Are AR-15 style rifles 'assault rifles'? (assault weapons?)

[keithbvadu2]

Are AR-15 style rifles 'assault rifles'? (assault weapons?)

Gun supporters try to ridicule the idea of it being an assault rifle because it is not (originally) capable of automatic fire. They even minimize it as a 'sporting rifle' to trivialize it as not really such a deadly weapon.

They quote definitions that mention automatic fire.

Well, there are also various definitions that do not require automatic fire as a prerequisite for 'assault rifles'.

If it is not such a deadly weapon, then it is not really a good defense weapon.

When it comes to the rubber meeting the road, the AR-15 style rifle is the majority/plurality preferred weapon for killing school children.

That's deadly.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=army+definition+assault+rifle

[Srkdqltr]

1. Of course it is. What else are they for.

[Skittles]

2. you know who questions this? GUN HUMPERS

and FUCK those cowards

[Kingofalldems]

3. They'll gunsplain it in a minute or two.

[Zeitghost]

16. No

AR = Armalite Rifle.

[Zeitghost]

20. No

Armalite is a company name. It would be like Winchester calling a rifle the WR-5.

[jmowreader]

45. With that particular one, yes

Eugene Stoner worked for the ArmaLite division of Fairchild. When they decided they didn't want to be in the rifle business they sold the AR-15 patents and trademarks to Colt.

[SYFROYH]

5. You'lll be glad to know the Army has decided the automatic versions of the AR insufficient for war

And they are moving on to a different round and rifle.

There were AR-15s defined as assault weapons under the 1994 AWB and there were AR-15s that were sold during the AWB because they were compliant.

Most definitions of assault rifles require more than round being fired with the pulling of a trigger (burst or continuous fire).

[Going to Canada]

6. It is referred to more often as a rifle.This is a form of manipulating the truth!

The AR-15 is a weapon of mass killing. Period.

[Eko]

7. If only there was something that would show that the AR15 is a rifle made for war and a combat rifle

Those are actual ad's from Armalite, that's where the AR comes from its an abbreviation of Armalite, for the AR15.

[krispos42]

10. So it's accurate, lightweight, and made from corrosion-resistant materials.

Do you think hunters also would like those characteristics?

How about long-range optics? Non-glaring finishes? A more-ergonomic pistol grip?

I bet hunters would also appreciate those features as well.

So where are you going with this? If the guy in the picture was wearing a fur cap and a flannel shirt instead of a helmet and olive drab would it be as scary?

Is the problem is that the AR-15 doesn't shoot a big enough bullet? That it's not big enough and heavy enough?

Or is it the fact that damn near every gun sold nowadays has the ability to accept optics, lasers, and flashlights?

[Eko]

14. Why arent you asking Armalite?

I didnt make them do the ads so I have no idea why you are asking me. Whats your point?

[Kaleva]

44. Do any of your buddies use an AR-10?

Or an AR-10 style rifle?

What rifles do you all use?

I know some hunters who won't use a semi-auto of any kind. They stick with the tried and true bolt action or lever action.

[48656c6c6f20]

37. Pfft, real hunters use this.

They appreciate the mobility and accuracy. Now that I've given you some stroke material, time to head back to the subterranean?

[jmowreader]

76. What hunters don't like is the caliber

Hunters want guns that cleanly kill. Unless you are a serious coyote hunter, 5.56mm won’t work for you.

[Straw Man]

46. And then there's this ...

[Thomas Hurt]

8. Back in the day you had a wood rifle for hunting that held 4 or 5 rounds.

Even the semi-automatic rifles of this type could fire quickly.

Enter the Tactical Chic and Special Forces Operator Cool.

Matte black, all metal rifles, emulating military assault rifles in performance, except they are not fully automatic.

The modern AR and AK variants are not hunting rifles. Their semi-automatic performance is such that, to my mind, there is little to no difference anymore between semi and full automatic rifles. High capacity clips and magazines that you don't need to hunt or target shoot are just the cherry on top.

The NRA and the christofascists have led US gun culture to change from a safe hunting (as safe as hunting can be) and target shooting culture, to the idolatry of modern conservative gun worship.

Now, in the Pig, they have an authoritarian false prophet to defend with those weapons.

[AndyS]

11. Ya' know, from your posts it might seem that you don't like

Democrats much . . .

