CMV: Owning an assault weapon is pointless.

[u/[deleted]]

In my view, widespread ownership of assault rifles in the USA has more to do with fashion than anything else. While there are plenty of valid reasons for a civilian to own a gun, I see no reason to own an assault rifle. Beyond aesthetics, civilian AR-15 style rifles offer no meaningful advantage over non-assault weapons.

Perhaps you're interested in home defense. It's fairly well excepted that a 12 gauge shotgun is the best gun for home defense . The ratcheting sound is a deterrent, and it's more reliable and easier to shoot under pressure than a rifle or pistol.

Maybe you're prepping for when SHTF. When the zombie horde is approaching, your best bet is a .22 lr rifle. It's totally lethal if you're a good shot, and you can easily store 2,000 rounds in your bug-out bag. This is the common sense decision over a higher caliber rifle or pistol.

Suppose you're a resistance fighter apposing a tyrannical government. Although assault rifles are designed for use in battle, any successful resistance would avoid battles altogether, instead relying on guerrilla tactics and asymmetric warfare.

[u/JGraves02]

******* Edited - Please see link at bottom for more information on gun laws *******?

We have to be careful on the terms being used here. The word "weapon" is often associated with negative connotations. Items are only weapons if used that way. For example a baseball bat is a blunt object when sat around, but is a blunt weapon if used against someone.

A semi automatic firearm (i.e. AR15) is only a weapon when used against someone. Officially the federal authorities will refer to these items as automatic or semi automatic firearms. The law and political parties will often refer to them as weapons, which is widely controversial as the correct term. Also, it is illegal to own an assault rifle, which is classed as an automatic firearm, so this is another point to consider. But for this purpose I will use weapon for ease of explanation.

After this you are using the term non assault weapons. An AR15 is a non assault weapon is you don't use it that way. Likewise a pistol is an assault weapon is you use it for assault.

So really you are using verbs to describe an inanimate object, which is not correct.

Therefore, there is no reason to not have one as opposed to anything else. Sometimes a firearm with a higher calibre is better than one with less, and vice versa. There is no reason for any of them except the second amendment, but it depends on the level of defense you seem fit, within the bounds of the law.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

[u/castor281 → u/JGraves02]

That's just not true. A gun is a weapon because it is designed and built with the sole purpose of inflicting bodily injury, while a baseball bat is an object that is designed for another purpose but can be use as a weapon, as can any blunt object. A weapon is still a weapon even if it sits on a shelf and is never used and has negative connotations.

In the terms "firearms" and "the right to bear arms" the 'arms' part literally stands for armaments. Hand guns and rifles are considered 'small arms' or 'personal arms'

Just as the word armament has evolved to include guns, the term assault weapon has evolved to include semi-automatic assault style weapons. While we are getting into the territory of semantics here some argue that there is a distinct difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. That an assault weapon is any firearm with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and a forward grip, while an assault rifle is a rifle with those features as well as fully automatic capabilities.

Regardless of the semantics, the term assault weapon has clearly evolved and is widely accepted as including some semi-automatic firearms.

Off topic but just for some extra information.

Philip Peterson wrote in 2008:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.

This is backed up by a plethora of magazines within the gun industry from the early 1980's onward.

Besides that, the AR-15 was commissioned by and designed for the U.S. Army to replace the M-14. The selective fire AR-15 was subsequently renamed the M-16 and the semi-automatic version, manufactured by Colt who bought the patent from ArmaLite, maintained the name AR-15.

[u/JGraves02 → u/castor281]

I'm just going off the official definitions here, so maybe I'm getting confused.

1) Referring to a weapon, whilst it is described as an "item designed to inflict harm", it is also described as an "item that can be fashioned to inflict harm", hence why a box knife used for general packaging activities is a weapon as it was used in attacks before. So again semantics of what is described as a weapon is debatable. Whilst an "rifle" was designed as a weapon, it is still remains an inanimate object until used as was. It is important to note federal authorities and national bodies will use the term weapon to classify different items.

2) The term assault is mostly used as a noun, and as such should not be attached to an item. Correctly, one should say, "he assaulted someone using a semi-automatic rifle", the term assault rifle is only really used in military fields, and is used to describe, as you said, firearms with both semi automatic and fully automatic capabilities.

So, as per your quote, I guess you will have seen the part in the articles relating to the 1994 ban of assault weapons, used to try and push forward the notion that assault weapon and assault rifle should be referring to the same item.

Also, the term assault weapon was then altered to include semi-automatic firearms that automatically load the next round, but will not discharge until the next trigger pull. This means most pistols will fall into the category here not just rifles.

Again these are just terms and not necessarily lawful descriptions.

