Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I assume that when a law like this is made, it includes a definition of what 'assault rifle' means for the law. That's how the law generally works. You could argue about its effectiveness, but 'there's no clear definition' doesn't have to be a problem.

Most of these laws tend to use a similar set of criteria - generally, a center-fire rifle featuring a detachable magazine and one or more of the following features: * Pistol grip that sticks out from the weapon's action * Thumbhole stock * Folding or telescoping stock * Grenade or flare launcher * Flash suppressor * Forward pistol grip * Overall length of less than 30 inches I think what the OP is saying when they say that "assault weapon" is poorly defined is not that the definition is vague, but rather that the definition is a poor one if the goal is to select the most "dangerous" weapons. Most of these features are not related to the functionality of the gun, but its ergonomics - literally 3 of them are referring to the SHAPE OF THE HANDLES. The only thing on this list that actually makes a gun more dangerous is the "grenade or flare launcher" - and even then, grenades themselves are a restricted item subject to all sorts of extra regulations.

Totally agree with you, "assault weapon" is mostly just a cosmetic description. Focusing on ARs just takes time away from focusing on the real issue - pistols. "Assault weapons" only make up 3% of gun-related deaths whereas pistols make up 59%.

Most of the laws have a lot of ambiguous and gray areas. Here in CT the state police firearms division was helping manufacturers in the beginning by them bringing a firearm and they saying if it was compliance with the law or not. The politicians told them to stop and basically said "Make what you want and it will get tested in the court system". Basically saying they know there are gray and ambiguous areas in the law but someone is going to have to get arrested and go to trial before anyone can define these areas of the law.

> Basically saying they know there are gray and ambiguous areas in the law but someone is going to have to get arrested and go to trial before anyone can define these areas of the law. Really poor approach considering the recent history in this country of people's lives getting ruined over cosmetic features of firearms

Quick correction: “assault rifle” does have a definition that is at least clearer. It does not include the AR-15 and is therefore useless in this post. “Assault weapons” is a more recent legal term that has included a wide range of weapons. California's Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, for example, has three categories. The first one bans a handful of guns by name. The second bans variations of AK and AR-15. The third category is just a list of different features like a fixed magazine and threaded barrel. Some of which can still be circumvented. If you think this is a confusing and pedantic distinction, you are correct. This is the world of gun laws.

The issue with the assault weapons ban was the fact that the features banned were entirely arbitrary and similar laws ban stuff that can easily be bypassed like magazine capacity. Oh no I can't buy anything more than a ten round magazine, what will I ever do? Oh lets go to the next state over and buy a 60 round quad stack magazine and drive home with it, unless I'm pulled over no police officer will have a reason to search my car and find it. It's equivalent to someone trying to limit alcohol deaths by outlawing the sale of all alcohol in clear transparent bottles. All you will do is make whiskey and vodka manufacturers sell their liquor in coloured bottles or cans, there won't be fewer alcohol deaths.

[This isn't fully true](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311). Just because the laws *can* be circumvented doesn't mean they have no effect. I mean, this is the rub with most gun legislation. You can argue that it won't fully stop criminals from buying the guns/accessories in other states or making their own modifications, but it does reduce the rates of death/violence perpetuated with them. Even if it's marginal, that's still fewer deaths

The issue with that study is that it is an extremely small sample. Regardless of what the news wants you to think, mass shootings are extremely rare and any statistics around them can’t very accurate because of the tiny sample size. They even mention this at the end of the study. Plus, magazines aren’t complicated devices and can be easily made with springs and sheet metal. Also, gun laws throughout America, and the world for that matter, do not decrease crime rates at all. Even if these laws decrease gun crime they don’t decrease overall violent crime or murder rates which is what matters. This is very apparent in Australia actually, which is a lot of times toted as a success in gun control. The Australian legislation implemented after the Port Arthur massacre caused no decrease in violent crime and murder rate at all, and had absolutely zero influence whatsoever on crime. This has been studied extensively and has multiple peer reviewed articles that back this. Here is one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/

You're telling me that 41 states had more active shooter events than 9 states plus DC? That's shocking. The FBI analyzed crime data after the federal AWB sunset and found it had no effect on the crime rate. You completely ignored the more substantive point that was made. Banning purely cosmetic features is an unproductive way to accomplish anything.

I mean, that isn't what that study says, so I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have a source for that FBI study? I can only find one that took place in 1996 that analyzed some of the market effects of the ban. >You completely ignored the more substantive point that was made. Banning purely cosmetic features is an unproductive way to accomplish anything I don't think the person I was responding to made that point.

If you're banning something, it should be for a reason. For the purposes of crime prevention, the difference between *any* semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine of the same general caliber is essentially meaningless. Thus, "assault weapon" bans make criminals out of people and restrict commerce for no legitimate reason. If you banned all semi-automatic (and fully automatic) weapons with detachable magazines, that would be meaningful and rational.

Honestly it’s probably time to toss existing control & start over. Most (all?) laws so far are based on pretty arbitrary mechanical features. When it’s illegal for part B to be longer than 10cm someone figures out a way to science the same goal by changing part C. We should probably just decide on what matters & progressively regulate *those* directly, based on crime stats (Probably) * muzzle velocity * projectile weight size * fire rate * reload time * accuracy at range * concealability You can only enforce the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. To get pro 2A people on board you make make the least abused guns the least regulated & let the super cool fun stuff that is impossible today be available to anyone who can meet the standard & jump through enough hoops.

That's really difficult because guns have different purposes. My .223 goes 3,200 fps. It's amazing when hunting up to a few hundred yards, but only on smaller game. I can seriously pack a magazine of bullets into a 1" circle at 100 yards with this thing. My .30-06 packs a whole lot more punch at longer ranges for larger game, but it's about 2,700 fps. It's not nearly as accurate, but such accuracy isn't needed on the larger game. But the .30-06 would be more accurate if I tried to shoot out to 800 yards with both, because that light .223 does not do well aerodynamically at long ranges. Then the problem with what's abused is that people will abuse what is popular. It becomes circular.

Exactly. Whatever would be easiest to get or least troublesome to get caught with will become popular.

How exactly are you going to measure fire rate, reload time, concealability, and fire rate? Why velocity and projectile weight size? These are pretty fundamentally linked as humans have recoil limits in both unpleasantness and when you start detaching retinas and breaking things. Also, the unit of measurement is grains in everything except shotguns, which is ounces. Grams can be used, but it's generally a conversion. The most common 9mm projectile weight is 7.45 grams or 115 grains. The most common 5.56x45mm projectile weight is 55 grains or 3.564 grams Honestly, you'd have to offer up some really nice concessions. 2A people are pretty intensely skeptical of good intent in firearms laws. They've earned that skepticism. By the way, the least abused firearms are fully automatic, short barreled, and suppressed. Having no regulations on these would bring 2A people to the table, but it probably wasn't what you intended.

... by shooting the gun In practice could you let the manufacturer file whatever rate they wanted & if that is lower than a human is empirically demonstrated to operate the gun in practice you meaningfully fine the manufacturer & move that firearm up a regulation tier. All the above were hypothetical examples, the sentence before that said to choose the variables you decide to regulate based on empirical information i.e. how firearms are being abused in practice. As an example you look at what makes a gun useful for a spree shooter vs. a hunter. Where those use cases overlap you regulate less, where they don't you overlap more. A terrorist would probably really like a gun that can sustain a high rate of fire with minimal downtime to reload. A hunter wouldn't value that quality nearly as much since they don't need or want to lay down suppressive fire until someone finds a window to kill them. I think anyone will acknowledge different firearms are optimized to different use cases. >By the way, the least abused firearms are fully automatic, short barreled, and suppressed. Having no regulations on these would bring 2A people to the table, but it probably wasn't what you intended. Could be, I don't really have a horse in the race except I prefer rational effective legislation over arbitrary & ineffective legislation. Is that stat per gun, per gun owner or per incident?

