Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Home
 
  • Locked thread
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009

VagueRant posted:

Serious question: given how hard it is to categorise firearms (re: "assault weapons") - would it actually be feasible to do it on a gun-by-gun basis? Have some group vote on what is acceptable and what is not?

Alternatively: how about anything with a capacity of more than eight bullets/shells should be illegal?


Guns can be easily classified by rate of fire, capacity and size. Higher rate of fire means more bodies quicker, higher capacity means longer between reloads and a small gun is easier to conceal. Rate of fire is simple because all that matters is auto or semi-auto, size would probably be some overall length and capacity would be whatever number decided by legislature.

* # ¿ Aug 27, 2015 13:54
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 13:43
  • Quote
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009

LeJackal posted:

Well, in a sense it can be relatively easy; firearms can be categorized by their action- how they chamber and fire bullets by cartridge-the kind of bullets that they fire and then after those two primary means into minutiae of barrel length and rifling and other less essential features.
Under this technical set of definitions, for example, the US military defines an assault rifle as being a select-fire (it can fire single shots, and bursts or full-auto) rifle chambered in an intermediate (medium-sized) cartridge.

In the sense of defining an "Assault weapon" things become murky because here you have a tautology- any weapon used to assault someone is an 'assault weapon' and multiple politicians have conjured up multiple definitions of varying technical and aesthetic features that often have no relation to how the firearm operates or its use in crime. For example, the well-known Desert Eagle is often defined as an 'assault weapon' by name (or due to its weight) and banned. The common 1911 design is not generally considered an assault weapon under most legislation. This is despite the fact that the Desert Eagle is about a foot long (there is a reason they always gave one to Arnie) weighs 4 pounds unloaded, costs about 2 grand, and was made for hunting big game. The 1911 on the other hand, was literally designed for the US army to go fight wars with.

You can also turn a not-assault-weapon into an assault weapon by changing accessories, and not altering the fundamental features of the firearm.

In many states the synthetic stock (the part you hold and put up against your shoulder) and a larger magazine would classify the lower rifle as an 'assault weapon' even though they are functionally the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

There is no combination of action and cartridge capable of taking North American game (deer, elk, boar, rabbit, squirrel) that is not also able to be used in taking a human's life.

These are all horrible ways to classify guns when you're worried about murders and spree killings.

* # ¿ Aug 27, 2015 14:12
  • Quote
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009

LeJackal posted:

Maybe you should be thinking about how to classify murderers and spree killers and work from that angle, as no murder or spree killing happens without a person involved.

Maybe you should go make a thread about it if you want to, as I don't care about that?

* # ¿ Aug 27, 2015 14:33
  • Quote
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009

LeJackal posted:

Well how do you propose classifying firearms if not by their inherent features?


I already addressed that.

katlington posted:

Guns can be easily classified by rate of fire, capacity and size. Higher rate of fire means more bodies quicker, higher capacity means longer between reloads and a small gun is easier to conceal. Rate of fire is simple because all that matters is auto or semi-auto, size would probably be some overall length and capacity would be whatever number decided by legislature.
* # ¿ Aug 27, 2015 16:20
  • Quote
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009

Volcott posted:

Your proposals are dumb and you are a butt.

It's not my idea, that's how it's done already.

e: just to be clear, I did not invent the concepts of semi-automatic and automatic firearms, ammo capacity or length.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Aug 27, 2015

* # ¿ Aug 27, 2015 16:27
  • Quote
  • Locked thread
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Home