02-28-2018, 03:49 PM
(02-28-2018, 02:09 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Check out this article from USA TODAY:
What is an 'assault weapon'? The definition is actually highly contentious
https://usat.ly/2oFqg55
We've had this discussion several times on this board. The traditional, and IMO correct, interpretation is a long gun capable of select fire. This was previously semi-auto (i.e. one squeeze of the trigger fires one round) and full-auto (the firearm will fire rounds as long as the trigger is held down and there are rounds to fire). The military, for most infantry long guns, has removed the full auto option in favor of a burst fire option (one trigger pull fires three rounds). JimBreech can correct me if I'm wrong, but this was done as full auto fire was found to be inefficient, low accuracy and high ammunition expenditure. Fully automatic is now generally only found on support weapons.
Lawmakers, who usually have little to no knowledge of firearms, tend to focus on features. These features are usually flash hiders, pistol grips, vertical foregrips, detachable magazine in conjunction with another banned feature and adjustable or folding stock. A small argument can be made for flash hiders, the efficacy of which is drastically overstated, in that the help conceal a shooters position. A argument can be made for folding stocks, as they aid in concealment. The concealment argument cannot be logically made for adjustable stocks as they do not change the overall length of the firearm to a significant degree. They exist to accommodate shooters with long, or shorter arms, than normal (research the term "length of pull), or, for shooters wearing body armor (typically swat or soldiers) as the extra bulk affects the shooters length of pull.
So, a combination of features determines what an "assault rifle" is. As stated above majority of these identified features have zero affect on the shooters ability to fire the gun or the lethality of the firearm. Thus, logically, we can determine that the term, for civilian firearms, is borderline meaningless. My M14, firing .308 Remington, with a traditional wooden rifle stock, is not an assault rifle, despite the detachable magazine. A typical AR firing .223 Remington, which would typically have at least two of the above features, is an "assault rifle".
You now see manufacturers making CA compliant "featureless" rifles or guides on how to modify your current rifle to make it featureless.
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle-grips-stocks-muzzle-devices/
None of the features has anything close to a significant affect on the weapons lethality. Of the features, only a folding stock has any significant impact on the firearm as opposed to a featureless rifle.
So, essentially, the "assault weapons" bans are feel good, do nothing pieces of legislation that will have zero impact on a person willing to commit mass murder.