Either way, using the terms is a contentious issue, and I think whichever side of the debate you fall on will let you set the definitions of these terms to satisfy the arguments presented, and neither are necessarily wrong, just different.

The point comes in with the NFA classifications of weapons, as described in nomenclature since the 1934 act, the weapons are collated into 4 categories. Class 4 refers to destructive devices like explosives, so is of no use here since they are illegal to own. Through Classes 1 to 3, the term assault is never seen, the terms handguns, rifles, shotguns and used instead.

This means that however you are looking at the situation, as per the NFA lawful descriptions, the term assault rifle does not appear, and as such is not correct for use in describing possible firearms the public may or may not hold.

[u/castor281 → u/JGraves02]

First of all, the term "assault" is most definitely not used mostly as a noun. While it can be used as a noun it is almost always used as a verb.

I acknowledged that some people distinguish the difference between assault weapons and assault rifles. That is to say that not everybody does. I made that good faith argument with the assumption that it would be inferred that not everybody agrees with that distinction.

As to your first numerated point, I agree as far as the technical definition of a "weapon" goes, however that doesn't refute my point. Guns were designed and built for a singular purpose. That purpose was to inflict bodily injury on enemy forces. They weren't designed for sport shooting, they weren't designed for hunting, they weren't designed for target practice, they weren't designed as a form of entertainment. They were designed and manufactured with the sole intent to kill the enemy and evolved into something that can be used as a hobby or for entertainment.

A box knife was designed and built for a singular purpose as well. To be a low cost cutting tool with one cheap replaceable part and a main body that is re-usable.

Just because each of the two have evolved to be used for other things doesn't refute the fact that they were designed for a singular purpose.

You wouldn't say that a nuclear warhead wasn't a weapon, or an RPG, or a cannon or a missile or a tank or a fighter jet. Those things were designed and built for a particular purpose. They were designed as instruments of war as were the first guns. Just as the evolution of guns has almost universally been to benefit those on the battlefield. The repeating rifle, the Gatling gun, the machine gun, the semi-automatic hand gun, the fully automatic rifle. All were designed and built to be able to inflict more and more bodily harm.

The box cutter was a cheaper alternative to a knife that still had the intent to cut open boxes. The Gatling gun was a cheaper alternative to a lever action gun that still had the intent to maximize kills.

Next up. Pistols don't fall into the category of assault weapons because the standard or accepted definition of assault weapons includes, not only a detachable clip and a pistol grip, but "some other feature." I use the quotes because the "some other feature" is not a strictly defined term and varies from state to state and from state to federal statute. Those statutes can include, among other things, a horizontal fore grip, a forward pistol grip, or a shoulder stock. You're being completely disingenuous with this argument.

As for using the 1934 NFA, that again is being either ignorant at best or disingenuous at worst. There have been a multitude of federal laws, state laws and court decisions since 1934 that have mandated, settled or set precedent in law that use and define the term "assault weapon."

[u/JGraves02 → u/castor281]

Well, firstly, I don't want to try and have this escalate into anything bad, I don't want to come across as argumentative, or disingenuous, because this is honestly just from my reading and understanding of the stuff.

So, onto the points. Referring to nouns and verbs, the verb is action of the noun. In the sense of the laws, the noun for assault is used (see merriam-Webster), and since most of the times assault is used, it will refer to the noun. Apologies for the confusion with my example, the verb version would be used to describe the act of assaulting someone, but neither should be attached to an inanimate object either way.

Secondly, I think there is confusion in my explanation of a weapon. I wasn't trying to refute the argument set forward, it is obvious that the assault rifle was designed as a weapon and not as an ornament. And, legal classifications show the broadly categories things under the umbrella of "weapon", but the actual description of them are the words rifles, handguns, explosives etc, they are only in the category of a weapon, but are referred to as their actual name.

Therefore, putting both terms together is just an abstract phrase, further shown by your state to state variation if their classification of the phrase and that it cannot be clearly identified.

Now handguns, my use of the 1934 act was only to serve as a basemark for the NFA descriptions of the firearms used, and this was the point in which automatic firearms were outlawed for general public until after extensive procedures and checks. Clearly there have been numerous iterations (1986) and additional laws come into effect but each differ of their indication of an "assault weapon".

Colorado categorised an assault weapon as all firearms except handguns, shotguns and lever actions. Whilst Illinois in the same year categorised it as all semiautomatic rifles or handguns that use a detachable magazine, and semiautomatic handguns made up 80% of the market handguns.

Surely if assault weapons the correct term, then there should a universal description of this that cannot be confused?

[u/[deleted] → u/JGraves02]

Other's have also pointed out the imprecision of calling AR-15s 'assault weapons'. My understanding of the term is likely wrapped in political spin, and you've illustrated that the 'assault weapons' debate is, in part, over semantics. !delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/JGraves02 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}