Talk:Assault rifle/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've modified the article to work around some ambigious wording. The first paragraph read "Examples of assault rifles incorrectly include the AR-15", and then continued on after that point to list actual assault rifles. I've instead broken off the paragraph to give a short list of assault rifles (using the list and wording already provided), and added an addendum pointing out that semi-automatic rifles are not correctly called "assault rifles". Rosensteel 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Assault rifles cause injuries more often than death. Doctrines vary concerning this effect. The U.S. military states that this is an intentional goal. "
Can anyone provide any citations for these facts? I have heard it thrown around frequently by gun shop commandos but never seen any actual documentation. It seems to me that purposely wounding without an attempt to kill would be contrary to the rules of war established by the Geneva and Hague conventions. If no one can do this I would suggest the passages about wounding be removed.
Not trying to get a full thread going, but: The idea of wounding, not killing to put more stress on the other sides resources is an "urban myth". My father was an old military man, fought New Guinea and later an instructor at the "Command College". He pointed out that the idea is just a sound bite and, (as with many things) the devil is in the details. 1) If you wound the guy and he keeps fighting he may kill you. 2) If you wound the guy and then capture him, you can either violate the Geneva convention or caring for him is now YOUR problem. 3) If you wound him and the enemy ends up with him, depending on their culture (Americans have a terrible time understanding this) they can shoot/allow to die or treat him. If he is considered more valuable treated and returned to combat, this is what they do. In either case, they DON'T violate the Geneva convention since he is their own soldier.67.174.53.196 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a basically very good article, but I see two problems. I'd be bold in updating and correct it myself, but I'm afraid that I haven't really got the time this evening. (And I accidentally created a firestorm with my Gun safety page, so I'd like to let others handle this article. :-) )
1. The article should make the point more clear about the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The article does make the distinction, but it describes 'assault rifles' as having a 'selective rate of fire', which is true only of true assault rifles, i.e. true military fully automatic rifles. The civilian versions are semi-automatic.
2. As much as I agree with the argument that the only significant difference between "assault rifles" and low powered hunting rifles is the selective rate of fire, I think this needs to be better supported.
Those who are in support of "assault weapons bans" often use dishonest arguments about "high rate of fire" and so forth. but there are honest defenders of these laws who point to such features as pistol grips as making these guns particularly suitable for "spray and pray" criminals. I don't agree with these poeple, but the argument needs to be noted as an honest point.
Is that political point even appropriate for this page? Perhaps it is. But we need to be careful to present the debate, rather than take a side in the debate. We can best present the debate by giving the strongest arguments from each side.
The main part of the article is very informative, I like it! The bit about the ban in California seemed out of place, though ... I've moved it to a subpage for now.
I see that the politics tie somewhat into the definition that various groups tag to the "Assault rifle" term. Maybe just mention that on the page itself? Other than that, I think the gun politics should be confined to their own page ... --Robbe
I certainly agree with Robbe: All aspects realting to gun regulation politics should be located on a separate page (with a pointer from here perhaps) and this page dedicated to hard facts about assault rifles. I think it's a good article, informative and fairly exhaustive, some politics pruning and we should be home free :-) By the way, isn't an assauylt rifle a military weapon by definition? Is there such a thing as a civilian assault rifle? Ah, better put that on US gun politics, hehe. --Anders Törlind
- As a temporary measure, would be alright to shift the stuff on resisting tyranny to a /politics subpage? --Robert Merkel
I've bitten the bullet and moved it here for the moment. It needs to be made NPOV and shifted to a seperate politics page. --Robert Merkel
Effects on governance
Bayonet lugs, flash-suppression, large magazines and selective-fire are the significant functional differences between an assault rifle and a low-powered, lightweight hunting rifle. These are not large differences. Large capacity magazines and flash suppressors are easy to install. Lightly trained persons can simulate selective fire with any type of repeating rifle, including old-west lever-actions. Bayonet lugs serve only dire military situations.
Thus, as one would expect, forces armed primarily with true assault rifles are relatively ineffective except against unarmed persons. Non-governmental organizations with expedient arms have successfully resisted them.
In the U.S., most civilian weapons labelled "assault rifles" lack selective fire. Their magazines contain ten rounds or less. They fire once for each pull of the trigger, and have no way to act as "machine guns." This allows owners to avoid paying the $200 treasury fee and licensing required to own a small automatic weapon in the U.S. The weapons threaten members of civil government simply because they are effective small arms. Many owners see this as a check on tyranny, and training for civil defense.
How about a section clearly stating the definition of the assault rifle as historically originated by the Stg44:
- select fire, with both semi-automatic and fully-automatic modes;
- an intermediate cartridge, between a pistol and rifle round in power;
- a large-capacity detachable box magazine, usually 20 rounds or higher.
And the current usage, with a note on its controversy, of "assault weapon", which is quite different. I believe the most relevant codified definition of "assault weapon" is in the USA AWB of 1994.
--Blikbok 17:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)