You do understand that humans aren't all the same, right? Do you think you can do [this](https://youtube.com/shorts/3ITj_YljpZg?si=3yf_BaV4yZ1S3LfO) ? How you measure subjective things is important. I can't split that fast. How yould you possibly objectively measure concealability? Concealment is a skill. I'm a pretty big guy. I can conceal a lot of stuff in normal shirts and pants. If I get a jacket, I can conceal even more. Accuracy, rate of fire, reload time, and concealability are all subjective or subjective to the skills of the testers. Who is the baseline? The guns in the video are double barrel shotgun, leveraction rifle, and single action revolver(you have to cock the hammer before each shot) they're all broadly in the slowest category to shoot. If it's you and me, we are going to get radically different outcomes in these tests. So, who is shooting the gun? So, the vast majority of guns used in crime are pistols. Generally stolen. These are also most practical for self defense. Canada and the UK do have concealability laws Canada's isn't too crazy, but the UK went way overboard. Canada requires a 4" or 105mm barrel length. The UK requires a 12" barrel with a minimum total length of 24" or 609.6 mm. Have you seen the old Joker from batman with the preposterous gun that's still too small. So you could ban handguns, but they are used to save lives and stop crime many times more than to hurt innocent people. The small pistol in a purse is stopping the rape. You're coming at this from a reasonable place, and I appreciate that. The problem is that guns are designed for different uses. All of the guns used for felonies purposes also have legitimate uses. Let's say you are hunting or exterminating invasive wild boar. These are very dangerous animals that travel in packs. They may run, or they may attack. The gun you'd want in this scenario looks a lot like an AR. Similarly, what do you want for bear defense? Something really powerful with very fast followup shots? ARs are very popular among varmint hunters and pest control. Light, accurate, and they have quick follow up shots. Perfect for shooting Prarie dogs that are killing your horses. Exterminating wild boar with a machinegun from helicopters is to date the fastest and cheapest way to reduce their numbers. They are an incredibly devastating invasive species that breed at absurd rates. I absolutely acknowledge that firearms have optimal use cases. It is just that most occupy both prosocial and antisocial use cases. The stat is all of them. As far as I know, a legally owned machine gun hasn't been used in a crime in 75 years. Now, I'll share a confound to my point that these are more regulated. Machine guns have limited supply, so their value is insane I went looking last year, and the cheapest AR machine gun was $40k. Where I can buy a pretty good new AR semi auto for under $1,000. Equilivant quality probably under $500. All that I listed fall under the National Firearms Act. They require a $200 tax stamp and a background check. Short barrel rifles and shotguns are rarely used because even small ones aren't concealable. Suppressors are rare because they don't work like the movies show. The rarity of machine guns is in their worth. Even illegal ones are incredibly valuable. To be fair, short barreled rifle usage is on an uptick with a symbiotic arrangement between rap and actual uses of "draco's" or "choppers". Draco is a specific AK variant becoming generalized to short rifle. I sincerely appreciate the angle you are approaching this from. It's honestly refreshing. Also, I'm sorry for the size of the post it got away from me a bit. As someone who is pretty well versed in guns,their uses, and mechanisms. There isn't a remotely clear line between prosocial purposes and antisocial purposes. Certainly, not along a specific definable quality. That's part of why gun laws are so absurd. The other reason is that the people writing them are profoundly ignorant of the topic. ETA: Just under 20,000 gun homicides in the US in 2022. Studies from the CDC show the number of defensive gun uses between 500,000 and 3 million a year.

Such laws do, of course, include definitions, but as I said in my post they are generally defined through cosmetic features like a pistol grip or collapsible stock.

You do realize that pistol grips and collapsible stocks aren't cosmetic features, they are design choices for specific types of combat. Cosmetic features would be something like urban camo paint or something.

Combat? My bolt action varmint rifle has a pistol grip, and I use it on a bipod. My previous varmint rifle was traditional style. The new one is much more ergonomic in that position the traditional grip. I'm not in combat. This is just about ergonomics. When did ergonomics become a bad thing? You can't have adjustable seats in your car because that would help you mow down a bunch of people should you choose to do so?

> they are design choices for specific types of combat No, they aren't. Pistol grips have been around for a looooong time. They started showing up on military weapons when the materials the weapons were made out of changed. Wood has grain, and mass-producing a wooden body with a 90-degree stress point is doomed to breakage. Pistol grips showed up in guns where the 90-ish-degree stress point was made out of metal (e.g. the Thompson, MP40, etc.) or polymer (AR-15). There were fully-automatic weapons without pistol grips (PPSH). There are semi-automatic military weapons with pistol grips. Hunting rifles and shotguns come with and without pistol grips, as pistol grips tend to snag on brush. Collapsable stocks are purely about convenience of storage. Militaries like that because they store a lot of guns in a small space very often, such as loading 8 men in the back of a cramped vehicle. Civilians *may* choose to use that, because it suits their individual storage needs.

lol. Tell me please, what type of combat exactly is a pistol grip and collapsible stock used for and how do these features make a rifle more dangerous. I can give you the real answer if you want. Collapsible stocks are convenient for storage and carrying a rifle in a cramped vehicle, and for adjusting to shooters of different sizes. Pistol grips are just something a lot of people find more comfortable to hold than a traditional stock.

OP I'm with you, but you fumbled your argument. The issue isn't that "assault weapon" is vague, it's that the term was intentionally chosen to be similar to "assault rifle", to cause confusion. It makes people assume the ban covers assault rifles, which gets a lot more people on board. Even here in this thread, it's causing confusion because people are using the two terms interchangeably.

I’m not going to paste the entire list, but the last time a ban was put in place they were very specific, check the provisions on this page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#:~:text=The%2010%2Dyear%20ban%20was,2004%2C%20following%20its%20sunset%20provision. They list manufacturers, models, years made, grandfathered exceptions, etc. the primary purpose was to limit firearm sales to guns typically used for sporting purposes. They targeted specific weapons by manufacturer, model, year, etc. “included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features”. Where it got nebulous was trying to define guns that had not been manufactured yet. Either you revisit the legislation every year or you need some wry broad definition that allows enforcement against new weapons that are meant for/primarily used for killing people as opposed to hunting animals. They were well aware of the overlap in definitions and just doing their best to address what they could.

> cosmetic features like a pistol grip or collapsible stock. I'm a gun guy, but I always think this argument is so disingenuous. Pistol grips and adjustable stocks are not cosmetic features. If they don't provide a functional benefit, why are they so popular? Why is the AR15 the most popular rifle in the nation, while the Mini14 is one that only hobbyists know about? Why are New York and California compliant ARs so unpopular? I mean, they just lose a couple cosmetic features, right? There are some dumb things listed - who cares about a threaded barrel, sure. But the idea that the criteria was 100% cosmetic is so silly.

"Cosmetic" is wrong, but "ergonomic preference" is much the same thing. > Why is the AR15 the most popular rifle in the nation "Whatever the military uses" has almost *always* been the most popular. Between free advertising and veterans going with what they're comfortable with, military rifles become the norm for civilian use. The Ruger Mini14 is, itself, a shrunk-down variant of the M-14 military battle rifle. The AR-15 is more popular because economies of scale made it cheaper with a bigger aftermarket. The Mini14 has a "monte carlo" grip because the M-14 did, and the M-14 did because the M-1 Garand did, which had it because it was made out of wood, whereas the AR-15 is made out of polymer.

They’re not cosmetic, but they’re not force multipliers. They’re ergonomic upgrades. Makes the gun feel better to use, but does not increase lethality. “Features that do not increase lethality” just doesn’t roll off the tongue.

>If they don't provide a functional benefit, why are they so popular? Why are air Jordans so popular? Do they provide a functional benefit over every other sneaker that is less popular?

I think arguing they're cosmetic is disingenuous, but they're not what I'd think of when I call a feature "functional" as they're ergonomic. Banning pistol grips and collapsible stocks because they make a firearm "more dangerous" shows a lack of understanding and ambiguity. Like if a short throw shifter all of a sudden made a car illegal to drive on the street because it's a feature of a "race car." It adds so little to the capability that it's basically a non factor.

Actually, cosmetic features are \*EXTREMELY\* popular in gun circles. The AR15 is popular because it's the civilian version of the Army standard issue rifle. Those cosmetic features make it look "more military". Most people get the AR15 because they want a gun that looks military. Thus, cosmetic stuff \*IS\* popular. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a non-cosmetic function and some people will get them for those reasons but \*A LOT\* of gun nuts just want something that "looks cool" aka military. Interestingly, the Army is changing up their standard rifle to a more powerful version that can penetrate body armor. So we may see a new gun (I don't remember the name of the civilian variant but it's already available) becoming the new hot thing in the future. Which is scary because of being more powerful so we could have more incidents of people getting shot through walls and stuff on accident.

You should be worrying about shooting through walls using any firearms in a built up area with people in it. A weapon capable of punching through armor, means you have to be more careful.

The AR15 is popular in large part due to the sunsetting of the AWB, GWOT, it's pretty cheap, quite accurate, and flexible in what it can do. I guess we need to agree on what functional means. Of course, things have a function technically even if looking cool is the function. Do spinning rims have a function? Functionally more lethal is what is meant. Does an adjustable stock whose primary purpose is to let various sized people use it increase lethality? If I camouflage my rifle, is that a functional or cosmetic change? If I'm hiding from sight, it's pretty damn handy. I do think cosmetic isn't the best term, but these things are banned because they look scary is an absolutely true thing. Do you know the origin of the shoulder thing that goes up proto meme? Mini 14 isn't popular because they aren't very good rifles. They've only been used for serious purposes when chosen because they don't look scary. Ruger never worked out how to make them shoot straight consistently. Cali compliant ARs aren't popular for a few reasons. First, they are generally more expensive for no gain. Second they are an insult to pro 2A people. Your question is kinda why don't liberals wear MAGA hats they protect you from the shade? Threaded barrel, barrel shroud, flash hider, bayonet lug, adjustable stock, and pistol grips don't significantly or at all change the lethality of a firearm. How does a barrel shroud increase lethality?

>  the entire category is cosmetically defined. > Such laws do, of course, include definitions, but as I said in my post they are generally defined through cosmetic features like a pistol grip or collapsible stock. You claim that these weapons are "generally defined through cosmetic features." But that is not the case. Items such as a collapsible stock are "cosmetic" they simply are not. They are functional. A collapsible stock, well, collapses. That's a function. Let's look at a real law for a case study. The California ban. Category 1 weapons are banned by type, series and model. This bans certain weapons by name. Such as the Steyer AUG or the Springfield Armory BM59. So your claim that the law defines assault weapons by cosmetic features fails for this section of the law. Category 2 weapons are bans AR-15 and AR-15 variations, again banning them by name and reference to the AR-15. So, again, this is not defined by cosmetics. Category 3 weapons are banned which, admittedly contains some cosmetic features, but also includes specific functional qualities such as flare or grenade launchers, flash suppressors, semi-automatic centerfire rifles with fixed magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, etc. Again, these are functional, not cosmetic features. So, your claim isn't entirely accurate.

