Other Let’s Have a Meaningful Discussion on Gun Control

[Peacemaker .45]

Gun control is a heavily debated topic right now in the US after the most recently tragedy in Florida. In the wake of it, the debate has heated up, and divisive language has been spoken by both sides. If you don’t agree with gun control, you’re being told that you don’t care about murdered children, and that the NRA has blood on their hands, while if you’re a pro-gun individual, you’ve had members of your side say things such as the media loving mass shootings and crying mothers for ratings.

None of this is mending the divide in America between the two sides, and it’s only leading to further division between the two sides.

That’s not why I’m starting this thread. I’m starting this thread for a different reason.

I am a very pro gun person. I’ve spent about 6 years studying so many different areas of the issue, whether it was legal arguments, statistical arguments, technical arguments, etc. I myself own four rifles, and yes, I own a state compliant AR-15 I bought when I was 18.

The gun control issue is also one of the most heavily misinformed issues, with misinformation rampant. Because of the complexity of the issue, there is a lot to cover. In this thread, we are going to cover one topic in the discussion at a time. Please don’t start jumping all over the place with different points. Stick to one or two so they can be addressed directly. The purpose of this thread is also going to be similar to Steven Crowder’s “Change My Mind” series.

There are going to be rules for this thread. Here are some. (More will be added if need be.)

1. No disrespectful behavior will be tolerated. Politics in 2018 is in a highly volatile state. We have extremists on both sides, political violence, ad hominem attacks and the like.
2. Stick to one or two points, not 30 in a post, and stay on the relevant topic. For example, if the discussion is on magazine capacity restrictions, stay to that. Don’t start going on about gun bans in other countries in the same post. Stick to the direct topic at hand.
3. Don’t pile on someone. If there is one person with a specific view, don’t start piling on that one person in groups of three or more. Just let the people discussing a topic discuss it. Don’t start piling on each other. This isn’t meant to be a warzone, but it’s meant to be a healthy discussion.

With this being said, let’s start. There are a myriad of topics in this issue to cover. I’ll start it off with a simple statement. Anyone who wishes to say why they disagree with me, go right ahead. I’ll respond when I can.

So without further ado, here is my statement...

Assault Weapon Bans are grounded in misinformation and illogical connections. They are ineffective at stopping mass shootings. The bans target semi-automatic firearms due to either the name of them or the features of a rifle/shotgun/handgun. These features have no bearing on the lethality of the firearm. At its core, weapons like AR-15’s are semi-automatic rifles. The addition of a pistol grip, bayonet lug, telescoping/folding stock, barrel shroud, and threaded barrel do not make the weapon deadlier than it already is.

This is just my statement. Once someone disagrees with me, and states why, I will go in depth with a rebuttal.

 

[Idea]

You spoke a lot about misinformation, but while I am certainly not the most literate on this subject, might I ask for what sources you have to back you up?

 

[Peacemaker .45]

You spoke a lot about misinformation, but while I am certainly not the most literate on this subject, might I ask for what sources you have to back you up?

For what in particular? What I said about Assault Weapons Bans?

If that’s the case, it comes from a number of different things. First, I go by where the term “assault rifle” originally came from, then I look at the US Army definition of an Assault Rifle, followed by the federal legal definition of one.

If it’s not for that specifically, the number of sources are far too many to name. A lot of my information comes from legal, historical, statistical and technical sources. Other comes from personal experience.

 

[Idea]

I see. I ask only because one thing that often comes up in discussions of this type is statistics. And if you know anything about statistics, then you know that they aren't reliable, as they are far too easily sources of major errors that don't even respect the basics of the scientific mehtod.

That said, you do seem to be basing yourself on more credible sources than that based on what you said. If I manage to find anything pertinent to say I will bring it to this thread, but until then best of luck. I will look into what you said and check for myself.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

I see. I ask only because one thing that often comes up in discussions of this type is statistics. And if you know anything about statistics, then you know that they aren't reliable, as they are far too easily sources of major errors that don't even respect the basics of the scientific mehtod.

That said, you do seem to be basing yourself on more credible sources than that based on what you said. If I manage to find anything pertinent to say I will bring it to this thread, but until then best of luck. I will look into what you said and check for myself.

I’m very much so aware of statistical bias, and even the spinning of certain things to represent a certain viewpoint. I try to use sources that aren’t partisan, as I don’t like partisan politics. And with an issue like this, I think there are steps we can take, bipartisan ones, that can make a positive impact in the US.

