanks. i contend the kid would have been better off with a shotgun, but im glad he protected himself and sister. i still however doubt he used or needed more than 10 rounds and multiple clips.

[Weegle777 78]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

If you were to put the same firing mech into a hunting styled rifle, would you consider it an assault rifle then? Is it because you think it looks "mean", or is it about performance?

[AUGradinTX 0]

The point you're missing is that you are wanting to take away something that millions of Americans use everyday without indecent to prevent murders when the percentage of murders committed with that something happens 10x, maybe 20x (that's a generous estimate), less than people being struck by lightening. Do a little research and get back to me on how many lives would be saved every year by banning AR-15s. I'm willing to bet just as many, if not more, people used one to save their lives rather than take one from the innocent.

First, I am not sure there are "millions" of Americans using assault type rifles every day. My understanding is there are "only" about 1.5 million of these rifles in the population.

The difference between you and me is your argument is emotion based. Mine is based on data and facts. The reason I am sure there are millions (plural) of these weapons is because I don't just spout off what I THINK. I actually do some research. Something I was taught in my days at Auburn.

Gun makers do not release sales figures for specific types of firearms. But Mr. Halbrook, who compiled manufacturing estimates for a lawsuit, said that by a conservative estimate, 3.3 million to 3.5 million AR-15s were made in the United States from 1986 through the first half of this year and were not exported. A similar estimate, for manufacturing from 1986 through 2009, was summarized by a District of Columbia circuit court judge as sufficient evidence that the rifles were in “common use.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Note, that was a conservative estimate BEFORE they started flying off the shelf due to all the talk of banning them. What's more, that's the number manufactured between 1986 and mid 2012. The AR-15 has been sold to the public since 1963! There are FAR more than 1.5 million AR-15s out there in use.

Secondly, (again) this thread is not about addressing the causes of the most deaths. If it were, we would be talking about heart disease and cancer. These are worthy subjects of discussion but our topic here is gun regulations, or specifically regulations on military-purposed weapons. The number of people killed by lightening (for example) is quite irrelevant to the topic.

And I asked someone to provide the number of murders committed by AR-15s each year. The number of murders by "rifles" is somewhere in the 300 per year. It is estimated that between .5 and 2 percent of those rifles were AR-15s, but is unknown mostly due to its rarity I would assume.

Now, in your previous response about the NRA blocking funding for gun research being the cause of us not knowing the number of murders by AR-15s is falacy. I'm pretty sure you didn't read and watch the video from the link you posted. It doesn't support your case. The restriction said mearly that none of the funds available could be used to promote or advocate gun control. That doesn't sound to me like they were prohibited from keeping stats.

Furthemore the FBI has murders by class of weapons on their website, so it isn't like the CDC is the only entity that can compile these stats so... yeah.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

[alexava 6,973]

AR 15 can fire 4x/sec.

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

If you were to put the same firing mech into a hunting styled rifle, would you consider it an assault rifle then? Is it because you think it looks "mean", or is it about performance?

I meant to edit my post to expand my definition of what constitutes a military-purposed design but I mistakenly deleted it and didn't bother to reproduce it. I suppose I should have. So here it is:

First, the most obvious thing that makes the AR15 (for example) a military-purposed design is first and foremost it was designed exactly for that purpose.

It manifests design choices which are quite useful for military combat bout would be either irrelevant or even counterproductive in civilian applications, even for self-defense of one's person and/or home.

As far as the action, many hunting rifles have semi-automatic actions similar to the AR. These actions have arguable advantages for civilian application, so that alone does not make a weapon "military-purposed. (Even so, the reason for using an auto-loading action is much more compelling when considering a military-purposed design.)

(I should mention here that the M1 Garand is an obvious military-purposed design even though it is technically identical to similar "civilian" designs. For the purposes of my argument, the M1 would not be considered a restricted design, although the use of stripper clips puts it into a "gray" area.)

So beyond the action, the primary technical feature of military-purposed rifles is quick-detachable magazines, There are other less important features including overall size, collapsible stocks, barrel length and cartridge choice. Anything with all of these feature is undoubtedly military-purposed.