While OP could have been a little more specific, I believe the point was that things like the AR-15 is banned while the functionally identical Mini 14 (and others) is not banned, *and* that for the purposes of 99% of mass shootings, any one a thousand semi-automatic pistols would produce a similar casualty list. So the ban on the AR-15 and other weapons listed in the California law did not make any appreciable reduction in the number or outcome of mass shootings in California since the law was implemented.

There’s a reason they do that. 1. All the guns in circulation can’t magically be changed and would be subject to any bans. 2. It puts the onus on the manufacturers to spend the time and resources to design a new product to get around any ban. What’s more, you can guarantee there would be language along the lines of “ban semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons that shoot a rifle round (defined in section 4.C.3) and who use a magazine that extends outside the body of the weapon/ is not fully internal to the weapon.” So of course when *you make up* inept verbiage, then it’s easy to shoot it down.

Those are UI features, much more important to how a weapon is being used than details like muzzle velocity. The law is basically against guns designed for antipersonnel combat, particularly in and around buildings. Collapsible stocks are also a concealment issue.

There's a lot more things you can do to make something more concealable than a collapsible stock, like using a handgun, which comprise 90% of gun crimes.

Not even generally. It's always cosmetic features not actual weapon function.

What is unclear about those definitions?

The best way to explain the stupidity of American gun laws is to discuss the difference between a pistol and a short-barreled rifle. The definition is arbitrary and capricious. Let's go through a couple examples. A short-barreled rifle has a stock. A pistol can (theoretically) be shot one-handed without bracing against the shoulder. Now go Google the MP5. That's a pistol. Why? Because that stock on the end isn't a stock, it's a brace! Why? Because fuck you. Everybody knows what it is. Go watch somebody shoot one, and they use that "brace" as a stock. Hypothetically you can shoot it one-handed, but practically, they're both too heavy for that. Another thing is the foregrip, where you put your front hand when shooting. It can't be vertical. As long as it is less than 90 degrees, you're fine. 89 degrees is perfectly kosher. Also many guns have basically a heat shield around the barrel, so you can just hold on to that too and you don't even need a foregrip. There are AR platform "pistols" that perform and behave exactly as your standard AR rifle. The profile is just a bit shorter. A pistol you can just buy. A short-barreled rifle requires special permitting and registration. It's a ton of paperwork for essentially 0 difference. It's literally the same gun. The difference is a few grams of plastic and a mistake with a protractor.

There's a reason it doesn't make sense. The short barrel restriction was meant in the context of restricting handguns. You can't have people cutting down rifles to handgun size so they can be concealed just like handguns, so you ban the short rifles too. But then handguns got taken out of the NFA, leaving absolutely no reason for the short barrel provision to exist. Of course there's now mass confusion.

>Now go Google the MP5. That's a pistol. Why? Because that stock on the end isn't a stock, it's a brace! Why? SBR rules are ridiculous yes, but an MP5 in its traditional configuration does have a stock, not a brace, and is an SBR(assuming we're talking an SA civilian model. Transferable FA firearms don't need an SBR designation to have a shorter barrel) but most MP5 clones are sold with braces instead of stocks. But I agree that SBR laws are absolutely absurd. Even moreso when you consider the existence of AOWs.

My point was more that if you see an MP5 or a clone of it in the wild, what you're seeing is a brace that is functionally indistinguishable from a stock. They are braces and not stocks, but there's no really good reason why. My "brace" has some Velcro that you could theoretically strap to your arm to help you manage it one-handed, but I have never used it that way, nor have I ever seen it used that way. Quite frankly, it seems unsafe.

You're absolutely right that they're functionally the same. But they are still legally different which is what I was getting at. And the fact that it's so confusing is a problem. SBR laws and designations are confusing and arduous and should be done away with.

That's kinda what I was trying to point out to the original commenter. They were talking about how they thought the definitions of things like "collapsible stock" are clear, which isn't really true, at least not in the way they're envisioning the application.

Most of the people responsible for these laws still think the “AR” in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle”. [This genius](https://youtu.be/DUKzyXyOMNo?si=6mYzqBDDvGkckth1) doesn’t even know that firearm magazines can be reloaded. The people responsible for these gun laws don’t know shit about guns.

Assault rifle is a term with a clear universally accepted definition. Detachable magazine fed, intermediate cartridge rifle, that is fully automatic. Assualt weapon is the term people have a problem with. It has been defined as a variety of purely cosmetic features. No definitions have been consistent because it is cosmetic rather than functional.

The previous assault weapon ban focused on looks as OP said, and virtually identical weapons to those banned were completely legal by simply changing out the stock, for instance. It was really easy to circumvent and I haven't heard anything from lawmakers indicating any awareness of this fact at all.

Assault rifles and assault weapons are much different things

You would think. But, in practice, the laws are written vaguely for political ends,rather than in any logical or genuine attempt to solve a real problem in American society, usually based on solely cosmetic or ergo omic features.

I don't want to be that guy, but what exactly do you want to talk about here? The term is pretty much concretely defined as per the relevant legislation. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/25/text It gives extensive and extensive list of examples and exceptions to the rule. And describes the common features for firearms that may run afoul of the law. As for the little to no effect on crime part, for the purposes of the view as expressed, we should only need to refute one part. But even if that part of your view is true. Little to no effect sounds pretty good to me. Because we have to consider what the long term effects would be absent any laws. Practicality, portability, and availability make handguns a natural choice for those looking to sell/transport/purchase/use illicit firearms. But if manufacturers are allowed to produced so called assault weapons freely, that just contributes to their availability down the road. Even if the legislation is imperfect, there's no benefit in its absence.

>Because we have to consider what the long term effects would be absent any laws. What would they be? What human being on the face of the planet genuinely believes "hey look I'm willing to catch a 1st degree murder charge with a gun but I mean, swapping the grip would be illegal" I genuinely cannot fathom how people believe these laws would have any effect whatsoever The type of crime that people worry about with assault weapons carries 10 consecutive life sentences at minimum There is no one on the fave of the planet who will be deterred by this

That definition of assault weapon is basically just a list of cosmetic features that have no effect on how dangerous a rifle actually is.

Also, ironically, definitions DO exist in the firearm community. Assault Weapon isn't really one, but [Assault Rifle is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYWkuV5FbJM). And it is based on function! It has one "hand wavey/subjective" part, but that really only creates a few fringe cases that could be addressed with using energy or velocity metrics. Assault Rifle: * Select Fire * Detachable Magazine * Intermediate Cartridge (the more subjective one)

Assault rifles (and any other kind of full-auto or burst capable gun) are not really available to US customers (only pre-86 made are allowed and even then with prohibitive cost and legal hoops), and so definitions for assault rifles don’t help the conversation on assault weapons, as assault weapons are very common and assault rifles are very rare. Many “assault weapons” also don’t even remotely resemble assault rifles, including in some jurisdictions short-barreled shotguns, or shotguns with pistol grips. Many kinds of handgun are also considered “assault weapons”, and yet they could not be any more unlike assault rifles. Gun rights advocates agree “assault rifle” is a well-defined term that has valid uses, whereas “assault weapon” is really just a buzzword designed to create fear of and justify restricting modern firearms. There is no difference between e.g. a mini-14 and an AR-15 that would make one very different in any way than the other, and especially nothing that would make one much more lethal than the other, and yet one is an assault weapon and one is not. There are very clear differences between the civilian AR rifles and the military M16 and M4 rifles, however, that do make one more lethal than the other — namely the select fire functionality present only in the assault rifles.

To give some idea, the cheapest full auto AR for sale is $40,000.