[krispos42]

12. So I shouldn't speak up when Democrats do useless things that put Republicans in power?

I should just shut up and watch them strip away voting rights in dozens of states or watch abortion become a felony for dozens of millions of women because A PISTOL GRIP ON A RIFLE IS MORE IMPORTANT?

[BannonsLiver]

60. Therein lies the rub with the gun devotees

You think it’s about a pistol grip. But it’s really about pushing back against the idea that everyone with a pulse should be able to own one of these. It’s about my right to not get my fucking head blown off when I go into public. Hope that clears it up for you.

[dwayneb]

64. Gun fetishists, the lust for death and violence

As I stated below this discussion should be about the "lethality quotient" of a weapons system, not whether is is an "assault weapon" or what grip it might have.

What's the rate of fire? Can it be easily modified to have a greater rate of fire? What ammunition does it support?

All of these characteristics (and others) determine just how good that firearm is at slaughtering human beings. THAT class of weapons, no matter what they may be called, should be banned, just like machine guns have been banned since the early 20th century.

Of course then you will get the ridiculous argument that "criminals will get these weapons anyway", which might be true for the next 5 or 10 years after the ban is passed. But over time, than ban will greatly reduce the number of mass shootings performed with these weapons of mass lethality.

[Zeitghost]

69. The laws being written

Are literally about the pistol grip and other ergonomic and design features. Which as the post you responded to says, hurts us in the long run with public support for gun control and other political goals and does little to nothing with regards to ending gun violence, most of which happens with guns that would not be covered by such laws.

[BannonsLiver]

72. No thanks.

I don’t play the NRA taught obfuscation games. To the list you go…buh-bye.

[Eko]

15. Super suprised to learn that "Guns and Ammo" is the gun control side.

https://www.glocktalk.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.glocktalk.com/attachments/9c0ba554-aa08-4ede-8eb8-0b9b7262c51e-png.400120/

History can bite you in the ass when you arent looking.
Ps, look at the dates on the mag.
Eko

[Kaleva]

13. I wonder why so few care about the more powerful AR-10

The big brother of the AR-15.. The AR-15 and AR-10 both function and appear very similiar. One could be forgiven for mistaking one for the other.

The people who want to ban the AR-15 rarely, if ever, mention banning the AR-10 also so one could assume they don't have an issue with the latter and it can remain to be legal to buy and own.

[Happy Hoosier]

53. Largely because there just aren't that many of them out there.

The AR-10 is bigger, heavier, and can carry less ammo for the same size and weight as an AR-15. It's also more expensive. RARELY would an AR-10 offer a huge advantage for a mass shooter. The AR-10 is mostly useful at longer ranges. Most mass shooters are shooting at people less than 20 yards away. And the 5.56mm cartridge of the AR-15 is devastating at close range (with the right ammunition).

[Kaleva]

75. An AR10 at close range is devastating

The shock wave the more powerful bullet generates as it goes through the body turns surrounding tissue and organs to mush

I agree with everything else you said

[Happy Hoosier]

83. It is, but dead is dead as they say.

More recoil, heavier weight and lower ammo capacity in exchange for a marginal increase in lethality? Not to mention the increased cost of the gun and ammo.... and most of these killers are not exactly floating in money. They want a cheap, effective way to kill defenseless people quickly. The killer that used the Daniel Defense gun is unusual. They are more of a mid-upper boutique maker. Most are using cheaper knock-offs. And a cheap, knock-off AR-15 is the perfect tool for such a mass murder. No reason to use an AR-10 really.

[maxsolomon]

17. its a Military Style Semi-Automatic Rifle

MSSA.

What I've learned from years of Gunner debates on DU is that "Assault" is a meaningless term, and Americans love to argue over meaningless shit. To the point of excluding every other consideration.

Gunners will still argue that what separates a military weapon from a civilian one is auto vs. semi-auto.

[Zeitghost]

18. What is the true definition

Of a military style semi-automatic rifle and how does it differer from a non-military style semi-automatic rifle?

[maxsolomon]

62. You tell me.

No one's going to do shit about them, regardless. Rampage massacres are as American as Apple Pie.

[Zeitghost]

67. I don't really see a difference

Past possible cosmetic and material differences. Hence my question.

[Act_of_Reparation]

70. What is the "true definition" of "definition"?

Sorry, my dude. There isn't an idealized assault rifle floating around in Plato's realm of forms. There isn't an easy, one-size-fits-all way of categorizing these guns.