I try my hardest to not listen to confirmation biases and I do try my hardest to consider the other side. That’s why I try my hardest to use non bias sources that turn my head into an ideological echo chamber.

My pursuit is the truth. If I’m wrong, I am wrong. But my interest is the truth. And my research and personal experience makes me believe what I do. But I do want to hear the other side. I’m more than happy to do so. And that’s partially what I’m doing here.

But thank you! Feel free to post here if you have any questions that pertain to the topic. I’m happy to answer

 

[The Omen of Death]

Actually I think, before any debating on assault weapons specifically happens we should come to a consensus as to what we will deem an "official definition" for assault weapons so that we have clarity.

I think that the opening post should actually put up something like "Matter Being Discussed: Assault Weapons" and then a definition put up that we can use that is unbiased, and can be agreed on.

Now, for the sake of others, according to (what Peacemaker .45 stated were how his definitions came from which I agree with, as they would be reliable sources.)

The term "Assault Rifle" Comes from Nazi Germany after the creation of the StG 44 which is the first selective fire military rifle. Therefore it should be assumed all "assault rifles" as all weapons sharing the same basic characteristics as the StG 44.

The US Army defines "Assault Rifles" as the following: "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

This should be reasonable shouldn't it for a more unbiased look at this issue?

 

[Iskandar]

Just posting here to get notifications to watch this debate! Though I am pro-gun and pretty much agree with Peacemaker. I might be biased since I'm an Army brat and I am extremely used to these weapons and using them.

 

[Flowiest D]

I know nothing about guns and gun laws. I will say however if guns were harder to get in general there would be less school shootings and shit.

Of course a nutjob will do what a nut does, and if pushed and prodded he/she could just as easily stab three people before shooting them with the parents gun. People will always hurt others etc.
But from what I understand (stereotypes and things online I don’t pay attention to)
The average person shouldn’t be able to buy a automatic rifle.

 

[Chimney Swift]

My opinion is this: getting a gun should be like getting a car. You have to be a certain age, pass certain tests, and go back to retake those tests every few years. If you fail, your guns get taken away. If you commit a crime with your guns, you can't have them anymore. Just like a visually impaired person can't get a driving license, a felon or mentally ill person shouldn't get a gun license.

People say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but that's like saying "matches don't start fires, people start fires." Of course guns don't kill people by themselves, and of course violent crimes won't go away if gun laws are enforced, but do you really think a kid could kill 17 people in a few minutes without an automatic rifle? Could he have done that with a knife? A handgun? A shotgun? Guns don't kill people, but they make it easy.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

My opinion is this: getting a gun should be like getting a car. You have to be a certain age, pass certain tests, and go back to retake those tests every few years. If you fail, your guns get taken away. If you commit a crime with your guns, you can't have them anymore. Just like a visually impaired person can't get a driving license, a felon or mentally ill person shouldn't get a gun license.

People say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but that's like saying "matches don't start fires, people start fires." Of course guns don't kill people by themselves, and of course violent crimes won't go away if gun laws are enforced, but do you really think a kid could kill 17 people in a few minutes without an automatic rifle? Could he have done that with a knife? A handgun? A shotgun? Guns don't kill people, but they make it easy.

The worst school shooting in US history, the Virginia Tech shooting, was done with two handguns. That shooting left 32 people dead. Columbine was also done with various weapons, including shotguns. None of the attackers wielded an AR-15. There was a federal assault weapon ban at the time of Columbine.

It is quite easy to fire guns, like pump action shotguns, lever action guns and bolt action guns very quickly, should you practice. Reloading can be done fast as well, depending on loading method and practice.

Though, automatic weapons are highly regulated. As of May 19, 1986, the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) was signed by president Reagan. When it was passed, an amendment was added to it that prohibited the manufacture of selective fire weapons for civilians past that point. Any selective fire weapons (fully automatic or burst) that were registered with the National Firearms Act (NFA) were grandfathered into the law.

As of today, to obtain a selective fire weapon, you have to meet certain criteria, such as living in a state that allows it. You then have to go through an extensive process, including fingerprinting and extensive background checks, get chief law enforcement sign off of such device, and pay a $200 tax stamp on top of it. The process could take several months, or a year or slightly longer. The price for these weapons are thousands of dollars, however. They’re highly regulated.