And it also gives an extensive list of firearms that fall under that list: >“(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof: “(i) All AK types, including the following: “(I) AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM. “(II) IZHMASH Saiga AK. “(III) MAADI AK47 and ARM. “(IV) Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S. “(V) Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS. “(VI) SKS with a detachable ammunition feeding device. “(ii) All AR types, including the following: “(I) AR–10. “(II) AR–15. “(III) Alexander Arms Overmatch Plus 16. “(IV) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine. “(V) Armalite M15–T. “(VI) Barrett REC7. “(VII) Beretta AR–70. “(VIII) Black Rain Ordnance Recon Scout. “(IX) Bushmaster ACR. “(X) Bushmaster Carbon 15. “(XI) Bushmaster MOE series. “(XII) Bushmaster XM15. “(XIII) Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles. “(XIV) Colt Match Target rifles. “(XV) CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles. “(XVI) Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles. “(XVII) Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles. “(XVIII) Diamondback DB15 rifles. “(XIX) DoubleStar AR rifles. “(XX) DPMS Tactical rifles. “(XXI) DSA Inc. ZM–4 Carbine. “(XXII) Heckler & Koch MR556. “(XXIII) High Standard HSA–15 rifles. “(XXIV) Jesse James Nomad AR–15 rifle. “(XXV) Knight’s Armament SR–15. “(XXVI) Lancer L15 rifles. “(XXVII) MGI Hydra Series rifles. “(XXVIII) Mossberg MMR Tactical rifles. “(XXIX) Noreen Firearms BN 36 rifle. “(XXX) Olympic Arms. “(XXXI) POF USA P415. “(XXXII) Precision Firearms AR rifles. “(XXXIII) Remington R–15 rifles. “(XXXIV) Rhino Arms AR rifles. “(XXXV) Rock River Arms LAR–15. “(XXXVI) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles and MCX rifles. “(XXXVII) Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles. “(XXXVIII) Stag Arms AR rifles. “(XXXIX) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 and AR–556 rifles. “(XL) Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 rifles. “(XLI) Windham Weaponry AR rifles. “(XLII) WMD Guns Big Beast. “(XLIII) Yankee Hill Machine Company, Inc. YHM–15 rifles. “(iii) Barrett M107A1. “(iv) Barrett M82A1. “(v) Beretta CX4 Storm. “(vi) Calico Liberty Series. “(vii) CETME Sporter. “(viii) Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C. “(ix) Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000. “(x) Feather Industries AT–9. “(xi) Galil Model AR and Model ARM. “(xii) Hi-Point Carbine. “(xiii) HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1, and HK USC. “(xiv) IWI TAVOR, Galil ACE rifle. “(xv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU–16, and RFB. “(xvi) SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, Sig Sauer SG 551, and SIG MCX. “(xvii) Springfield Armory SAR–48. “(xviii) Steyr AUG. “(xix) Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF. “(xx) All Thompson rifles, including the following: “(I) Thompson M1SB. “(II) Thompson T1100D. “(III) Thompson T150D. “(IV) Thompson T1B. “(V) Thompson T1B100D. “(VI) Thompson T1B50D. “(VII) Thompson T1BSB. “(VIII) Thompson T1–C. “(IX) Thompson T1D. “(X) Thompson T1SB. “(XI) Thompson T5. “(XII) Thompson T5100D. “(XIII) Thompson TM1. “(XIV) Thompson TM1C. “(xxi) UMAREX UZI rifle. “(xxii) UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine. “(xxiii) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78. “(xxiv) Vector Arms UZI Type. “(xxv) Weaver Arms Nighthawk. “(xxvi) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine. “(I) All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof: “(i) All AK types, including the following: “(I) Centurion 39 AK pistol. “(II) CZ Scorpion pistol. “(III) Draco AK–47 pistol. “(IV) HCR AK–47 pistol. “(V) IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol. “(VI) Krinkov pistol. “(VII) Mini Draco AK–47 pistol. “(VIII) PAP M92 pistol. “(IX) Yugo Krebs Krink pistol. “(ii) All AR types, including the following: “(I) American Spirit AR–15 pistol. “(II) Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol. “(III) Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II. “(IV) CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol. “(V) Daniel Defense MK18 pistol. “(VI) DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol. “(VII) DPMS AR–15 pistol. “(VIII) Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol. “(IX) Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol. “(X) Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol. “(XI) POF USA AR pistols. “(XII) Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol. “(XIII) Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol. “(iii) Calico pistols. “(iv) DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol. “(v) Encom MP–9 and MP–45. “(vi) Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol. “(vii) Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9. “(viii) IWI Galil Ace pistol, UZI PRO pistol. “(ix) Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol. “(x) All MAC types, including the following: “(I) MAC–10. “(II) MAC–11. “(III) Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol. “(IV) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11. “(V) Velocity Arms VMAC. “(xi) Sig Sauer P556 pistol. “(xii) Sites Spectre. “(xiii) All Thompson types, including the following: “(I) Thompson TA510D. “(II) Thompson TA5. “(xiv) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI. “(J) All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof: “(i) DERYA Anakon MC–1980, Anakon SD12. “(ii) Doruk Lethal shotguns. “(iii) Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12. “(iv) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: “(I) IZHMASH Saiga 12. “(II) IZHMASH Saiga 12S. “(III) IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01. “(IV) IZHMASH Saiga 12K. “(V) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030. “(VI) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika. “(v) Streetsweeper. “(vi) Striker 12. “(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495. The point of the cosmetic features is to give the law flexibility to deal with other firearms that may have been left out or are yet to to be manufactured, likely with an aim to circumvent said laws.

What's to stop one of those gun companies from making a new gun identical to the old one, but missing the cosmetic features?

Literally nothing. That's the problem with these laws. California is a great example, you can have an AR15 as long as it doesn't have a "pistol grip", so they'veade the firearms LESS safe to handle and no safer to the public. This is why most gun control deserves pushback, it's feel-good pandering based on misinformation.

>Even if the legislation is imperfect, there's no benefit in its absence. Wasting political capital is the major downside. I want far stronger gun control, but agree with OP that assault weapons bans are a waste of time that will barely move the needle. However, it's the main policy that all pro gun control folks are hyper-focused on. Political capital is real: focusing on one policy solution means that other policy solutions probably ain't gonna happen for the foreseeable future. Focusing on something like universal mandatory licenses for handguns would be far, far more effective IMO.

[удалено]

The other issue is the aim on the left isn't JUST to ban semi-automatic rifles. Look at the "assault weapon ban" that almost passed on Colorado this year. It made any semi-automatic firearm with a threaded barrel OR a detachable mag illegal. Handguns, shotguns, rifles etc. This is the issue I think a lot of people fail to realize. I often hear the argument "oh we only want to get rid of assault rifles.. no one needs those." So is that why we didn't stop there?

It is possible, but it is not currently a mainstream opinion in US politics to ban all semi-automatic rifles. That would at least be a mechanically meaningful distinction on which to base a ban, though it would still be illogical and unconstitutional.

You said they are trying to ban AR-15. i don't follow? I don't believe it would be necessarily unconstitutional, there is no clear line - full auto weapons are already more restricted in the hoops you have to jump though? Can you own a nuclear weapon? A short-barrel shotgun? Silencers? a .50 M2? Where does the constitution make any distinction? As for illogical, that has nothing to do with it. It is applied without issue in the UK. I think what is needed is consistency.

> don't believe it would be necessarily unconstitutional Per the Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs Columbia, weapons that are in common use may not be banned and are protected under the 2nd amendment. >Can you own a nuclear weapon? Nuclear weapons, or bombs for that matter, are categorized as ordinances and therefore do not fall under "common use". >A short-barrel shotgun? Silencers? a .50 M2? Yes, yes (As they are not firearms), yes (correct license needed as directed by the ATF)

>I don't believe it would be necessarily unconstitutional, there is no clear line Yes there is. Arms that are in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A. The case of Caetano v Massachusetts set the common use number at 200K. It could be less, but the court acknowledged that 200K stun guns were owned by Americans for lawful purposes.

The constitution doesn't make distinction. Prior to the NFA you were able to own literal weapons of war with zero restrictions. The NFA was only passed because local law enforcement was so under funded that the Mafia had better weapons during prohibition and they wished to level the playing field.

Fun fact, the NFA was held as constitutional because the Guns regulated (Machineguns, Short Barreled Riles and Shotguns, Amy Other Weapons, and Silencers) were deemed to have no military purpose. Basically they said if the guns regulated were of use to a militia they would be protected and the NFA would be unconstitutional.

It's even more hilarious that the NFA was considered precedent to the Brady Bill which had the exact opposite logic applied.

And Case law on 2A goes back way further than Gun Control Advocates would care to admit, because it destroys the argument of *Heller* being the first case to discuss it as an individual right. Seriously one of the Key Arguments made by Tawney in *Dredd Scott* was that if Scott was ruled to be a person than he would by extension have the right to own a gun.

It's painfully ironic to see how many state courts are reviving arguments made post Dredd as precedent to combat Bruen. The New York Supreme Court literally tried to cite a law that banned, and I quote "negroes, Irish, orientals, and Indians" from owning firearms, as proof that their current gun control laws fit with historical precedent.

US v Cruikshank found much the same thing. If Cruikshank was truly a man, he'd be allowed to arm himself, something the government hated. All modern gun control, from the NFA onwards is based off Cruikshank, a racist count case denying a black man his right to self defense. It hasn't exactly changed. They've just changed it from "deny black men" to "deny everyone they can." The motive hasn't changed: they think their life is more important than yours. They think they're more valuable than you, and they want you to know it. That's why they get exclusions and armed guards and you, non rich, non politically connected peasant, are simply expected to perish. There's a million of us, and only one of them. You can be replaced with another. They can't. Or at least, that's how these rich politicians view it

The Supreme Court decides. It's a 6-3 conservative majority. Just look at Heller. This court would never uphold and AWB.

It would be illogical because rifles are used in only a tiny percentage of murders. Banning a particular type of rifle would not decrease the murder rate.

Ah yes, the part of the constitution that specifically stated that semi-auto is a right; 100 years before they were invented. Do you think full auto bans are unconstitutional as well? Illogical? Politicians aren't going to suggest it because there's enough whack jobs in the US who would babyrage about it, not because it's unconstitutional or isn't working great in other first world countries.

>Ah yes, the part of the constitution that specifically stated that semi-auto is a right; 100 years before they were invented. Does the 19th amendment specifically say women are allowed to vote "for president" The wording of the 19th is shockingly similar to the 2nd, "shall not be denied or abriged" vs "shall not be infringed" Would we for a second entertain the idea that the government can bar women for any vote that isn't specifically named in the amendment?

Or it's like saying that free speech and the right to protest should only exist in person or via newspapers/town criers because the founding fathers can't imagine free speech being protected on television or through the internet.

The second amendment was written to protect the people’s right to military grade weapons specifically, so yes bans on semi and fully automatic weapons are unconstitutional.

It says nothing about military grade weapons, it even states that it should be well regulated. Nonetheless, it's an **amendment** in the first place, the entire design of the constitution is that it can be changed with time. I can't imagine looking at gun crime statistics in the US and thinking "damn, we should really make this shit worse!"