What I can tell you, however, is that there is a big fucking difference between my Ruger 10/.22 and a milspec 5.56 NATO.

[Zeitghost]

71. I don't disagree

Which is why I asked someone who seemed to be making a clear distinction what they were basing that distinction on.

[maxsolomon]

80. MSSA is the term I've learned to use on DU to avoid the "Assault Weapon" debate.

That's it. That was my entire point.

Obviously it doesn't work because DU is full of argumentative hair splitters.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. Yeah, but this is the kind of thing we pay lawmakers to do.

They want assault weapons banned. We generally know what people mean by that. They're talking about AR-15's, AK's... civilian models of military weapons. Coming up with language to affect that prohibition is the responsibility of our lawmakers.

But, just to kick a few ideas around. I think a partial ban on semi-automatic centerfire rifles is probably the way to go. By basing the ban list on magazine size (lenient), or magazine type (internal v. detachable; a more restrictive list), you could probably differentiate "assault rifles" from hunting/sporting weapons.

[Zeitghost]

82. You can

The problem becomes one of engineers outpacing the law.

We banned guns by model name in California, so they changed model names.
We banned pistol grips and flash hiders, they installed fin grips and muzzle brakes.
We banned detachable magazines, and they came out with the bullet button to "fix" magazines.
We banned bullet buttons, they came out with action break devices to "fix" magazines.


California has some of the most stringent assault weapons regulations in the country. But you can buy an AR-15 in every gun shop in the State. And every time I try to explain the problem or ask for personal definitions, I'm shouted down as a gunsplainer by those who refuse to do anything other than make demands on topics of which they have little to no knowledge.

[keithbvadu2]

21. To the gunners::: If you only had a semi-auto rifle, would you assault

the enemy with it to protect your family and country...

or would you give up and let them take over?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. I'm no gunner, but let me answer that from a military mind,

the best defense is a good offense.

[keithbvadu2]

28. An assault

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here,

are you saying that Dems that own these weapons should preempt the RWNJ?

I'm a little confused here, sorry, it's been a long day for me and I'm a little tired and my noggin isn't computing correctly.

[keithbvadu2]

33. An offence would be an assault.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

34. Ah, ok, I gotcha, and you are correct.

On that note, I'm going to climb into my sleeper and get some well-deserved sleep.

Have a great night.

[Kaleva]

43. Alone, I wouldn't assault any enemy regardless of what I had

Too high of a risk of getting killed or seriously wounded. I'd use a gun to facilitate a retreat or when retreat was not possible.

[Happy Hoosier]

54. I understand the snark, but it is misdirected.

If you want to actually make any progress here, then the technical details matter.

Terms like "assault rifle" sound scary, but they have a specific, historical origin and reason for differentiating them. You might not care. You may find guns SO distasteful that such technical details seem obscene to you. But people like me grew up around guns. I am not uncomfortable with them in the least, and they were a pleasant recreational sport for me. Also being an engineer and fascinated with machines of all types, I know how they work. An actual assault rifle has specific characteristics because those characteristics are what the military wanted at the time.

BUT, the fact that a semi-auto AR-15 is not TECHNICALLY an assault rifle doesn't matter much, and THAT is point we should be making. By arguing that it IS a assault rifle, you are giving ammunition to the other side, who want to dismiss us a know-nothings, who don;t even understand the technical issues. We are in the wrong argument!

The fact is that the military doesn't even USE one of defining features of a assault rifle all that much.... the select-fire function that allows the use of automatic fire. The vast majority of the time, semi-auto fire is used in military applications. We need to drop the term "assault" and just use terms such as "weapon of war." And ignore useless bullshit cosmetic issues that adjustable or folding stocks, and pistol grips. Focus on the one thing that REALLY makes an AR-15 and similar rifles dangerous.... a removable, high-capacity magazine coulded with semi-automatic operation. That's pretty much the ball game right there. The rest is window dressing.

[Hangingon]

25. Wow. Same lame tired argument and a40 year old magazine

[Eko]

29. Awesome argument.

I think beyond you saying that the 40 year old ad from armalite calling it a military rifle it was the "lame" thing that really proved your argument. Bravo.