The shooter in the Florida high school shooting used a semi-automatic rifle, an AR-15 variant of rifle.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Actually I think, before any debating on assault weapons specifically happens we should come to a consensus as to what we will deem an "official definition" for assault weapons so that we have clarity.

I think that the opening post should actually put up something like "Matter Being Discussed: Assault Weapons" and then a definition put up that we can use that is unbiased, and can be agreed on.

Now, for the sake of others, according to (what Peacemaker .45 stated were how his definitions came from which I agree with, as they would be reliable sources.)

The term "Assault Rifle" Comes from Nazi Germany after the creation of the StG 44 which is the first selective fire military rifle. Therefore it should be assumed all "assault rifles" as all weapons sharing the same basic characteristics as the StG 44.

The US Army defines "Assault Rifles" as the following: "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

This should be reasonable shouldn't it for a more unbiased look at this issue?

This is correct. I completely agree with this definition of one. That’s what my research indicates.

But to just clarify two things. The discussion won’t probably pertain to just assault weapons ban, this is just what I chose to start on.

The other thing is that i purposely left out the definition of one because I like to gauge what people believe an assault rifle is so we can go off of that.

 

[Silvana]

Ban all nerf guns.

 

[Silvana]

I honestly have no problem with anyone using a gun as long as they are certified to have one, not use it recklessly, keep proper maintenance, and not use it against any human for any purpose but for self-defense.

 

[The Gunrunner]

At its core, weapons like AR-15’s are semi-automatic rifles. The addition of a pistol grip, bayonet lug, telescoping/folding stock, barrel shroud, and threaded barrel do not make the weapon deadlier than it already is.

Pistol grips and adjustable stocks make it easier to use those weapons in urban situations. It doesn't become more lethal, but now it's tailored better for use where civilians live. These pieces are also why it's so easy to give semi-automatic assault weapons a high rate of fire (bump stocks, apparently putting a spring inside the stock, that weird hip-fire thing where you bounce it on your finger. The latter has a much bigger accuracy hit though.)
Barrel shrouds are for firing a lot of rounds quickly, the controversy coming from what that weapon is now designed to do.
Threaded barrels aren't inherently bad or controversial, though it's one way to hinder the ability to use things like suppressors, compensators, etc.
Nothing wrong with bayonet lugs, obviously. I'd imagine that's included just because it's a staple of the weapons meant to be marked in the ban, which are civilian conversions of military weaponry. I'm guessing though.
There is also the problem that weapons like the AR-15 are just automatic weapons with very minor changes done to their internals, and you can get them reverted back to their automatic state. (Opinion | Banning ‘Bump Stocks’ Won’t Solve Anything)

Anyway, it's not so much the weapon becomes deadlier as much as it becomes easier to go around the law, find loopholes, and it becomes specialized for more controversial situations. I don't agree with an outright ban on assault weapons, but the characteristics should mean that it's at least harder to get. It's not deadlier itself, but it's both better specialized for deadly situations and is easier to make deadlier.

 

[The Omen of Death]

This is correct. I completely agree with this definition of one. That’s what my research indicates.

But to just clarify two things. The discussion won’t probably pertain to just assault weapons ban, this is just what I chose to start on.

The other thing is that i purposely left out the definition of one because I like to gauge what people believe an assault rifle is so we can go off of that.

Oh yeah ik, I had just meant as an example, but its fine if you don't wish too, just thought it'd help to do so. I will reply to what I have seen in a bit.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Okay, a lot to unpack here, so I’m going to try my best to get each and every point in this post and address the best I can.

Pistol grips and adjustable stocks make it easier to use those weapons in urban situations. It doesn't become more lethal, but now it's tailored better for use where civilians live

Pistol grips certainly don’t make it easier to use in a more urban environment. I’m used to rifles with and without pistol grips. In fact, my AR is the only gun with a pistol grip that I own. My other firearms all have no pistol grip or thumb hole stock, and you grip them directly on the stock. I’ve definitely played around more with the rifles without a pistol grip. I find it to be no easier with or without a pistol grip to use. I actually somewhat prefer not have a pistol grip at times because I feel it’s particularly comfortable.