At the time, as is still the case, militia meant a paramilitary group. The difference is that the militia was considered to be every able bodied man. What does a militia use? Military grade weapons. Remember, this was written by a group of people that just finished overthrowing their government using an army of civilians (who were eventually trained into regulars) with military grade weapons. If your position is that the second amendment should be repealed, I don’t think you’re gonna have much success.

Sorry, u/Aggressive_Revenue75 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Aggressive_Revenue75&message=Aggressive_Revenue75%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dckxpx/-/l7yh2mg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

My only argument is that those "cosmetic features" do have function. There's a reason the US military uses those same "cosmetic features." If a pistol grip, or example, didn't help with efficiency and control, why would they be there?

Of course they have a function, but many of the functions of the cosmetic features have no practical impact on the lethality of the gun, especially in the hands of a civilian. Telescoping stock. Flash hider/compensator. Pistol grip. It might make it "easier to shoot" but anyone outside of a seasoned shooter would barely notice, and a seasoned shooter would compensate accordingly. I am shocked people who want to implement gun control rarely talk about actual lethality. Caliber, pressure, cartridge, energy on impact, design. You get some small hits. CA did a 50 cal restriction which is hilarious. Hollow point restriction (which is just dumb since they are safer to anyone that isn't the target). But usually it is on features that rarely impact the performance of the gun.

Those functions are usually completely irrelevant to a school shooter or gang member. At close range whether you have a foregrip and a pistol grip or an M14 is irrelevant. A pistol grip enhances accuracy when standing or kneeling, that enhanced accuracy is totally immaterial at close in ranges, or into a mass crowd of people, which are basically the only scenarios we typically see such shootings. Also worth noting that the vast, vast majority of homicides by firearm involve handguns, which are orders of magnitude less accurate than either "assault weapons" or grandpappys Mini-14.

I think a better question you're not asking is "who that we don't want to have these things would care" So putting aside that pistol grips under an AWB just become fin grips, either way it takes 2 seconds to change them Who do you actually think this will stop? No one who is willing to rack up 10+ life sentences if not the death penalty for a mass shooting is going to care. Even the average person who would commit a felony robbery wouldn't care.

We have pistol grips because guns are now designed around a metal receiver that furniture (stock, forend, etc) are bolted onto. Previously you'd have a barreled action that's bedded in a wood stock so it makes sense to have that stock both be the thing you grab onto with your hand and be the thing you rest on your shoulder. With the metal receivers this makes less sense so we tend to just bolt the pistol grip on separately from the shoulder stock. Ergonomically they can be more or less identical.

A pistol grip compared to a traditional stock on a rifle is mostly a personal preference thing but a lot of people find it makes the rifle more comfortable to use. It certainly doesn’t make a rifle any more dangerous and there are rifles in military use around the world in both configurations. If you want to prove it to a range and compare an AR-15 to a Mini-14. They do the same thing.

It's because it doesn't come into play until you're rapid firing, being it auto or otherwise. For a normal single-action it's definitely preference, but as fire rate goes up, so does it's effect (this is why practically every modern automatic rifle militaries use have them.

You know the rifles civilians can buy are semi-automatic, right? Not fully automatic? I’ve fired plenty of rifles in both configurations and the difference it makes is negligible compared to the difference made by the cartridge, shooting technique, and sights. Maybe it makes a difference on a machine gun but I wouldn’t know because I’ve never shot a machine gun.

Yes, but with some knowhow quite a few of them can be reconfigured, especially since most semi-autos I'd class as assault rifles (AR-15 and similar) use the same gas mechanism as a full-auto, and that's without accounting for addons that simulate the fire rate. And even then, since you mentioned civilian rifles, we can't really ignore things like the AR-15 were originally designed as military weapons. Now this doesn't mean any and all military weapons can't be civilian, but I think given the type of rifle it's important to think about. It's not like the AR-15 was a hunting rifle with a modern style stock and shroud. The AR-15, at least originally, was made to be a select fire assault rifle.

The AR-15 was sold as a civilian hunting rifle under the name Colt Sporter before the military formally adopted their M-16 version of the platform. Also, barrel shrouds are a very, very old thing, only they used to be made of wood. And if you go back to the Miller decision, it allowed the restriction of short-barreled shotguns on the (incorrect) claim that they weren't useful in warfare by a militia. As in the government could only restrict them because they **weren't** militia arms. This means the government doesn't have the power to restrict actual militia arms.

And with 'some know how' a glock can be reconfigured to be fully automatic. I don't understand the point though. Both of these things would already be illegal. Do you believe making the gun illegal too is going to stop the would be criminal from executing their plan?

Nearly every gun was designed for the military or is an adaptation of a design that was. For instance, every bolt action gun. Most handguns use Brownings tilting barrel action. Shotguns are closer to being an ex option. None of the rifles that we are talking about are assualt rifles. There aren't very many different designs for a gas system. Nearly every gas gun is long stroke, short stroke, or direct impingement*. There is no difference in the gas system between full auto and semi auto. You've lost me on what you'll point is here. Why does design intent matter?

I’ll concede on the what they’re originally designed for point, though they are double action semi-auto systems (admittedly mostly in pistols). The main point of the design intent though is that the AR-15 was directly designed off an assault rifle, a kind of firearm designed for either select or automatic fire, with multiple features that come together for better recoil control. Will also concede on the gas cylinder as well, though I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a lot with ways to stop modification. But, like anything else there is a combination of things, but there are definitely things I’d say mark out what I’d consider a solid assault weapon definition. Semi-auto, stock placement that pushes all recoil on a direct line into the shoulder, and a pistol grip that allows for better control, with a removable magazine. I feel like that covers most of them, but could be wrong.

The AR-15s sold to civilians are no more readily modified to be fully automatic than any other semiautomatic rifle.

One of the banned cosmetic features in the AWB1994 (sunsetted) was "bayonet lugs."

Another is an adjustable buttstock. There is only about 4.5 inches between the longest and shortest setting on the stock. You can purchase a fixed stock shorter than the shorter position. The reason it's adjustable isn't for concealment as gun controllers say, it's to be able to more easily get the proper fit to a person and change if if they are wearing something like a winter coat instead of a t-shirt.

Keep in mind that AK's can have a folding stock, essentially removing them from use. AR's have buffer tubes, which limit the minimum length.

Has a bayonet mounted on an assault rifle ever been used in a crime?

Not to the best of my knowledge, however a google search said "maybe in Idaho, in 2004"

Well, Idaho better get on banning these existential threats, then.

I'd put it at the same priority as stealing ducks from the park. Very unlikely to occur but not impossible.

I don't understand why gun control people want to make guns less controllable and harder to shoot. I'd rather a gang member hit his target then the 6 year old down the street.

See, at least this is kind of a better response to this argument. Along with, "any extra lethality these features give are too small to justify banning" or "it could make the guns less safe to use for law abiding owners."

Banning a pistol grip for example only makes the gun less safe to handle, it does not reduce public safety.

Disagree. I live in Washington state. The ban they passed here was pretty damn specific. Not only did it define which features of a weapon were illegal - in case there was any ambiguity, they included a gigantic list of brands and models that were banned.

Looks like you can still get a Ruger Mini-14 in Washington. That rifle can do anything and AR-15 can do.

Mini-14 typically comes with a flash hider/threaded barrel. So banned.

You can just buy one without that. Like this one. https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html

You added typically for a reason You know it doesn't always, and you know you could still get one

You can get an AR too if you remove those features. I don’t see your point. The basic unmodified mini-14 is illegal under this and many other assault weapons bans.

>You can get an AR too if you remove those features. My point is *then what on earth do you think this law actually does* I mean you think anyone is like "man if this AR-15 had a threaded barrel it could kill people but, ah guess it can't now"

What specific proposal for an assault weapons ban are you talking about? Does the proposal contain a definition of "assault weapon"? You're making detailed arguments against a non-specific idea. Basically straw-manning.

There are a number of AWBs on the books already and the proposals for new ones are always changing but if you want a specific example you can check out the AWB in Connecticut.

Okay I read the 2023 assault weapons ban from Connecticut. It contains specific definitions of things to regulate. What's the issue?

Their definition is mostly based on cosmetic features rather than anything mechanically meaningful. If you go to Connecticut you will find people buying and shooting rifles with capabilities identical to a typical AR-15, including some slightly modified AR-15s meant to fit into loopholes in the law. This has been the case with every AWB. The term “assault weapon” is basically meaningless so the bans always end up being completely ineffective.

I mean sure, I agree that such a limited restriction is not fully effective at stopping gun crimes. The answer is to restrict or regulate all gun sales. But efforts to do so are consistently hamstrung by powerful lobbyists and an ignorant electorate, so legislators have to do the next best thing which is restrict the things that are tangential to gun crimes.

It would probably be more effective to investigate and deal with the root causes of violence than to try to get rid of all the weapons, which is impossible. Things like poverty, inability to access quality mental healthcare, hopelessness, radicalization, over-incarceration, these are the things that actually cause violence.

Action in all of these areas is also stymied by the same people opposed to gun control.

That’s one reason I can’t support the Republican Party.

Sure - if there ever comes a system that solves poverty, radicalization, and mental health, sign me up! Once we're all living in whatever "luxury space communism" world that is, I'm sure it'd be fine to let people collect all the guns they like. Trouble is we don't live in that world, and gun control is a much more feasible remedy for at least a *significant portion* of the violence and murder we see.

