Define "assault weapon"

[NiteRunner81]

People, it has already been defined.

A pen in the hand of our president is an assault weapon.

Of what you might ask:

Spoiler: show

Our stupid and useless constitution

I'm with this guy!!!

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

No offense taken. I don't know guns but maybe I am not making my self clear. An AK-47 has a faster rate of fire and carries a high amount of ammunition.

It only shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger, same as a pistol. Higher capacity mags mean very little in the real world for these weapons. The high capacity stuff jams easily when not maintained or prepared properly as has been seen in a few of the "mass" shootings.

Oh, and I speak with experience when I say this, AR-15's and AK's that can fire on auto, they jam even quicker and are far less accurate. Full auto is only good for cover fire and is only useful with a belt fed weapon.

<-- Look at this little dude, let's assume a 30 round clip....he's empty in about 6-7 seconds and probably hasn't landed a single shot on his target. So at the end of 7 seconds he's standing there with an empty, illegally possessed gun, and probably a mob of people about to kick his ass.

For what it's worth, here are some sample prices on the following....
M249 SAW - 5k-12k (250K if you really want one and aren't suppose to get one)
M60 machine gun - 25-50k
M16 with full auto - 3k
Stinger missile - 35K (1 shot...that's it, then its another 35k)
This is a LOT of money and we haven't even bought ammo yet.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Damn, this guy just shot through over $100 in ammo in 30 seconds.

Here goes another $100 in about 5 seconds.

AR15, albeit being used a little slowly, but I promise she is actually hitting her target. ($25 in ammo, approximately)

might as well toss this in while I'm at it.....your welcome.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

A pen in the hand of our president is an assault weapon.

I thought that was a weapon of mass destruction.....

MT

[kjeopardy]

A pen in the hand of our president is an assault weapon.

I thought that was a weapon of mass destruction.....

MT

+1

[Col. Hstar]

It only shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger, same as a pistol. Higher capacity mags mean very little in the real world for these weapons. The high capacity stuff jams easily when not maintained or prepared properly as has been seen in a few of the "mass" shootings.
Oh, and I speak with experience when I say this, AR-15's and AK's that can fire on auto, they jam even quicker and are far less accurate. Full auto is only good for cover fire and is only useful with a belt fed weapon.

Again I'm not familiar with guns but it would seem to me that some idiot firing into a crowd isn't going to need to be worried about accuracy. As I said they are simply more efficient for killing
(Refer to the theater shooting)

<-- Look at this little dude, let's assume a 30 round clip....he's empty in about 6-7 seconds and probably hasn't landed a single shot on his target. So at the end of 7 seconds he's standing there with an empty, illegally possessed gun, and probably a mob of people about to kick his ass.

"probably hasn't landed a single shot" Small consolation for someone who does get hit.

For what it's worth, here are some sample prices on the following....
M249 SAW - 5k-12k (250K if you really want one and aren't suppose to get one)
M60 machine gun - 25-50k
M16 with full auto - 3k
Stinger missile - 35K (1 shot...that's it, then its another 35k)
This is a LOT of money and we haven't even bought ammo yet.

And this shows....what? That guns are expensive. This doesn't make them less deadly. Again from that standpoint of some quack bent on shooting up a school or mall I highly doubt they are budgeting and earmarking finances for their upcoming massacre.

Look I'm not telling you that you shouldn't have guns or AKs, but you're the one who wanted us to give our definition of what an assault weapon is. Well that is how I would define an assault weapon. Something that is designed for maximum lethality.

[haasd0gg]

Draw, 18 rounds, 2 reloads < 5sec

This, this is gun control right here

[Hobo]

The media has latched on to this term to sway the general population into whatever direction they want you to go in. In all honesty, the ban on full autos, stinger missiles, tanks, sawed off shotguns, etc is ALREADY an infringement on the 2nd amendment. But, we as a population decided that we were ok with that and allowed our rights to be chiseled away and the people at that time (80 years ago) never thought that their grand kids would be having a discussion about semi auto's and possibly banning them and limiting magazine capacity. So let's say we ban "Glock's", then what? What will our kids or grand kids be fighting for 30-40 years from now? Or possibly sooner? I honestly wish the gun rights talking heads would dig in and push back to repeal the 1934 NFA.

If we ban "assault weapons", we might as well ban unicorns and Narg posting niceties to newcomers.

Here's what Connecticut defines as an assault weapon.
Like I said before, you can define the word assault weapon word for word, or you can define it with the legal reference tied to it.

To be honest, I don't think making ownership of an assault weapon completely illegal for law-abiding citizens will actually help eliminate the threat. It's already somewhat of a hassle to own an automatic weapon, and the amount of murders due to gun violence in the U.S. is largely because of handguns anyway (around 2K for autos, 6.5K for handguns each year). What Matt's idea in the other gun control thread stated seems like the best way to go from here. And for those of you who say, "Oh, but knives/cars/candles kill people as well", would it be more efficient to terrorize a school with a candle, a car, a knife, or a gun? "Oh, but knives are easily accessible, which make them more dangerous." So how come 66% of all murder in the US is caused by a firearm, while 13% is only because of a knife?

Source - U.S. Census 2011

The problem is is that I don't need a reason to own these weapons. If I want to own them because they make me happy or because I'm paranoid or whatever, it doesn't er, the right for me to own them is there. To me, if you want to remove that right then you need to remove the 2nd amendment.

So would you rather have a right to own a Stinger, tank, Javelin, TOW, howitzer, etc assuming you actually have use for one, for the cost of rich drug lords/kinpins who would now have easy access to these weapons, which can cause real damage to the very people who would be protecting this right? The Government restricts access to these types of hardware for a reason, that being so this country doesn't turn into a war zone.

[WD-40]

Look...being a 'Fed', we (the Feds) all know what 'Joe Citizen' already knows. Any 'Law' passed, won't stop any wack determined to Kill, to use an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to do so. Like Prohibition, where there's a demand, there's money. Where there's money, there's a supply. The ignorance of Congress having not learned from History is mind-boggling!
Pass a gun law...nothing has changed. And btw...as a 'Fed', I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution...NOT the Presidents beliefs. I fully 'support and defend' the 2nd Amendment rights!

[GDog]

Look...being a 'Fed', we (the Feds) all know what 'Joe Citizen' already knows. Any 'Law' passed, won't stop any wack determined to Kill, to use an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to do so. Like Prohibition, where there's a demand, there's money. Where there's money, there's a supply. The ignorance of Congress having not learned from History is mind-boggling!
Pass a gun law...nothing has changed. And btw...as a 'Fed', I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution...NOT the Presidents beliefs. I fully 'support and defend' the 2nd Amendment rights!