Adjustable/folding stocks don’t really do that much to aid an urban environment. You can argue that you can somewhat reduce the length of the gun, but ATF requires rifles to have an overall length of 26 inches in the ready to fire condition. Even if you did move the stock to the shortest position, the rifle still has to be 26 inches overall in length, 16 of which must be the barrel length. Anything less is considered a short barreled rifle (SBR) and requires NFA paperwork. The folding stock itself doesn’t really do much either. The rifles tend to become bulky and clumsy, and still are long (since the barrel has to be 16 inches at least). They aren’t really less concealable either.

As you said, which I agree with, they don’t make the rifle anymore lethal. However, I disagree with the sentiment that it aids itself better to an urban environment. My personal experience with my rifles, one of which having a pistol grip, makes it easier in an urban sort of environment. Just kind of walking around the house or shooting at friend’s houses, I’ve found it to not make urban shooting any easier. A long, long rifle is what makes it harder. I’m talking a gun with like a M91/30 Mosin Nagant (which I own) I see the only issue with urban environments due to the inherent long length of the rifles. Even then, 26 inches overall length is still pretty long and clumsy for that.

These pieces are also why it's so easy to give semi-automatic assault weapons a high rate of fire (bump stocks, apparently putting a spring inside the stock, that weird hip-fire thing where you bounce it on your finger. The latter has a much bigger accuracy hit though.)

Bump stocks cannot have a spring in them, as it would technically constitute them as a machine gun part. The way they work is by allowing the the gun to move inside of the stock while your finger rests on a rest. Pushing the gun forward in the stock causes the trigger to be depressed. When it fires, recoil forces itself back in the stock freely, and pushing forward causes the gun to moveforward in the stock which the trigger then gets depressed as it goes forward since the finger is on the rest.

I wouldn’t technically say that either of them make it easier for that. And right now we’re seeing a push to outlaw them as well. I’m sure there could be a bumpfire stock on a pistol grip-less gun if the market wanted it. Either way, the accuracy is severely lessened when using a bumpfire method, which can be done without a bumpfire stock whe shouldered. I apologize I can’t remener a name of the video, but I had seen a video of someone shouldering a rifle, and by holding his trigger finger a certain way and by holding the rifle a different way as well, he was able to do it without the hip or bump stock being used.

Barrel shrouds are for firing a lot of rounds quickly, the controversy coming from what that weapon is now designed to do.

This is something my personal experience does not agree with. It doesn’t take a lot of rounds being fired to heat a barrel up. Ten or twenty can heat them up quick. I’ve fired 15 shots through my M91/30 (a bolt action Soviet gun from WWII) in a relatively slow fashion. I wasn’t running the gun for speed, but accuracy. The gun’s metal parts (even not on or around the barrel) got very hot, so much so that i didn’t know where to put my hand, as the wood and metal parts were hot. I burnt my hand a couple of times from it. While this can depend on a number of variables, such as type of round, barrel thickness, barrel materials, etc., it takes very few shots to heat a barrel up quickly, even if not fired rapidly.

Threaded barrels aren't inherently bad or controversial, though it's one way to hinder the ability to use things like suppressors, compensators, etc.

While suppressors are a different discussion, I will say they are NFA devices and civilians can own them. It’s the same as going through the process to buy a registered selective fire rifle. They’re a lot more prevalent than people think.

But, moving to flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brakes, they can reduce recoil. But some guns (like the AR-15) have inherently low recoil, due to the intermediate cartridge it shoots. The .223/5.56 round really doesn’t recoil that much compared to other rounds. But we’re talking about a generalized view of them. I don’t find that the effect of those devices are enough to warrant them making weapons more lethal. I would argue, if anything, their more useful with full auto or burst fire as opposed to semi auto.

There is also the problem that weapons like the AR-15 are just automatic weapons with very minor changes done to their internals, and you can get them reverted back to their automatic state.

The changes to the AR-15 aren’t minor. You’re missing quite a few things that don’t make them fully automatic. You would need a full auto sear, and a full auto bolt carrier group (BCG), let alone a lower receiver that would work with those parts in some cases. These aren’t minor changes to the internal of the AR-15; they are big. This is what sets apart the AR-15 and the M-16. These changes are what makes the rifle only semi automatic. The AR-15 is no different than the M1A, and they both are completely different from an M-16.

I repeat: these are not minor internal changes; these are huge. And this is what makes an AR-15 not an assault rifle like the M-16. While they look similar, they miss an important and paramount part of the equation to make them an assault rifle: selective fire. To meet the criteria as supplied by the US Army, it would need the following:

• Accept a detachable box magazine
• Fire an intermediate cartridge
• Be effective out to 330 yards
• Be selective fire

The AR-15 lacks selectively fire. It can’t be an assault rifle then. It merely is a semi-automatic rifles that looks like an assault rifle, but functionally and internally, they are not the same. The only way for it to be an fully automatic rifle is for it to be selective fire, which it is not. The only way it can be returned to that state is by making it selective fire.

