Since “Assault Weapon(s)” is not a military term, how and why did it become so widely used and accepted?
It appears that legislators made up the term and that they can or have tried to lump nearly any weapon they want into their fictional category.
Yes, it is.
I believe the term originated out of California in 1989 after the Cleveland elementary school shooting in Stockton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton)
Like all things in politics, the left is able to slowly shift the “Overton window” with its use of language.
Any reference?
Any reference?
The STG44 was a military name, but if you’re speaking of the modern use of the term in the media, no it’s not. The left has perpetuated it enough that all know what they mean when they use the term, even f they don’t know what it really is.
the third post gives you a reference, how about Marylands
[i]Maryland Assault Weapons Ban
What Weapons are Prohibited in the State of Maryland
The Firearms Safety Act of 2013 is highly controversial legislation that bans certain rifles, pistols and shotguns, deeming them assault weapons. Restrictions are also placed on detachable magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds. Filtering through the legal jargon and various features can make it difficult to determine what exactly the law prohibits. That’s why we’ve assembled a guide to help understand what weapons are banned in the state of Maryland.[/i]
If it comes up in a conversation by an anti, simply pull the plug by saying,
“By your definition, any gun capable of being used in an assault, is capable of being defined as an assault weapon.”
Refuse to play that game and it pulls the memorized narrative out from under their argument.
Sugarmann may be the first(looking at ads, I don’t think it was the firearms industry), at least a year before Stockton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
"In 2013, The Washington Post wrote of the term: “Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to the Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, in January 1989.”[5] Sugarmann had written:
Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.[23]"
I don’t like using the word ‘weapon’ at all when describing guns. I don’t even like ‘guns’ I prefer ‘firearms’. A bit more specific. A firearm is only a weapon when used against another person. That is conditional. I hope that none of my firearms ever have to be used as a weapon.
This is my understanding of how the term came to be commonly used by the gun control lobby (and thus also by the media, and as a result by everyone else). There was a deliberate attempt to conflate semi-auto rifles with machine guns , in an attempt to deceive and persuade the public. And for the most part is seems to be working.
The thinking was that these types of guns were low hanging fruit and would be easier to ban than the handguns and “sniper rifles” that they’d gone after in the 70’s and early 80’s, and such a ban could be used to make the public comfortable with the idea of more extensive bans.
Looks like they made the term up.
I like this. Logical, ethical and rational.
I don’t know if the gun industry were the first to use the label, but back in the 80s they weren’t shy about applying it to semi-auto rifles.
Only after the Antis glommed on to the term and began using it for their own propaganda purposes did the gun industry and gun owners
reverse themselves and get all anal about terminology and semantics regarding what an “assault” rifle truly is…you know, harping on the fact that “Technically an assault rifle has to be selective fire!”, “ASSAULT is an action, not a rifle!” and the rise of the term “modern sporting rifle”.
I snapped a few pics of some old gun mags I had laying around and if I can get the stupid new Imgur app to work I’ll post them
Semantics are the tools of those with nothing meanigful to say.
Its a damn gun. Any gun should be capable of firing bullets. Get hit by a bullet in the right place you will cease to be.
Doesn’t matter what kind. It’s like differentiating getting your head beaten in with a tire iron or a baseball bat.
Because if life has taught me anything, it is not the young guy with the latest greatest high cap .40 you have to worry about.
Its the kindly, old Gandalf looking dude with either the model 10 .38 or the worn but oiled 1911. Not because of calibrr but because he has likely put more rounds through that one gun than you’ve had warm meals and bowel movements.
I too prefer to use the term “firearm” when discussing…well…firearms.
But, it does have “arm” right there in the name. I still avoid the blatant “weapon” term, but when in a battle of semantics, anything that helps convey accuracy of terms is better.
I’m proud of us. 17 posts and not yet a meme about the Gunny with his rifle and gun.
Right on the cover
Here’s a reference to widespread use of “hip fire” by “assault rifle” enthusiasts.:rolleyes:
So as you can see, the gun community was for the terminology, before they were against it. The practical differences between an ahem “modern sporting rifle” (many of which are based on 1940s and 50s designs and aren’t really all that “modern”) and a true assault rifle are virtually nil, just some fire control parts. I mean, lets be real here, my Colt 6520 or my SLR-104, and all the other ones I have are basically assault rifles. The differences (lack of full auto capability) are vastly outweighed by the similarities (every other aspect of the gun’s design and function) .
Personally, I say it’s OUR word and we should take it back. I’m just so tired of the word games. If someone flips out and calls your AR an assault rifle don’t get all huffy and rattle off Jane’s Defense definition of what an assault rifle is, or berate them with a history lesson beginning with the development of the StG-44, just shrug and say “Yeah? What about it?”. Because the Antis want to take your AR regardless of what PC label you use to describe it.
It’s an assault rifle, it’s primary purpose is killing other people, and that’s OK. Killing other people, even large numbers of them, quickly, is a perfectly legitimate purpose. it’s who you kill and why that determines legitimacy.
Shooting twelve armed gangbangers laying siege to your home in the aftermath of a hurricane = Legitimate.
Shooting twelve third-graders on the playground = Illegitimate.
You may win a battle of semantics in a courtroom, but not in the field of public opinion.
And, ya know, the Second Amendment is supposed to protect your right to keep and bear assault weapons. Or assault rifles. Assault firearms. Whatever you want to call them.
As stated before the StG 44 is the original Assault Rifle, by name. But the name really took off in this country when the retarded mouth breathers think that the AR15 is actually Assault Rifle 15… and the press ran with it and it stuck.
One of the worst parts of this country is that ignorance often leads to what people call the norm. As an example, the term third world country. The current meaning is the sh!t holes around the world that suck, underdevelopment nations. When in reality it is any country that was not alligned with the US or the USSR during the Cold War. So Switzerland is a third world country… but if you say that the retards look at you like you are stupid…