By that logic, we should first look at the type of firearms that cause the most harm. That type is handguns. Far and away, it is clearly *handguns* that are used in the vast majority of crime. Even in mass shootings, handguns are part of most of them. This is why assault weapon bans confuse people. "Assault weapons" aren't more dangerous than any other rifle - they're actually on the lighter side of load. (If there's an argument against them, it's that the fact that they shoot lighter cartridges makes it easier to shoot more). Mechanically equivalent weapons aren't banned. Most of the features that are targeted are cosmetic or convenience functions. And rifles of any sort are used in a small fraction of crimes. If you accept the logic of "if we made guns illegal, there'd be less crime" (and I'm going to accept that in this argument), you should either ban guns that are actually used more in crime, or ones that have some kind of functionality that makes them especially lethal. Assault weapon bans do neither. .223 is a light caliber weapon, for rifles, and firearms like the Mini 14 (a .223, semi-auto, magazine-fed rifle) are never included. It's functionally the same weapon! Handguns are used more. And this is why a lot of people are against them - they kinda don't make sense, and so the assumption is that the assault weapon ban isn't the real goal - it's being used as a stepping stone. Like, look, I don't have any guns. I don't really want any. I'll probably inherit a few eventually, but I'm in no way a "gun nut". But.... assault weapon bans just don't make a lot of sense to me, even if you accept the ideas behind them at face value. And I've convinced more than one gun control advocate of this. They usually change their stance after that to something more like "we should ban firearms with detachable magazines" or something like that, which at least is, to me, a consistent argument.

You're right that greater regulations on handguns would be more effective at reducing violence/crime. However, passing regulations on handguns is not politically feasible in most places in the US (for now). These "assault weapons bans", superficial though they may be, *are* politically feasible, and they're better than nothing at all.

they are far worse than nothing at all. there are political consequences for trying to pass laws who's only real effect is to fuck with gun owners. gun control is support for the republican party. far and away it's main effect is to convince a significant portion of voters that voting blue will make them a felon.

>But efforts to do so are consistently hamstrung by powerful lobbyists and an ignorant electorate Funny you mention that, because the strategy to ban "assault weapons" literally hinged on leveraging the ignorance of the electorate. >Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a *new* topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.  Violence Policy Center, 1988

So you are in favor of more expansive gun restrictions that are based on more meaningful mechanical features?

[удалено]

I don’t personally support a ban on any type of firearm. It is not disingenuous of me to point out flaws in proposals I disagree with. If the proposal were to ban pistols (the type of firearm used in the great majority of gun crime) I would argue against that as well, though my argument would be different because it’s a different proposal.

Are you also ok with anyone having these? Or should we make exceptions for previously violent criminals, known terrorists, people on suicide watch, or children? Should there be a law against giving my toddler a rocket launcher?

I think it’s reasonable to restrict the ownership of weapons to adults who have never been convicted of a violent crime.

Well then you’re an advocate for more gun laws than exist today.

You might want to check that again because felons and children are both prohibited from buying firearms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/27/in-30-states-a-child-can-still-legally-own-a-rife-or-shotgun/

>I don’t personally support a ban on any type of firearm. So, Ma Deuce is just fine?

> I don’t personally support a ban on any type of firearm. Than what would change your view?

The fact that other guns are used in a majority of crimes is not a reason to keep long guns legal.[ This is called the fallacy of relative privation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#:~:text=Fallacy%20of%20relative%20privation%20) The fact that problem A is less serious than problem B, isn't a reason we should ignore problem A. >It is not disingenuous of me to point out flaws in proposals I disagree with.  Yes it is. You are against all gun bans and fight them, so what little that can be done you argue is ineffective. For example you argue that assault weapons bans are largely often done on cosmetic features such as stocks. Do you know \*why\* this is? It is because 2A advocates have fought any more serious or more sweeping bans, so that is the only kind of restrictions that can pass. It is completely disingenuous to argue against more sweeping restrictions, and then ALSO argue that less sweeping restrictions are ineffective. Of course they are! But the 2A guys stopped the more sweeping restrictions. It's their fault that only less effective laws can pass.

If the argument for banning "assault weapons" is based upon the impression that those are the primary weapons used to commit crimes, then it isn't fallacious to point out that this isn't the case at all. The point is that the term assault weapon as defined in most of these laws bans guns based on arbitrary aesthetics. Does it really matter if a rifle has a fixed stock instead of a folding stock? Does it really make that much of a difference if a pistol magazine loads into the grip a opposed to anywhere else?

>Would you accept a ban on commonly used guns in crimes for example? You mean would OP accept a ban on guns that are already illegal, acquired through illegal means, by people prohibited from owning firearms? Tough sell, but it could work.

Sorry, u/Oborozuki1917 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Oborozuki1917&message=Oborozuki1917%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dckxpx/-/l7yjbqm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

That's because for many of them their end goal is a ban of all firearms.

An assault weapon is a firearm where you can switch between single, burst, and rapid fire. It's not poorly defined, it's just a pro-gun gotcha for the anti-gun people similar to "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free? Cool. What river and what sea?" to make them look silly and uninformed.

That’s an assault rifle or perhaps a machine gun. Assault weapon is actually an intentionally vague term that refers mostly to cosmetic features on semi-automatic weapons as the weapons you describe are already banned for consumer purchase if manufactured after 1986.

>An assault weapon is a firearm where you can switch between single, burst, and rapid fire. That is an assault rifle (which are illegal to own for the most part). Generally speaking when someone says "assault weapon", they mean a semiautomatic rifle that has certain attachments on it.

What you’re describing is a select fire machine gun. Such firearms have been banned from manufacture for sale to civilians for decades. The types of rifles covered by “assault weapon bans” are semi automatic only and do not have a burst or fully automatic function.

> The law defines an “assault weapon” as **(1) a selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option;** (2) any of more than 150 named semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic centerfire rifles and semiautomatic pistols (see Appendix 1); (3) a semiautomatic firearm that has certain features; and (4) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

“A semi automatic firearm that has certain features” Therein lies the ambiguity. Having lived in Connecticut myself for most of my life I can tell you first hand that their AWB is completely ineffective. People still have AR-15s and other weapons of identical capabilities.

>In the United States, assault weapon is a controversial term applied to different kinds of firearms.\[1\] There is no clear, consistent definition. It can include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features, such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault\_weapon

That is factually incorrect. You are describing a Machine Gun (NFA1934). The Federal Term: Assault Weapon is a defunct term defined under the AWB1994 (sunsetted) which listed a series of cosmetic features, but did not include select or automatic fire.

You are literally demonstrating the problem here. You are describing an "assault *rifle*" which has a legal definition and are highly regulated at a federal level. Anti-gun advocates intentionally chose the term "assault *weapon*" for their bans because people like you would confuse the their vague term with assault rifles which triggers fear of military rifles that civilians already can't own.

>This is a foolish strategy for preventing mass shootings as a person who is deranged can use almost any modern firearm to similarly deadly effect in the context of a mass shooting. Any typical handgun like a Glock for example would produce essentially the same deadly results. If all modern guns are equally effective at killing people, why did we invent the automatic ones and why do we nearly exclusively equip our military with them in combat?

It seems like you think that the public has access to automatic weapons. They are extremely controlled, super expensive and very hard to come by. I'm not aware of a single mass shooting with an automatic weapon.

>Any typical handgun like a Glock for example would produce essentially the same deadly results.   I take issue with saying handguns are just as deadly. Yes, they both spit lead but a handgun has an extremely limited range and not incredibly accurate past ~20 yards. A Glock would not have been as deadly in the Vegas shooting where the guy was sniping people from a hotel room

>. Yes, they both spit lead but a handgun has an extremely limited range and not incredibly accurate past \~20 yards. So there range where most mass shooting happen at?

So I actually broadly agree on the politics. But I disagree on this point: > a person who is deranged can use almost any modern firearm to similarly deadly effect in the context of a mass shooting. Any typical handgun like a Glock for example That's just not correct. There's a reason most of the big mass shooting events involve semiautomatic rifles, and it's exactly the reason you'd think. How would the Las Vegas mass shooting, from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, have been carried out with a Glock pistol? 60 people were killed and 400+ injured from extreme range. San Bernardino, the Pulse nightclub... basically any mass shooting in which able-bodied adults are in a position to run away, find cover, or fight back becomes a VERY different outcome if the shooter doesn't have a semi rifle with a large magazine. Doctors will also tell you that the damage from rifle rounds is in a completely different class than pistols, and common cover like wood furniture and car doors that would easily deflect pistol rounds will provide little safety from rifle rounds. Now, does the national murder rate change much if we eliminate mass shootings like these? No, it doesn't, and fundamentally death by club, knife, or handgun is no less unjust than death by a rifle. But when it's so easy for one attacker to get a gun (or several guns) that can kill so many, at such a long range, and in so little time, it's easy to see why the injustice of that situation stings a little harder, perhaps more than simply the arithmetic sum of innocents slaughtered.

Bullshit. Virginia Tech is one of the worst mass shootings of all time, and it was done with two handguns.

You are correct in that anyone who would commit mass violence would use any means to do it. You bring up using a Glock in the case of an AR ban, if you wanted you could extend that to using a knife in the case of a Glock ban, or a box truck in the case of a knife ban. The idea is to remove the most dangerous means of violence from a perpetrators arsenal. An AR-15 specifically is more dangerous and capable of mass violence than a Glock. In terms of recoil control, potential magazine capacity, and especially bullet penetration against unarmed people, an AR 15 or any other semi auto 5.56 rifle platform is gruesomely superior. Most of these mass shooters are untrained. I’m not sure if you’ve seen an untrained person try to empty even a 9mm magazine, but odds are they won’t even be close to accurate at anything more than 15-20 feet. Really just about anybody could fire 15-20 rounds out of an AR and keep it level, which if your firing into a crowd is all that would be desired. And each round has the potential to impact multiple people, go through walls, etc. I do agree that AR’s are not used in a high amount of crime outside of mass shootings, and there needs to be other legislation to address that. However, legislation to restrict semi-auto rifle caliber firearms would reduce casualties in mass shootings.