While we both agree that there shouldn’t be an outright ban on rifles with those characteristics, we differ on some philosophy on the weapons. From both my personal research and my personal experience with weapons, I disagree.

Maybe you have experience as well. If so, let me know what you’re experienced with.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Oh yeah ik, I had just meant as an example, but its fine if you don't wish too, just thought it'd help to do so. I will reply to what I have seen in a bit.

Alrighty! Take your time

 

[Silvana]

Okay, a lot to unpack here, so I’m going to try my best to get each and every point in this post and address the best I can.



Pistol grips certainly don’t make it easier to use in a more urban environment. I’m used to rifles with and without pistol grips. In fact, my AR is the only gun with a pistol grip that I own. My other firearms all have no pistol grip or thumb hole stock, and you grip them directly on the stock. I’ve definitely played around more with the rifleswithout a pistol grip. I find it to be no easier with or without a pistol grip to use. I actually somewhat prefer not have a pistol grip at times because I feel it’s particularly comfortable.

Adjustable/folding stocks don’t really do that much to aid an urban environment. You can argue that you can somewhat reduce the length of the gun, but ATF requires rifles to have an overall length of 26 inches in the ready to fire condition. Even if you did move the stock to the shortest position, the rifle still has to be 26 inches overall in length, 16 of which must be the barrel length. Anything less is considered a short barreled rifle (SBR) and requires NFA paperwork. The folding stock itself doesn’t really do much either. The rifles tend to become bulky and clumsy, and still are long (since the barrel has to be 16 inches at least). They aren’t really less concealable either.

As you said, which I agree with, they don’t make the rifle anymore lethal. However, I disagree with the sentiment that it aids itself better to an urban environment. My personal experience with my rifles, one one having a pistol grip, makes it easier in an urban sort of environment. Just kind of walking around the house or shooting at friend’s houses, I’ve found it to not make urban shooting any easier. A long, long rifle is what makes it harder. I’m talking a gun with like a M91/30 Mosin Nagant (which I own) I see the only issue with urban environments due to the inherent long length of the rifles. Even then, 26 inches overall length is still pretty long and clumsy for that.



Bump stocks cannot have a spring in them, as it would technically constitute them as a machine gun part. The way they work is by allowing the the gun to move inside of the stock while your finger rests on a rest. Pushing the gun forward in the stock causes the trigger to be depressed. When it fires, recoil forces itself back in the stock freely, and pushing forward causes the gun forward which the trigger then gets depressed as it goes forward since it’s on the rest.

I wouldn’t technically say that either of them make it easier for that. And right now we’re seeing a push to outlaw them as well. I’m sure there could be a bumpfire stock on a pistol grip-less gun if the market wanted it. Either way, the accuracy is severely lessened when using a bumpfire method, which can be done without a bumpfire stock whe shouldered. I apologize I can’t remener a name of the video, but I had seen a video of someone shouldering a rifle, and by holding his trigger finger a certain way and but holding the rifle a different way as well, he was able to do it without the hip or bump stock being used.



This is something my personal experience does not agree with. It doesn’t take a lot of rounds being fired to heat a barrel up. Ten or twenty can heat them up quick. I’ve fired 15 shots through my M91/30 (a bolt action Soviet gun from WWII) in a relatively slow fashion. I wasn’t running the gun for speed, but accuracy. The gun’s metal parts (even not on or around the barrel) got very hot, so much so that i didn’t know where to put my hand, as the wood and metal parts were hot. I burnt my hand a couple of times from it. While this can depend on a number of variables, such as type of round, barrel thickness, barrel materials, etc., it takes very few shots to heat a barrel up quickly, even if not fired rapidly.



While suppressors are a different discussion, I will say they are NFA devices and civilians can own them. It’s the same as going through the process to by a registered selective fire rifle. They’re a lot more prevalent than people think.

But, moving to flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brakes, they can reduce recoil. But some guns (like the AR-15) have inherently low recoil, due to the intermediate cartridge it shoots. The .223/5.56 round really doesn’t recoil that much compared to other rounds. But we’re talking about a generalized view of them. I don’t find that the effect of those devices are enough to warrant them making weapons more lethal. I would argue, if anything, their more useful with full auto or burst fire as opposed to semi auto.