[Hangingon]

31. It was not an argument

This is just another recitation of the old tired “assault rifle” charge so that everyone can blast “gunners”. It is boring. The positions of each side are set. Meaningless .

[Eko]

35. If its boring and meaningless

Why did you reply?

[48656c6c6f20]

55. Don't need old ads to blast gun humpers

They do it to themselves by being untrustworthy. There is no such thing as a responsible gun humper. Everyone of them has the potential to be a mass murderer. Gun humpers fought tooth and nail to earn this. So now you get to wear it

[Baked Potato]

27. The gunmakers are reaping the filthy lucre.

It nevertheless is lucre and it is in demand.

[Kaleva]

32. Are AR-15s used as a front line weapon by any military in the world?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. Not to my knowledge. nt

[Kaleva]

41. I don't know of any either.

[albacore]

38. I don't know firearms....

.... actually, I do....
but I know what an assault rifle is.
Imagine some impressionable paranoid watching this ad from Daniel Defense.
That poor asshole knows what an assault rifle is, too.

[Kaleva]

40. Where does one find such ads?

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2022, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I've never seen them.

[albacore]

52. Youtube. And all the ammosexual websites... nt

[Kaleva]

42. I would think gamers would aquire a great deal of knowledge of guns

Fans of Grand Theft Auto would know which guns are best for killing large numbers of people in a short period of time.

[48656c6c6f20]

56. How many deer did they kill?

I mean it's just a hunting rifle right?

[albacore]

77. I want to know who/what they might be firing AT with all that tactical gear on...

Liberals? The "govamint troops"?
Sure looks like they're practicing to be in some kind of fire-fight to me.

[Kaleva]

39. I think we should define guns by which Act or law regulates them

Guns regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 were not prohibited by the AWB and won't be by any future AWB.

[Edim]

47. If it has selective fire, it is.

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2022, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Military versions (M16...) are typical assault rifles. I think most civilian AR-15s are semiautomatic only and therefore not assault rifles.

"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44, a development of the earlier Mkb 42."

"The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who used the German word Sturmgewehr (which translates to "assault rifle&quot as the new name for the MP 43 (Maschinenpistole), subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44. Allied propaganda suggested that the name was chosen for propaganda purposes, but the main purpose was to differentiate the Sturmgewehr from German submachine guns such as the MP 40."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[rockfordfile]

48. How about a terrorist and loser weapon.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. It was designed to kill people

They limited the rate of kill for civilian use, but it's rifled, and an anti-personnel weapon, and if killing isn't "assault", then what is? So it is an assault rifle, and an assault weapon.

[Johnny2X2X]

50. This is one of their false arugments

We regulate and classify all sorts of consumer products more complicated than guns. The idea we can't form a panel of industry experts and set some guidelines on guns is silly because we already do that. We already classify what is a hand gun and what is a long gun. There are many other characteristics of guns that we've already deemed classify that gun into some group. The idea we can't get together some experts who will be able to figure out what guns belong to each category is idiotic. And when new guns are made, there's already processes in place for the manufacturer to get the gun classified, just expand those slightly.

The US government classifies and segments everything from heart valves, to shower valves, to automobiles, to airliners, they are fully capable of classifying what is and what is not an assault rifle.

[Zeitghost]

59. That can most deffinitly be done

The problem is the categories that are easy to develop from a functional standpoint do not align with the types of guns many people want to see banned. There are very few functional differences between an AR or an AK and a hunting rifle besides cosmetic and material differences.

There is a misconception by many that the AR-15 and similar guns have features that make them uniquely dangerous. The reality is, the main feature leading to their use in mass shootings is the open patent on their modular design and subsequent low price and easy availability. Because any manufacturer can build an AR pattern rifle with basically zero R&D efforts that is compatible with a vast supply of replacement and upgraded aftermarket components, it makes them extremely affordable and popular.

[Chainfire]

51. ARs, like AKs are so popular because they are the most lethal types of weapons that a working stiff

can afford. What they do best is kill the most people in the shortest time possible. It is really just that simple.

[Swede]

57. The assault rifle was designed to be compact and have rapid fire.

Sounds like an AR-15.

Nazi Germany made the first successful designed assulat rifle. (later copied by the Russians with the AK-47)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

[ripcord]

58. Im still trying to figure out why the AR-15 and AK-47 are on the AWB list

But the Ruger Mini 14 isn't, they fire the same round, they are semi automatic and you can purchase extended magazines for both, the only reason I can come up with is that the Mini 14 doesn't look as scary.