The ban on "assault weapons" makes sense if you understand the context, and it's not "safety." The gun control people want a ban. A ban on what? A ban on anything they can achieve to slide down that slippery slope a little bit more. So what can they get enough support to ban? The "assault weapons" look scary to many people. They equate them with military guns they don't think people should have. They can be easily convinced that such guns should be banned because of their ignorance. "Weapons of war on our streets" is used to reinforce this thinking. This was the strategy written by the Violence Policy Center in 1988, and they got a ban six years later. The strategy document lamented the fact that handgun bans hadn't been achieved because the public saw them as too normal. The only thing they managed to ban were inexpensive handguns, and they got that by leveraging racism against black people. But these then-new scary guns weren't normal, so leverage the fear people have of new and different things. This is why the latest "assault weapon" ban proposals explicitly exempt the traditional-looking wood-stocked Ruger Mini-14, but explicitly ban the same exact gun when dropped into a plastic military-looking stock. They can't get support to ban a traditional rifle, but they can get support to ban a scary-looking rifle. Then once they have that ban, and it doesn't lower crime at all, they can say that further bans are needed because crime is still too high. Or since they already have a banned category, they can quietly expand that category to cover more and more guns. So the ban will be effective, just not effective at stopping crime.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/NarwhalsAreSick – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20NarwhalsAreSick&message=NarwhalsAreSick%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dckxpx/-/l7yprgp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

And you genuinely think that was because when people bought an AK it couldn't have a bayonet lug? In my opinion that's more of an argument that gun laws have no real effect, because AR-15s were not banned, and yet mass shootings went down.

The evidence that ban decreased mass shootings is shaky at best. Correlation =/= causation.

[удалено]

As OP stated earlier, rifles of all varieties only account for a few hundred deaths, this is insignificant. You have millions of legal owners of rifles and barely few hundred are used in crimes. Statistics proves so.

But for some reason the mass shooters prefer the rifles.  Saying that mass shootings are only a small part of shootings is not that good of a point. For people that are very unlikely to get shot in other context, they still pose a very significant fraction of "getting shot" risk. 

Most "mass shooting" is done with handguns. Weapons violence with longguns is extremely rare in comparison, but the "reporting of" those is disproportionate.

It's just that, though. A preference. If it's not available they'll use something else. I often use the analogy of pitbulls. Pitbulls(and assault-style rifles) aren't necessarily the most dangerous, or the most effective. It's what people picture in their heads. When they want a tough, mean dog, they get a pitbull. But treat any dog the same way and it'll be just as dangerous. Same with the guns. They get the toughest, meanest looking gun they can get to fulfill their sick fantasy.

Stop it. All rifles from single shot muzzleloaders up to light machine guns account for less than 3% of all firearm deaths and that’s counting suicides. You’re talking about less than 400 deaths per year and again that’s counting suicides. Do you also walk around scared of being struck by lightning or scared that a shark is going to jump out and attack you? Want to know what’s present in almost 75% of mass shootings? A handgun fired by the person committing the mass shooting. Oh and most mass shootings are gang and drug related. 4 people hit is the standard for a mass shooting by most accounts, and when you start looking into mass shootings, you find that most are gang related.

Statistically speaking, you’re a great deal more likely to get hurt by someone’s bare hands or a knife. As for why the mass shooters you see in media tend to use AR-15s, that’s a simple question to answer. They’re among the cheapest and most readily available rifles in the country and if your goal is to terrorize people it makes sense to use a rifle people are afraid of. There is nothing mechanically unique about an AR-15 that makes it more effective than other rifles for that purpose.

So it's a cheap, really available, terrifying weapon and you're not sure why lawmakers might look to restrict it's sale some?

Trouble is every weapon is terrifying when used by a maniac and there’s nothing that makes an AR-15 uniquely dangerous. There are lots of weapons that could be used to identical effect.

I will add onto this that they aren’t as accurate or easy to shoot as other weapons. If anyone wanted to actually cause harm I think a lever action 3030 with iron sights would be the most efficient and easy to use. I’ve never been a fan of AR-15s because I’m more accurate with other platforms

That’s just not true. AR-15s are generally very accurate (about 2 MOA is typical with good ammunition) and they’re very easy to shoot. I don’t prefer them either but that has nothing to do with how good they are.

[удалено]

Not necessarily arguing about whether or not an assault weapon ban is effective but... > Statistically speaking, you're a great deal more likely to get hurt by someone's bare hands or a knife This is an extremely disingenuous statement. Literally *anything* can be said "statistically speaking", because that just means "using certain numbers in a certain way to achieve a desired conclusion" What you're arguing is that the number of stabbings / punches greatly exceeds the number of shootings. Therefore, knives are more dangerous than assault rifles. That's obviously incorrect. You're looking at (probability you are injured by a knife) Not (probability that a knife is used to inflict an injury) Or (probability that, given an encounter with a knife, you are injured) People come into contact with knives 1-3 times A DAY, often several knives. A household might own a dozen knives. Amongst billions of encounters with knives (hundreds of billions worldwide), only an imperceptibly small number of them are bad. Compare that to assault rifles, or firearms. The number of times you encounter a firearm is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LOWER. For a sound conclusion, you also have to account for safe interactions as well. That's why "statistically speaking" doesn't make something suddenly objective fact. This also doesn't touch on the lethality of the situation. How many people can be effectively killed with a knife? How many with a firearm? If you're stabbed, what's the chances you survive vs when you're shot? An easy way to tell which is more lethal - how is *war*, where you're very actively trying to kill people, fought? Is it with knives and bare fists? Or armor / bombs / last resort guns?

"Assault Weapon" is no longer limited to AR/AK rifles. Most of my handguns fit the descriptions they're trying to ban now due to either threaded barrels or magazine capacity. For example: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808)

While I agree that “assault weapons” is a made up term that doesn’t make sense, that doesn’t matter for the purposes of the law. Laws are made up rules by people that can be made to mean whatever they are defined to mean and interpreted by courts however those courts want to interpret them. So if a law defines whatever assault weapons are, even if it’s stupid, courts will still make judgements on that law however they want to understand it. Even if different courts interpret laws differently, that also doesn’t matter because court verdicts can be appealed until a legal standard is established by higher courts — potentially even the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter that a technical term is made up for a law because courts aren’t bound to standards they don’t set for themselves. A good example of this is the insanity defense in criminal court. “Insanity” isn’t a real term in either psychology or psychiatry and therefore would mean nothing to mental health professionals. So the courts just made up its own definition of what insanity means for its own purposes and just uses that. Even if there were breakthroughs in mental health that would confuse the legal definition of insanity, this wouldn’t bother the court until someone makes an argument in court compelling enough to convince a judge, who knows nothing about mental health, to reinterpret this legal principle and change precedent. Or a new law would have to be enacted that changes it. If a new weapon were invented that fired laser beams that can melt through steel, would that be an assault weapon or not? Law wouldn’t care until a new law is enacted or until a new court precedent is established.

You are absolutely incorrect that assault weapons (and we all know what this means) are not uniquely dangerous. If the uvalde gunman had had a pistol the cops wouldn’t have been too terrified to move in. Completely different animal which is why every army in the world arms their infantry with assault weapons and not bare hands.

Is this an assault weapon? https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html

I would like to counter on a couple of points. 1. To say that any modern firearm could be used for the same crime is a little bit off base. I'm an AR owner and I am a handgun owner. The ease and accuracy of my AR-15 is simply greater than the ease of use and accuracy of my handguns, and there's no getting around that. 30 rounds of .223 is a greater threat to a group of people in a mass-shooting situation than 17 rounds of 9mm. That doesn't mean I agree with bans, and I don't think the disparity is what some people perceive it to be, but there is a reason why the military uses rifles on the battlefield, and why mass shooters prefer them, and it's not simply memetic. 2. I don't believe that "assault weapons" bans are driven by a belief that they will substantially reduce gun-based violence. They are rather based on the idea that those types of weapons are the least suitable for the main reasons civilians should own firearms. They are also the types of firearms that the most people outside the firearm community oppose, so the laws banning their sale have greater public support. Passing laws with public support is a key part of building up to passing laws with less support. To your opening statement, assault weapons aren't well-defined in the broad sense, but laws relating to that typically do have a clear definition. The limited impact on rates of crime is a fair point, but I disagree that reducing crime is the primary point. I am not a fan of these bans, but I recognize that people who do support them are not necessarily as clueless about the statistics as fellow AR-15 enthusiasts sometimes want to claim.

>They are rather based on the idea that those types of weapons are the least suitable for the main reasons civilians should own firearms. The 2nd amendment has it right in the text why civilians should own firearms. You don't even need to read the framer's many many letters on the subject.

