Any rifle can kill people.

Are you suggesting that when people talk about restrictions on assault rifles that the restrictions should apply to all rifles, and that the term “assault” is completely superfluous?

Not trying to be antagonistic, but when you start talking about restrictions and regulations, definitions matter.

And having a discussion about terms you can’t, or aren’t willing to clarify and be specific about seems like a bad faith position. Or at least an indefensible one. Like saying we should lock up “bad people” but refusing to get specific on what constitutes “bad”.

Unfortunately, “assault rifle” is a term without a specific, clear definition, so when people suggest it as a distinction between weapons they want to regulate/outlaw/criminalize and weapons they don’t… it’s only natural that the next logical question is for a concrete definition, if only to establish a starting point for a reasonable discussion and establishing common ground.

Getting frustrated at someone for asking for clarification of a term being invoked as a key determining factor of a proposed law just makes it that much harder to have a conversation about it.

That is such a stupid whatabout. Even if you can’t get a universal definition

I thought we were talking about defining terms? How is asking to define a term whataboutism?

you can at least get as far as “rifle that kills people.”

Any rifle that’s ever killed an individual is an assault weapon? That’s why non-crazies think the push against AW’s are stupid, because you just say dumb shit like that

Those three definitions indicate very different specific firearms though, and all three have significant gray areas that are left open to interpretation.

Not that that’s a failing of the definitions, or even of the term…but it’s definitely worth noting within the context of a discussion about potential laws using the terms in question as a defining, delineating qualifier.

There’s also the very eyebrow raising last part of that last definition. Basically defining a weapon not by its function or capability but based on aesthetic qualities alone.

Again, if that’s the definition everyone agrees upon, fine, whatever… but the narrower the definition, the easier it’ll be to get buy in but the fewer weapons it’ll affect…whereas a broad definition might cover a lot more firearms but then you’re going to have a lot of objections to any legislation based on the increasing number of edge cases where a law impacts a firearm that it probably shouldn’t.

…of course this is all hypothetical, and it all exists in the no man’s land between the real gun control ideal scenario of simply outlawing all guns and requiring everyone to turn in all guns they own and totally disarming the population…and the hard-line 2A advocates who feel that 2A is the only gun law that should exist, and rather than restricting weapon ownership, laws should instead focus on the illegal acts done with the guns rather than the guns themselves.

Sure! So as long as the manufacture says ‘not designed for combat’ it’s not an assault rifle, right??

With many/most modern rifles available with a detachable magazine, ammo capacity isn’t a property directly linked to the weapon itself in any sort of concrete way. So with that caveat, how would you propose classifying weapons based on that property when it isn’t intrinsically linked to the weapon?

Further, how would you define “powerful”?

Even a small caliber like a 22 is perfectly capable of killing. A 9mm is a fairly low power round and is likely one of the rounds responsible for more human deaths than any other in criminal killings thanks to its widespread popularity. On the other hand, most big game hunting calibers are far more powerful than the rounds most associated with gun violence.

I’m not against addressing gun violence, and in fact I feel it’s an area in urgent need of attention…

…but as a gun owner and shooting sports enthusiast who is familiar with guns, it’s an area where I feel both sides of the issue argue past one another, one side with their blinders up based on dogma and partisan vitriol underlying their position…and the other side just as partisan…and wanting to make a bunch of laws with little understanding of the subject matter and no regard for any of the potential impacts of their proposed legislation.

I regularly get into debates with my (overwhelmingly liberal) friend group on this subject and I try to stay calm, rational, and open minded to show I’m not just coming from the standard position on the right of “don’t do anything about gun violence, end of story”…so my position is basically: I’m willing to consider any proposed legislation that fulfills three criteria… First, the proposed law must not create a precedent of infringing on constitutional rights without due process… Second, the proposed legislation must not make a criminal out of anyone who’s currently a law abiding individual in compliance with all laws, who does nothing differently after the law passes…and third, the proposed legislation must be such that it could have been reasonably been expected to significantly reduce or eliminate recent acts of gun violence had it been in effect previously.

If you can come up with a law that checks all those boxes, by all means, I’m interested!

But too often, the laws I hear discussed fail to fall into line with all of those conditions…and other than loophole-closing and background check laws, I have yet to hear any sort of a ban suggestion that does all three.

The AR-15 is fairly weak as rifles go so I guess it doesn’t count?

whats powerful? Whats high capacity?