Bottom line, the only unambiguous, unique feature essential to what I define as a military-purposed rifle is the auto-loading action combined with a detachable magazine. If you take a semi-automatic deer rifle and convert it to accept detachable magazines capable of more than 7 rounds (to use an arbitrary number) you basically have the equivalent of a military-purposed weapon from a firepower standpoint.

So, bottom line, yes. It's about the (firepower) performance that comes with auto-loading actions combined with detachable magazines.

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

[selias 2,398]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

Military purpose weapon?

FIres the same 5.56 cartridge

Uses detachable magazines

Semi-automatic fire

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

Military purpose weapon?

FIres the same 5.56 cartridge

Uses detachable magazines

Semi-automatic fire

See post #314.

[selias 2,398]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

Military purpose weapon?

FIres the same 5.56 cartridge

Uses detachable magazines

Semi-automatic fire

See post #314.

So you're hung up on cosmetics and ergonomics.

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

Military purpose weapon?

FIres the same 5.56 cartridge

Uses detachable magazines

Semi-automatic fire

See post #314.

So you're hung up on cosmetics and ergonomics.

Sorry, but I made a few additional edits to post #314 which may help clarify my position.

But even the next-to-last version of my explanation would not lead to the above conclusion.

[AUGradinTX 0]

AR 15 can fire 4x/sec.

Actually, it's more in the 10-14 per second range. Unless it is fully automatic, though, that really doesn't matter. It's not humanly possible to pull the trigger that fast.

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

An assault rifle (military weapon) has the capability to adjust its firing capability to different military situations. An AR-15 does not. It is a semi-automatic rifle. That's it. At no time can a semi-automatic AR-15 be referred to as an assault rifle.

As far as military purposed weapons... I'm going to make up a term also *chuckle* My term is "no longer military-purposed weapon". This is a weapon that is a simple variation on a design that was specifially intended for military use (combat), but no longer has the capabilitites needed for combat and NOT ONE SOLDIER uses. Instead, this semi-automatic rifle is sold at Wal-Mart like other semi-automatic rifles. They are very popular with people in the military because it has the look, weight and feel of the rifle they have trained with for years in the military. However, if asked if they would trade their military issued M4A1 for their Wal-mart bought AR-15 for use in combat they would tell you they do not have a death wish and stick with the true "military-purposed weapon;" the M4A1.

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

[homersapien 11,388]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

An assault rifle (military weapon) has the capability to adjust its firing capability to different military situations. An AR-15 does not. It is a semi-automatic rifle. That's it. At no time can a semi-automatic AR-15 be referred to as an assault rifle.

Fine. I think such a semantical argument is an obfuscation and a waste of time, which is exactly why I tried to work around it using terms like "military-purposed".

I have gone to great lengths to define what class of weapons I feel should be treated the same way as we treat fully automatic weapons and why I believe they should. If you disagree with my reasoning, fine, but at least state why. To say my argument is invalid because the term "assault rifle" has a specific meaning is irrelevant.

As far as military purposed weapons... I'm going to make up a term also *chuckle* My term is "no longer military-purposed weapon". This is a weapon that is a simple variation on a design that was specifially intended for military use (combat), but no longer has the capabilitites needed for combat and NOT ONE SOLDIER uses. Instead, this semi-automatic rifle is sold at Wal-Mart like other semi-automatic rifles. They are very popular with people in the military because it has the look, weight and feel of the rifle they have trained with for years in the military. However, if asked if they would trade their military issued M4A1 for their Wal-mart bought AR-15 for use in combat they would tell you they do not have a death wish and stick with the true "military-purposed weapon;" the M4A1.

Again, this is a "pro-forma" argument based on terminology and a technical difference that I say is moot.

Perhaps having fully automatic capability is marginally more effective if you have a few soldiers providing suppressive fire in support of an attack (for example). But automatic fire capability is not a significant consideration when comparing the effectiveness/lethality/efficiency of an AR-15 to an M4 in a mass shooting or terrorist scenario. The key features are an auto-loading action combined with detachable, high capacity magazines. Auto-fire capability is a moot point. (Not to mention it can be added to the AR-15 by changing one small part.)

IMO, to argue there is a defining practical difference between two weapon systems because one lacks selective fire capability is absurd.

If you don't accept that, fine. We just won't agree. But you can spare me the argument. I have heard it and I reject it.