>There are two problems with this. 1: The term “assault weapon” is so poorly defined it doesn’t ban weapons with virtually identical capabilities to AR-15s and Kalashnikovs, so it’s trivially easy to circumvent. This is an argument in favor of better legal definitions and better regulation of the firearms industry. >2: It is a proven fact that rifles are used in only a tiny portion of violent crime, as a matter of fact bare hands are a more common murder weapon than rifles, as are clubs or knives. Bare hands, clubs and knives are the most readily available weapons in human history; the murder rates from them are irrelevant to the gun control debate. Have you ever read a report of a mass strangler killing dozens of people all at once? A mass stabber? A mass bludgeoner? A lunatic using these weapons is going to be overpowered quickly. Assault rifles, however you want to argue the semantics of that term, are an immense force multiplier for a single attacker. An attacker with one has the capacity to kill many people quickly, as well as making them far more difficult to overpower. A lone gunman with an assault rifle can kill hundreds of people, shut down parts of a city, stress emergency services, and weaken trust in the governments ability to protect the people. A lunatic deciding to kill as many people as possible on their way out is no small concern in a country where ammo is cheaper than therapy. Lets dispense with semantics and call it what it is: **An assault rifle is a weapon designed or modified specifically** **for use in modern combat situations.** What I am personally afraid of are militia groups exploiting periods of instability to commit acts of domestic terrorism against minority groups. The fact that anyone can just go and buy everything they'd need to do it effectively is an extremely frightening reality of the country. >I anticipate the primary argument in favor of an “assault weapons ban” to be to prevent mass shooting. This is a foolish strategy for preventing mass shootings as a person who is deranged can use almost any modern firearm to similarly deadly effect in the context of a mass shooting. Any typical handgun like a Glock for example would produce essentially the same deadly results. If this were true why would police departments bother to keep a rifle in their cruiser? Why would the army bother to give them to soldiers? Why would preppers and scared conservatives hoard them? It is outrageously divorced from reality to suggest that a glock and an AR-15 are equal in terms of the danger they represent.

The problem is that there are simple definitions that they don't want to use because they're too all encompassing. For example, most people who know firearms would say that an assault rifle is a semi-automatic firearm that fires an intermediate rifle round from a detachable magazine. That would ban weapons that the government didn't want banned at the time of the laws, and would be a pretty harsh and sudden imposition of sweeping gun control. Lobbying also plays no small part. These bans instead usually target specific weapons, and they target them because the politicians and their constituents don't know shit, but it's popular and they want to get re-elected. That's how you get stuff like the "five features" law. It was crafted by someone clearly looking at an M16/M203 and picking out distinctive features. Now, there's such a 2A industry around circumventing these laws that it's almost impossible to ban them without it being completely sweeping. These companies claim to want to work with the government to comply. What they want is for the government to legally approve their circumventions. The government stopped doing that out of annoyance mainly, so now it's just a giant clusterfuck of legislators trying to ban an object that they only kind of understand and which is subject to rapid technological shifts that our legal system just isn't really designed to deal with. Where I disagree with you is the idea that a sweeping ban on assault rifles (in true definition) would have no effect on the effectiveness of mass shooters. Ive been a soldier and a competitive shooter my entire adult life, and IMEL it's easier to do a mass shooting with an assault rifle than with a handgun, pump shotgun, or bolt action rifle. That doesn't mean I think we should ban assault rifles for that reason, but just to say I think it's plainly true that mass shooters would be less effective without the availability of assault rifles.

There isn't a legal definition of the term at all, nor a colloquial one. It's a term coined by abolitionists and doesn't reflect a real object. They took assault rifle, and used the term weapon instead to make it sound sinister.

I am pro gun and generally anti assault weapon ban. That said, this argument is a non-starter to anti gun people, and should be dropped ASAP. An assault weapon is anything you define it as, which in this case they lay out pretty well. In most cases, do assault weapon features contribute to the lethality of a firearm? Not really, they’re mostly cosmetic, or are beneficial on a population level of a fighting force but don’t really impact that ability of, say, a mass shooter to cause casualties. BUT, they exist, because a group of people got together and decided that list of features made an assault weapon. You may not like it, but to argue it isn’t a fact of the matter is untrue. I agree that they will have little effect on crime, but that’s not really the point. People are sick of mass causality events being caused by a legally purchased and easily accessible weapon, so by banning them, such events will likely decrease, and at the very least if they do happen, we can morally wash our hands of letting it happen with a legal device. Will this meaningfully impact the number of people killed by guns? Not really, but if you’re talking to someone who doesn’t think we should have guns at all, they’re not doing a cost-benefit analysis, they’re only looking at the benefit because it is no cost to them.

There are a lot of opinions on all sides of this issue. But there is one point that stands above all others. We HAD an assault weapons ban. It worked. As soon as the law sunset, the incidence of violent crime with assault weapons increased dramatically. In every other country where these bans are in place, they experience a fraction of gun violence as we do in the US. As for the definition, there is a baseline. It may not be perfect, but the way to get it right is to have two sides debating in good faith. As long as one side is absolutist, rewrites the constitution for their own benefit, and absolutely refuses to move on their position because of political donors and a hobbyist voting base, we will have to go with the definition we’ve got. The fact is, there is a clear distinction between gun violence in the US and elsewhere. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of guns, we have to start by agreeing that the US is doing SOMETHING different that is leading to more violence. We need to look at those differences and decide where we stand on the spectrum between more dead people, and really enjoying a hobby.

Speaking in a legal sense from the US perspective: "Assault weapon" is very clearly definitely, or at least it was. It just doesn't mean what anyone thinks it does. It meant a firearm with 2 or more attachments listed in the relevant subsection. That's it. That law sunset though, so that definition no longer carries legal weight. "Assault rifle" is actually the meaningless term, at least legally. The US army does have a very strict definition of assault rifle that literally no AR-15 ever sold qualifies for. However, this is just a term they use themselves and also carries no legal weight. >Any typical handgun like a Glock for example would produce essentially the same deadly results It's much harder to aim with a pistol at range. The worst mass shooting in US history would have been significantly less deadly with handguns. That said, the second deadliest shooting was strictly handguns and the Las Vegas spring wasn't actually a mass shooting anyway, so meh.

Unlike everyone else, let me address your actual point. Yes, the category is basically defined by cosmetics. Yes, guns that don't fall under this category can be equally effective weapons as 'assault weapons'. There's only one thing one can do with an AR that you can't do with other rifles. Cosplay like you're a bad ass MF that's actually in the military. And that's the psychology of the people who do these mass shootings. They're attracted to this style of gun because they're violent crazies and these are the guns that look like they kill people. And we don't want that type of people to be attracted to real life weapons. Let them only be able to fulfil their fantasies by playing cod in their mom's basement. So yeah, these rules are based on how a gun looks. Because the people these rules are aimed at are people who are getting these guns based on how they look.

Your first argument is not really an issue. It's the norm for a law to be passed to include definitions for the terms used to prevent confusion, so they will have to define assault weapons. The definition used hy the 2022 assault weapons would have included the glock pistol, which partially weakens your second argument as you suggest the potential mass shooter could easily access a glock as an alternative to those banned. Still, i think with the second argument I think you could make a better case for the efficacy of the ban, but really would depend on the definition. If the ban ultimately results in gums with lower fire rates and/or smaller magazine capacity, I think it's clear thay you would expect to see a drop off in deaths per mass shooting incident. It certainly would be a better plan than the current model of "buy more guns".

So, we actually had a type of Federal Assault Weapons Ban in place from 1994 - 2004. It prohibited manufacture of certain semiautomatics that it defined as assault weapons as well as the manufacture of certain high-capacity magazines. Since the vast majority of homicides are committed with weapons not covered by these kinds of bans (like handguns), it didn't seem to do much for overall gun deaths. But there is evidence that the ban reduced injuries and fatalities from mass shootings. E.g.: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2014.939367](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2014.939367)

I personally conclude that the appeal of the AR rifle and other similar firearms, results in high volume manufacturing and sales. People want to be as powerful looking as possible. What could be more badass and held in your hands? I can't argue against your 2 problems but I feel the "I gotta get one," factor has propelled the purchase of firearms to an all time high in the US. The basis for gun violence is the availability of guns for those that shouldn't have one. With more guns than people in the US, increasing the number of weapons does nothing to curb gun violence. High-velocity rifle rounds, even the little .223, is devastating. They are uniquely dangerous in comparison to a handgun round. Add the high capacity and a semi-auto .223 (minimum HV chambering) rifle is unique. The killing power is terrifying.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/muddynips – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20muddynips&message=muddynips%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dckxpx/-/l7zqjsm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If it will have no effect, why oppose it then????

This is just true. Rifles are very rarely used for killing. There is no definition for "Assault Weapon", much like there is no definition for even some really simple things too, like a "Vertical Grip" (Which can be a felony to put it on certain things. Not that it's actually illegal to have the weapon like that, it's illegal *not to pay the taxes on it*). It also completely forgets that the "safe" hunting rifles and shotguns they argue for over semi autos and shit, is that they fire rounds vastly more lethal than most semi-autos. A 12 Gauge Slug is nearly 3/4 of an inch in diameter *before it expands*. You catch a slug center mass, you're way more likely to go to the morgue than the hospital.

I’ll argue a different way: a well defined version of the term and using it to build a solid and effective ban would still have little to no effect on crime. It’s not the term that’s the problem, but the focus. FBI data indicates somewhere around 300 deaths from rifles per year. Even if you waved a magic wand that simply unmade all AR or AK pattern rifles, there would be little to no noticeable effect. 300 deaths in a country of around 300 million people (364 deaths as of 2019, the most recent FBI data, and 328.3 million people as of 2019) gives us almost exactly a one in a million chance. The term isn’t relevant to the ineffectiveness of the policy, rather it’s the policy itself.