The changes to the AR-15 aren’t minor. You’re missing quite a few things that don’t make them fully automatic. You would need a full auto sear, and a full auto bolt carrier group (BCG), let alone a lower receiver that would work with those parts in some cases. These aren’t minor changes to the internal of the AR-15; they are big. This is what sets apart the AR-15 and the M-16. These changes are what makes the rifle only semi automatic. The AR-15 is no different than the M1A, and they both are completely different from an M-16.

I repeat: these are not minor internal changes; these are huge. And this is what makes an AR-15 not an assault rifle like the M-16. While they look similar, they miss an important and paramount part of the equation to make them an assault rifle: selective fire. To meet the criteria as supplied by the US Army, it would need the following:

• Accept a detachable box magazine
• Fire an intermediate cartridge
• Be effective out to 330 yards
• Be selective fire

The AR-15 lacks selectively fire. It can’t be an assault rifle then. It merely is a semi-automatic rifles that looks like an assault rifle, but functionally and internally, they are not the same. The only way for it to be an fully automatic rifle is for it to be selective fire, which it is not. The only way it can be returned to that state is by making it selective fire.

While we both agree that there shouldn’t be an outright ban on rifles with those characteristics, we differ on some philosophy on the weapons. From both my personal research and my personal experience with weapons, I disagree.

Maybe you have experience as well. If so, let me know what you’re experienced with.

Must have a lot of time on your hand. XD

 

[Peacemaker .45]

I just want to make it clear that I’m not looking to say anyone is wrong here or “win” a debate. I’m simply looking to argue my side and discuss the topic. I have no interest in saying “oh yeah I won!” I just want a discussion with people who disagree with me to see what we can come to agree and disagree on, and maybe learn a thing or two.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Must have a lot of time on your hand. XD

Right now I do lol

 

[The Gunrunner]

Fair enough. In retrospect I'm not sure why I said that bit about urban environments now.
Anyway there's not really much I disagree with/have something I'd say about, and what I do isn't really relevant.
Thanks for responding, there's certainly things I would have said differently now.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

Fair enough. In retrospect I'm not sure why I said that bit about urban environments now.
Anyway there's not really much I disagree with/have something I'd say about, and what I do isn't really relevant.
Thanks for responding, there's certainly things I would have said differently now.

Hey, don’t worry about it! We all say things that we look back on and say, “wait, why’d I say that?”

And hey, even if you don’t agree with me on everything, that’s perfectly okay with me. I’m quite sick of the political climate being so volatile and even violent. I’m trying to be the opposite of that. So, agree with me or not, don’t sweat it because I don’t care. Thanks for participating though and discussing this respectfully! If you ever have anything else you want to say or ask, feel free to stop back here and post. This is all about a discussion

 

[The Gunrunner]

Hey, don’t worry about it! We all say things that we look back on and say, “wait, why’d I say that?”

And hey, even if you don’t agree with me on everything, that’s perfectly okay with me. I’m quite sick of the political climate being so volatile and even violent. I’m trying to be the opposite of that. So, agree with me or not, don’t sweat it because I don’t care. Thanks for participating though and discussing this respectfully! If you ever have anything else you want to say or ask, feel free to stop back here and post. This is all about a discussion

There is one thing: What definition of 'Assault weapons' are you using? I couldn't find a good one, and the only official one for the US isn't really in use anymore.

 

[Peacemaker .45]

There is one thing: What definition of 'Assault weapons' are you using? I couldn't find a good one, and the only official one for the US isn't really in use anymore.

Are you referring to Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70? That’s what I was going by.

Here’s another link that I feel explains it well. assault rifle | Definition, Examples, Facts, & History

Here’s a PDF of the document that explains what an assault rifle is by the US military. It’s on page 67 of the PDF, but the actual page number is 105

 

[The Gunrunner]

Are you referring to Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70? That’s what I was going by.

Here’s another link that I feel explains it well. assault rifle | Definition, Examples, Facts, & History

Here’s a PDF of the document that explains what an assault rifle is by the US military. It’s on page 67 of the PDF, but the actual page number is 105

I don't mean assault rifles, I mean assault weapons. Assault weapon - Wikipedia If you mean rifles, you might want to change what you said in the first post.