Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not the way it is used in the article.

No, it isn't. I'm not sure what your point is. After all, I can point to no less than twenty articles right now describing this Lanza donkey-cave's AR-15 as an assault rifle, despite the fact that it does not meet the requirements to fall under that definition.

The media doesn't know drek about firearms. Nor do politicians.

Fun fact: if I add a telescoping stock to my AR-15, it's an "assault weapon" under the criteria used by the original law. If I put a standard stock back on it, it's not.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that if mass killings are done preferentially with certain types of weapons -- for example, semi-automatic pistols rather than shotguns -- then we might be able to use such information to help understand how such attacks happen, and how to reduce them.

 d-usa wrote:
Read an article today that basically said "he shot his way through the door, that's what assault weapons will do for you"...

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
The fact you get that worked up over someone mislabeling your precious guns and think its comparable to rape is extremely telling.

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
The fact you get that worked up over someone mislabeling your precious guns and think its comparable to rape is extremely telling.

I get worked up over people treating an extremely serious issue, in the wake of a horrible tragedy, with such cavalier disregard as to not even bother to verify what it is they're talking about. I get worked up over people who eagerly support legislation despite not being able to tell you what the legislation actually does. I certainly get worked up over people deciding that they know best while actively proving the opposite.

Gun safety is an extremely serious issue in this country. If we want to take positive steps to do what we can to ensure another atrocity like this never occurs, it might help to know what the feth we're actually talking about before we just open our mouths and spout platitudes.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So not accurately labeling a gun is "extremely serious"? The pain you feel about someone not using the correct term for a gun is the same pain a rape survivor feels when the GOP opens up its mouth on the subject? Get over yourself.

Assault Weapon. A weapon used in an assault. There you go.

 d-usa wrote:
So a baseball bat is an assault weapon? A car is an assault weapon? A knife is an assault weapon? My fists? All are weapons used in an assault.

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So not accurately labeling a gun is "extremely serious"? The pain you feel about someone not using the correct term for a gun is the same pain a rape survivor feels when the GOP opens up its mouth on the subject? Get over yourself.

Assault Weapon. A weapon used in an assault. There you go.

Let's talk about car safety, because automotive accidents kill far more people per day in this country than firearms. First, most driving instructors will tell you to keep both hands on the gas pedal. That's this round thing that you use to steer the car. Because accurate terminology doesn't matter, it's all the same. Especially when we're proposing legislation that affects gas pedals and steering wheels.

 d-usa wrote:
So a baseball bat is an assault weapon? A car is an assault weapon? A knife is an assault weapon? My fists? All are weapons used in an assault.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Look I own guns. I like guns. I was merely commenting on the idiocy of your post that the term "assault weapon" is comparable to rape comments. Hearing the term "assault weapon" should not cause you any physical discomfort, much less what a rape survivor would feel. If it does, then I feel sorry for you. Its a gun.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Yes. I'm no lawyer but isn't the charge for all those crimes "Assault with a Deadly Weapon?"

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Look I own guns. I like guns. I was merely commenting on the idiocy of your post that the term "assault weapon" is comparable to rape comments. Hearing the term "assault weapon" should not cause you any physical discomfort, much less what a rape survivor would feel. If it does, then I feel sorry for you. Its a gun.

Then you missed the point entirely. I'm not sure how, but whatever. "Assault weapon" is comparable to "legitimate rape" in that both are nonsense terms made up by politicians, not in that they cause physical discomfort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Yes. I'm no lawyer but isn't the charge for all those crimes "Assault with a Deadly Weapon?"

So you believe they should fall under the umbrella of assault weapons bans, too?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Then you don't understand why the legitimate rape comments were so awful. They're not comparable.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Read an article today that basically said "he shot his way through the door, that's what assault weapons will do for you"...

I've spent far too much of my morning on HuffPo growing increasingly closer to dying of stroke at the tender age of 30 due to the omnipresent conflation of "automatic" "semiautomatic" "assault rifle" and "assault weapon." I think my favorite was a comment that stated no one needs semiautomatic weapons - a rifle for hunting, sure, and a pistol for home defense, but there's just no need for a semiautomatic!

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
This post here. Your talking about the physical discomfort of trying to show people what an assault weapon really means. Ergo your lying when you just said that you weren't trying to equivocate the pain of assault weapon with the pain of legitimate rape.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Then you don't understand why the legitimate rape comments were so awful. They're not comparable. And I don't remember saying I was for any ban.

 Ratbarf wrote:

An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.

Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from?

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Still, he understands the public perception – and extensive media coverage – when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”

 whembly wrote:
Interesting info...
http://www.waff.com/story/20353221/no-rise-in-mass-killings-but-their-impact-is-huge

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Still, he understands the public perception – and extensive media coverage – when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’ mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys — and their mothers — need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

 Seaward wrote:
This unsettling look at mental illness in youth is worth a read.

 AustonT wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.

Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from?

In true Godwinian fashion: Hitler.

Chief Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver has released the names of those killed by 20-year-old Adam Lanza on December 14. Besides proving anew that the lives of far too many innocent people were taken by a cold blooded criminal, the report suggests that the killings were carried out in an act of revenge.
According to the report, Lanza shot the 20 child victims -- eight boys and 12 girls -- at close range and shot each victim between three and eleven times.
Other reports indicate that Lanza "visited Sandy Hook Elementary the day before [the shooting] and was involved in an altercation with four members of the staff of the school." Three of those four are now dead.
People who knew Lanza have said his mother expected a lot from him, "that she pushed him really hard to be smarter and work harder in school." He killed his mother before killing the school staff members he allegedly fought with; he then ultimately took his rage out on the children.

Reports indicate the Connecticut shooter had three firearms in his possession when he drove to the school on Friday -- a Glock 9mm, a Sig Sauer 9mm, and an AR-15 (reportedly a Bushmaster).
That's two handguns (Glock and Sig Sauer) and one rifle (AR-15).
These are semi-automatic weapons only, which is a fancy way of saying they fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. NONE OF THEM ARE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.
This begs the question, why in the world did Rupert Murdoch send out a text hours after the shooting that read: "Terrible news today. When will politicians find the courage to ban automatic weapons?"
Although only semi-automatic, it is important to note that Lanza broke Connecticut laws by possessing the handguns, because you have to have a permit to own and carry a handgun in Connecticut. The paperwork on both handguns was in his mother's name, which means the guns weren't even his to possess and he had no permit carry (he was not legally eligible for a permit to carry because he was only 20 -- you have to be 21 to get that permit).
Regarding the AR-15 it is what politicians commonly call an "assault rifle" (although the "AR" does not stand for that). It has a completely different set of Connecticut laws by which its owner must abide, many of which Lanza broke just by taking the gun into his possession, transporting it to a school, and transporting it in a way other than is legally stipulated for the transport of an assault rifle in Connecticut.
Glock, Sig Sauer, and Bushmaster make some of the most popular guns in the U.S. and the world. And these semi-automatic weapons didn't cause the crime that happened Friday. Far from it, they were illegally used in a crime by a mad man named Adam Lanza.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.

Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from?

In true Godwinian fashion: Hitler.

Sturmgewehr doesn't translate as Assault Rifle. It means Storm Rifle. In the same way that Sturmtruppen means Storm Troopers and not Assault Troopers.

And technically a B.A.R. should be classified as an Assault Rifle, and it dates back to 1918.