HOME | DD

Description
I've been looking into the debate on the Banning of "Assault Type" weapons.

So far what I've learned is that 'Assault Weapons' are defined as having more than one "Assault" feature, such as a Pistol Grip, Retractable and Folding Stock, bayonet lug, threaded barrel, or a barrel shroud. There is another unlikely used possible attachment of a Grenade launcher, and from what I know of they are classified as a destructive device so laws may vary from state to state.

Now, a confusion I'm hearing the terms "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle/Pistol" being used interchangeably, in which is incorrect since, a rifle classified as an "Assault Rifle" is a rifle in which is capable of selective fire more than Semi-Auto typically being Full-Auto/Burst-Auto whereas Assault Weapon is based more on attachments and ergonomics.

Another thing I hear is whenever someone compares a so called "Assault Weapon" with a "Hunting Weapon" they tend to say the quote "Has no legitimate hunting purpose" problem is every rifle, handgun, and shotgun is capable of being used for hunting, example being some hunt with Semi-Auto AKMs with Low Cap Mags[You can look it up on YouTube if you wish]. As if that's not enough some of the so called "Assault Weapons" are manufactured in many formats sometimes in hunting format the Saiga 7.62 and WASR 10 are good examples of two AK Rifle platforms in different formats.

Another claim is one is an "Assault Weapon" is more deadly than "Hunting Rifle", now in all honesty it varies what rifles/shotguns/handguns you chose to compare, what I'm assuming the comparison they say is Caliber, now if one used 5.56 or a .223 round in a AR-15[AW] then a Ruger Mini-14[HW] say one was an expert with both, it really won't matter what gun it's shot from it will most likely yield the same results with ballistics{I know some of you pro-gunners are facepalming probably from that statement}.

I've looked into the stats of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2013 (I have nothing on 2014-2015 sadly), and it appears you are more likely to being killed by a non-Assault Weapon ironically since out of the 11,208(2013) gun homicides around 800 -or so- of them were Assault-Type weapons, on Mass Murders it's a different story.

On the Mass Shooters, the main examples are typically Aurora[AR15], Columbine[Tec 9M/Hi Point 995/Stevens 311D/Savage 67H], and Sandy Hook[AR15/Saiga 12] because of their usage of Assault Weapons in these tragedies. I noticed not many mention Virginia Tech, granted Seung-Hui achieved his horrific place of the worst Mass Shooter with 32 dead & 23 injured using Two Handguns [a Glock 19 and Walther P22] which doesn't fit the category of Assault Weapons. We could also mention Red Lake, MN, Jokela in Finland, and Kauhajoki in Finland and how they had a serious number of fatalities without Assault Weapons. Really overall the main reason many lose their lives in this areas is not fully on the firearms, but the incapability of evacuation, lack of resistance, and how close the victims are to each other, in Columbine, many hid under their desks in the library, with V-Tech, they had nowhere to go either except hide under their desks, whether a pistol, rifle, shotgun was used, it didn't really change the unfortunate result that much. It also helps to mention that Columbine and a few other shootings like Thurston, Jonesboro, and Paducah occurred under the first weapon ban, the Clinton 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban, looking at Wiki about around 30-40 School Shootings occurred between that Ten Year period.

I also do wish to try to explain that Assault Rifles are already heavily regulated here in the U.S. since May 1986, they are not to be developed/imported for civilian usage, what's already here is what we have, typically they cost around $15,000-$30,000 varying per weapon not including the Form 4.

Lastly, a silly thing I hear is the tactical-ization/polymerize of the firearm makes it deadlier, maybe you are implying it's more comfortable and easier to handle because of the retractable stock and pistol grip with maybe a bipod, but isn't that what is for the best when handling a firearm, to make it perform flawlessly and with little to no mistakes as possible? And is that what really matters, if the stock is wood with no rails and polymer and with rails for features is that what really makes it more dangerous that a traditional Semi-Auto Rifle to you?

Honestly, there isn't enough I can really say about this since, I can go on for few hours about this, I know I'm probably missed a few things doing this, so if you wish to add something, you can comment it.

Remember "Assault-Type" Weapons aren't the only weapons used in Mass Shootings, there are some massacres in which the gunman obtained +6 casualties or +10 injuries without an Assault Weapon a few decent examples could be University of Texas(1966), Thurston(1998), Westside(1998), Santana(2001), Red Lake(2005), Jokela(2007), Virginia Tech(2007), Kauhajoki (2008), Umpqua(2015). Sadly, the worst massacres in America being Virginia Tech & Finland being Kauhajoki.

If you want my two cents then, I would prefer society focus on the conditions which drives a person to commit such atrocities and not on the tool, as a person who wants to mimic the killers of the past will do so with whatever tool they'll get: Knife, Gun, Bomb, etc.

I just want people to think about it at least.

=====================================================================================================

If you wish to see a great example of what I'm wish to imply here a decent video by a 1980's Californian Police officer describes it best here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti…

Another decent example is from gun enthusiasts comparing an Assault Weapon to a real Assault Rifle:
youtu.be/W8YuPPWuGW8?t=11

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLs…

Description
I've been looking into the debate on the Banning of "Assault Type" weapons.

