Thread: Diane Sawyer's Sensationalist Crap

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Just a couple of comments.

1. I think most of us know what is meant by assault weapons. Although in the technical sense they may be classed as rifles amongst all kinds of other rifles, the average person is generally thinking of a single shot or semi-automatic long barrelled weapon, typically designed for hunting, when you say rifle. They are generally not thinking about fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers with in a short space of time - i.e assault weapons. To claim that categorising them seperately is somehow deceptive requires that one deliberately ignores a clear distinction in category based on functionality and capability that separates the common (and hence the audience's actual) understanding of the terms pistol, rifle and assault weapon.

Not to bash, but you don't seem to realize what the term "assault weapons" really refers to. So-called "assault weapons" ARE semiautomatic rifles; they are NOT fully automatic weapons. Whenever gun control advocates talk about assault weapons in the US, this is what they mean. It is this sort of weapon (certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols) that was prohibited under the 1994-2004 "assault weapon ban", and are currently prohibited by the state AWBs of places like California, and would be prohibited again under new versions of the federal AWB that many gun control advocates want to instate. The term "assault weapons" definitely does not refer to "fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers within a short space of time". The gun control advocates wouldn't be making such a big deal about "assault weapons" if that meant "fully automatic weapons", because fully automatic weapons are already extremely difficult to purchase and own in the US (they require a special registration process, notification of local police, etc., and are extremely expensive--the process is so rigorous, and ownership of such weapons so rare, that many people don't even realize it's legal to own one at all and believe they are totally banned).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Originally Posted by MrShrike

2. After the admittedly convincing arguments to the effect that mass killings are really actually blips on the radar when it comes to actual homocides going on, I realise that the fact that the last mass killing I can recall in Australia was twelve (12) years ago is actually irrelevant. What I should remember is that the total murder rate is roughly identical in the U.S. and Australia....for all other kinds of homocides other than firearm homocide. But the firearm homocide rate alone is roughly 8.5 times higher in the U.S than Australia, meaning you're ultimately about 4.3 times more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than you are in Australia.

Maybe those extra murders all take place in the worst part of the cities, but hey, I've lived in the worst parts of cities for a good 15 years when I was younger. To this day I've still never seen any person with a gun anywhere in any of the major cities of Australia who wasn't a police officer. The only times other than that I've ever seen guns in my life is the odd rifle ( the single shot type, not AK47s) on the farm, police officer's sidearms and at army bases.

And maybe that's not very exciting and sure, guns are cool. I'm happy for you guys in the U.S. to feel safer having firearms, and I'd probably even feel safer myself if I were living in the U.S. if I was armed to protect myself under those circumstances, but give me a choice, personally I'll take our restricted access to guns over here and you guys can keep your 4 and a half times the murder rate.

That's fair... I just think it's important to bear in mind that given the particulars of the US situation, restricting access to guns in the same way that Australia has done would probably not reduce the murder rate or the crime rate in general. It would make it much harder for people to defend themselves, though.

For the record, I live in the US (obviously) and have spent time living in several major US cities, and have never seen anyone other than a cop with a gun in those cities either. The availability of guns in the US doesn't mean everyone goes around with a pistol hanging off their hip like it's the Old West. Especially not in cities. You are more likely to see someone with a gun if you are out in a rural area, but even then, 99.9% of the time it's some guy with his deer rifle (not an AK47!) or shotgun in the gun rack on his pickup truck.

Originally Posted by faesce

no

a weapon that's legal to own and operate on a regular basis should be designed to do one of two things

- defend yourself (imo in a humane way, but this is arguable and i'm not going to include it)
- hunt game

weapons that liberals dump in the "assault rifle" category consist of weapons designed for one thing

- military/tactical use

anybody who claims that an "assault rifle" should be used for self defense is kidding themselves. there's no fucking reason, you aren't scarface, you're not going to get run over by a squad of cubans. you don't need a gun capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan. a handgun is more than capable of defending both your house and your person if used properly.

that being said, i think an outright ban on "assault rifles" is the wrong way of approaching the concern that the liberals have. something along the lines of stricter licensing and tighter control on that particular category would be more than ideal.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said in the post you quoted, which was that it's absurd to claim (as simonj did) that an "assault weapon" is a "weapon designed solely to kill"; because there are weapons "designed solely to kill" (various military and self-defense weapons) that couldn't possibly be called "assault weapons, and there are also weapons that get labeled as "assault weapons" but were certainly NOT designed solely to kill (various sporting rifles that happen to have pistol grips rather than old-style rifle grips, for instance). Your definition of "assault weapon" (weapons designed for "military/tactical use") doesn't make any sense either. Are you saying that an "assault weapon" is any weapon whose design is of military origin? Is that the only criteria? I assume not, since that would mean that any military rifle, including old WW2 bolt-action surplus rifles and even older stuff (single-shot Trapdoor Springfield military rifles from the 1870s?) would be "assault weapons". So other than being of military origin, what criteria can be used to describe an "assault weapon"? Also it's worth noting that a lot of the weapons that are included under "assault weapon bans" were NOT designed for military/tactical usage.

For the record, "assault weapons" (typically semiautomatic rifles) are definitely not "capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan"; you are probably thinking of machine guns or something like that. An "assauan alt weapon" fires one shot per pull of the trigger and is capable of hitting targets only as fast as you cim and fire accurately, just like any other semiautomatic rifle. And in fact, many so-called "assault weapons" make perfectly good home defense weapons. You say handguns are okay for home defense but "assault weapons" would only be useful if you're getting attacked by a mob of Cubans or whatever; why is a semiautomatic handgun with a 16-round magazine just fine for home defense, but a semiautomatic carbine with a 20-round magazine is total overkill that no one really needs? Does that extra four rounds in the magazine push it over the limit between "perfectly okay home defense weapon" and "killing machine that only Scarface needs"? Also, many "assault weapons" are pistol-caliber carbines that fire the same rounds as normal semiautomatic pistols; the only difference is that they sometimes have a somewhat larger magazine, and, more importantly, are easier to fire accurately and controllably while under stress (definitely a useful trait for a home defense weapon, I think we can agree). Why is this sort of weapon so wildly inappropriate for home defense? Why is it okay to have a 9mm pistol but not a 9mm carbine?

Also for the record, the 5.56mm round (which is used by many semiautomatic rifles/carbines that fall into the "assault weapon" category) is pretty close to ideal for home defense usage. With the right ammunition, it's terminal effects (i.e. wounding ability, ability to stop an intruder) are better than any handgun round, yet because of it's ballistic behavior, it's actually LESS likely to penetrate interior walls (thus endangering other people in the house, etc.) than most handgun rounds. While a 9mm hollowpoint will punch through several thicknesses of drywall before stopping, many 5.56mm rounds will break up and basically disintegrate as they passes through the first thickness, and then not penetrate a second thickness.

And the term "assault rifle" is totally inappropriate here. "Assault rifle" is a military term with a specific meaning and definition. An assault rifle is a military rifle with the following traits: It is chambered in an intermediate-powered cartridge, and it is selective-fire (i.e. capable of fully automatic fire in addition to single shots). The weapons we are talking about here are not "assault rifles". "Assault weapon" is the phrase you are looking for. The "assault weapon" is stupid and made-up and basically meaningless, but at least it's not a total misuse of a real term that has a real meaning.