[fescuerescue]

85. I think that one is more of something that farmers use

Fox in the henhouse type situation.

Not suitable for military or school shootings.

[ripcord]

86. Does this help?

[fescuerescue]

87. Apparently not

Since these are not being used for those attacks.

Shooters seem to prefer to military rifle over the farm gun to shoot up schools.

[ripcord]

88. They are functionally the same

I guess it really is a scary looking weapon ban people want.

[fescuerescue]

89. I think it's important to ban the guns that people use

For school shootings.

I really don't know why. But they don't seem to be interested in the farm guns.

They exclusively use the AR-15s stuff

[Straw Man]

93. Which scenario is more plausible?

A) AR-15 military-style semi-automatic rifles are banned, so mass shootings stop.
B) AR-15 military-style semi-automatic rifles are banned, so mass shooters change to the "farm guns," which are equally lethal.

[BannonsLiver]

61. They sure came out of the woodwork on this one.

America is absolutely fucked beyond recognition. We are all screwed.

[dwayneb]

65. Surprised me too

There's no sane argument against banning firearms with a high lethality quotient.

The NRA and all the gun manufacturers know that their most effective business strategy is to saturate out population with guns, so that we must ALL have more and better guns to survive. Blood money, no more, no less.

[BannonsLiver]

73. Yep

One of them using their NRA-taught obfuscation techniques in the thread.

[dwayneb]

63. Have heard the 2A freaks belittle that so many times

These idiots think they are "scoring points" because they can belittle someone for mis-characterizing the class of these weapons. It's just another way of changing the topic to something they are comfortable with.

The real characteristic that we should be talking about is the level of lethality, which is directly proportional to the rate of fire of the weapon, and the type of ammunition it can deliver.

AR-15 and similar rifles have a greater "lethality quotient" than a pistol, for these reasons. They are a more effective and efficient tool to slaughter human beings - that should be the focus.

If this were not the case, why wouldn't soldiers in combat carry sidearms instead of rifles?

[BannonsLiver]

74. One of them in the thread, apparently.

Should be an instaban.

[Iggo]

66. They're overpowered murder tools and they don't belong in the hands of the general public.

Fuck you, all of you Gunfuckers.

Every single one of you.

[dwayneb]

68. Dead on

I get so sick of hearing the gun freaks try to defend the availability of these mass slaughter aids.

We all know that there's a reason why "machine guns" were banned back in the early 20th century, and the same principle applies to these weapons.

We should assign every firearm a "lethality quotient" which effectively would assign a number to describe it's ability to kill human beings, including things like rate of fire and the lethality potential of the ammunition.

Then we could decide via our legislature, which guns should be banned, which are above a specific "lethality quotient".

Of course the NRA and the gun manufacturers will fight it tooth and nail because the 2A whitewashes their sick business model.

[Elwood P Dowd]

79. The AR15 is very similar to the M16 we used in Army training back during the Vietnam era.

The M16 was fully automatic, but I don't recall any 50 and 100 round clips being available. Hate to think how deadly new and improved or modified versions of those things have become. Also, when I finished my 2-year draft time in the Army, not one person I knew owned anything remotely like an AR15 or M16 back then. Never saw one again until the 1990s. Now there are millions of them in circulation

[fescuerescue]

84. The army buys AR-15 by the millions

That's all we really need to know.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

90. The US Military DOES NOT buy AR-15's by the millions,

that's false information, those are semi auto, the military's main battle rifle is a select fire weapon.

When I first enlisted in the Marines, that M-14 was still our main battle rifle, my first tour in Vietnam was with an M-14, my second tour was with the new M-16A1, which was a select fire rifle, which, BTW, the first gen. sucked, they kept jamming.

During the Gulf War, we carried the M-16A2, which, again, is a select fire rifle, now the US Military carries the M-4 select fire rifle.

At no time in my 35 years as a Marine did we carry the AR-15 and neither did any of the other branches of the military, so I don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong.

[Paladin]

91. Of course they're assault rifles. What do you think "AR" stands for?

Manufacturers used to openly market them as assault rifles. Back before gun arguments deteriorated into definition wars.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

92. AR doesn't stand for assault rifles,

it stands for Armalite Rifle, which is the original company that manufactured them.