So far what I've learned is that 'Assault Weapons' are defined as having more than one "Assault" feature, such as a Pistol Grip, Retractable and Folding Stock, bayonet lug, threaded barrel, or a barrel shroud. There is another unlikely used possible attachment of a Grenade launcher, and from what I know of they are classified as a destructive device so laws may vary from state to state.

Now, a confusion I'm hearing the terms "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle/Pistol" being used interchangeably, in which is incorrect since, a rifle classified as an "Assault Rifle" is a rifle in which is capable of selective fire more than Semi-Auto typically being Full-Auto/Burst-Auto whereas Assault Weapon is based more on attachments and ergonomics.

Another thing I hear is whenever someone compares a so called "Assault Weapon" with a "Hunting Weapon" they tend to say the quote "Has no legitimate hunting purpose" problem is every rifle, handgun, and shotgun is capable of being used for hunting, example being some hunt with Semi-Auto AKMs with Low Cap Mags[You can look it up on YouTube if you wish]. As if that's not enough some of the so called "Assault Weapons" are manufactured in many formats sometimes in hunting format the Saiga 7.62 and WASR 10 are good examples of two AK Rifle platforms in different formats.

Another claim is one is an "Assault Weapon" is more deadly than "Hunting Rifle", now in all honesty it varies what rifles/shotguns/handguns you chose to compare, what I'm assuming the comparison they say is Caliber, now if one used 5.56 or a .223 round in a AR-15[AW] then a Ruger Mini-14[HW] say one was an expert with both, it really won't matter what gun it's shot from it will most likely yield the same results with ballistics{I know some of you pro-gunners are facepalming probably from that statement}.

I've looked into the stats of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2013 (I have nothing on 2014-2015 sadly), and it appears you are more likely to being killed by a non-Assault Weapon ironically since out of the 11,208(2013) gun homicides around 800 -or so- of them were Assault-Type weapons, on Mass Murders it's a different story.

On the Mass Shooters, the main examples are typically Aurora[AR15], Columbine[Tec 9M/Hi Point 995/Stevens 311D/Savage 67H], and Sandy Hook[AR15/Saiga 12] because of their usage of Assault Weapons in these tragedies. I noticed not many mention Virginia Tech, granted Seung-Hui achieved his horrific place of the worst Mass Shooter with 32 dead & 23 injured using Two Handguns [a Glock 19 and Walther P22] which doesn't fit the category of Assault Weapons. We could also mention Red Lake, MN, Jokela in Finland, and Kauhajoki in Finland and how they had a serious number of fatalities without Assault Weapons. Really overall the main reason many lose their lives in this areas is not fully on the firearms, but the incapability of evacuation, lack of resistance, and how close the victims are to each other, in Columbine, many hid under their desks in the library, with V-Tech, they had nowhere to go either except hide under their desks, whether a pistol, rifle, shotgun was used, it didn't really change the unfortunate result that much. It also helps to mention that Columbine and a few other shootings like Thurston, Jonesboro, and Paducah occurred under the first weapon ban, the Clinton 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban, looking at Wiki about around 30-40 School Shootings occurred between that Ten Year period.

I also do wish to try to explain that Assault Rifles are already heavily regulated here in the U.S. since May 1986, they are not to be developed/imported for civilian usage, what's already here is what we have, typically they cost around $15,000-$30,000 varying per weapon not including the Form 4.

Lastly, a silly thing I hear is the tactical-ization/polymerize of the firearm makes it deadlier, maybe you are implying it's more comfortable and easier to handle because of the retractable stock and pistol grip with maybe a bipod, but isn't that what is for the best when handling a firearm, to make it perform flawlessly and with little to no mistakes as possible? And is that what really matters, if the stock is wood with no rails and polymer and with rails for features is that what really makes it more dangerous that a traditional Semi-Auto Rifle to you?

Honestly, there isn't enough I can really say about this since, I can go on for few hours about this, I know I'm probably missed a few things doing this, so if you wish to add something, you can comment it.

Remember "Assault-Type" Weapons aren't the only weapons used in Mass Shootings, there are some massacres in which the gunman obtained +6 casualties or +10 injuries without an Assault Weapon a few decent examples could be University of Texas(1966), Thurston(1998), Westside(1998), Santana(2001), Red Lake(2005), Jokela(2007), Virginia Tech(2007), Kauhajoki (2008), Umpqua(2015). Sadly, the worst massacres in America being Virginia Tech & Finland being Kauhajoki.

If you want my two cents then, I would prefer society focus on the conditions which drives a person to commit such atrocities and not on the tool, as a person who wants to mimic the killers of the past will do so with whatever tool they'll get: Knife, Gun, Bomb, etc.

I just want people to think about it at least.

=====================================================================================================

If you wish to see a great example of what I'm wish to imply here a decent video by a 1980's Californian Police officer describes it best here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti…

Another decent example is from gun enthusiasts comparing an Assault Weapon to a real Assault Rifle:
youtu.be/W8YuPPWuGW8?t=11

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLs…