Skip to main content

View Diary: Instead of "Assault Weapons", how about a fire-rate restriction? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, I spelled out in a Diary exactly what an (6+ / 0-)

    "assault weapon" is based on the definition as used by the US Military... because, you know, those are the professionals that use the things as part of the tools of their trade:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Having been in the US Army for 18+ years, mostly in combat arms and a trip to Iraq, I would like to think that, perhaps, I know a few things about them.

    Look, if I may, one of the reasons why some of us get so hung up on definitions is because of something I spelled out in another Diary-- if a person wants to debate actual law and policy, and try to formulate same, then they need to know what they're talking about:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    --Because nothing undermines a good debate quite like using pseudo-science, fear, and misunderstanding to further one's cause. Do any of us take Todd Akin's word on how women's bodies work? No? Because he's revealed himself to be an ignoramus on the subject; an ignoramus who's views hold no water in the debate over women's reproductive health or rights.

    So-- the take away is supposed to be, folks should get some education, know what they're talking about, so as not to be Todd Akin.

    That is the reason why some of us are sticklers over terms and definitions. Believe it or not, we're actually trying to help you here. Chase away ignorance so we don't end up with another empty feel-good measure that goes nowhere and does nothing to address the problem.

    •  So you agree that haggling over the AWB and that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, high uintas, Smoh

      definition is fruitless AND pointless, which supports my idea of changing the focus to actually help impair and prevent massacres.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:31:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe you are on the right track, certainly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, BlackSheep1, Smoh

        looking outside the traditional box, although I can't say for sure if your proposed alternative is the tree would should be barking up instead.

        I think what we should do is clarify that in order to be an "assault weapon" by name it should fit the military definition, and we should focus on the civilian versions so as not to confuse the issue. I still run across people who think, in all seriousness, that an ordinary schmoe can walk into a gun shop and buy a "machine gun" because of the lack of clarification and definition.

        I'd call the civilian weapons "militia weapons" or "militia rifles", or perhaps "tactical rifles" or whatnot, and re-define and clarify the militia, and formalize it.

        Part of the problem we are all facing in the gun control debates is that everyone bandies words and definitions around, and not everyone is on the same page. We're talking past each other.

    •  Was considering writing a diary on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1

      Just to briefly cover assault weapon as a blanket term for assault rifles, machine pistols and submachine guns.  Also AWB 1989 and 2013, along with differences between the two.

    •  Your user name suggests an analogy (0+ / 0-)

      Calling a Bushmaster an "assault weapon" is like calling a pit bull a "dire wolf". It drops an emotionally loaded word onto a misleading description and derails a legitimate debate about what laws to apply to the dangers caused by pit bulls.

      The diarists proposal is analogous to regulating dog ownership by weight and jaw strength.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site