Hacker News Reader

Comment by hprotagonist | Hacker News Reader

Doing my best to walk on eggshells here.

>I think that's part of the reason for all the gear and "tactical" stuff and expensive assault rifles... they tend to keep the revenue flowing.

Fear sells. In the case of ARs and the vast accessory market, it's been quite lucrative since 2008 or so.

>And I also think that's why people who are against guns in general want assault rifles banned

As people on both sides of this debate are bound to point out, "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics. It means a lot in terms of marketability, though!

View on HN

> As people on both sides of this debate are bound to point out, "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics. It means a lot in terms of marketability, though!

I honestly don't recall the last time I saw a gun company market something as an "assault _____".

Many pro-gun folks have been trying to get the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" to stick. I find it kind of silly, myself. They're just "ARs" (for AR-15-pattern rifles) or "AKs" (for AKM-pattern rifles).

What are semi-automatic Mini-14s, M1As, Sig 556s, Steyr AUG, Bushmaster ACR, etc. (the list is endless), then?

They're not "assault rifles" because that definition requires select-fire capability.

It would be nice to have a catchall term that means "semi-automatic detachable-magazine-fed rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge" but is a bit less of a mouthful, and doesn't have an inaccurate, negative, politically charged connotation like "assault weapon" does.

Perhaps "modern sporting rifle"? That seems to be the term the gun industry has settled on.

"AR" comes from their original manufacturer, Armalite. The "Armalite Rifle 15" was a downsized version of the AR-10, chambered in 7.62.

> "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics.

I think you're both mixing up assault rifles and assault weapons. Assault rifles are full-auto or burst fire, medium length rifles. Assault weapons are guns that happen to fall under very specific and changing laws.

> "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics

In my experience, what reasonable gun control advocates mean when they talk about ARs are rifles equipped with gas powered repeating actions.

There is a fundamental difference between a bolt-action rifle, which has no practical way to be converted to an automatic weapon, and gas powered semi automatic that anyone who knows how to type "youtube" into the browser bar can turn into a bullet hose.

There was a good writeup on this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stoc...

Use of fully-automatic firearms and rapid-fire devices like bump stocks for crime, including mass shootings has been exceedingly rare. I haven't seen gun control advocates talk about this much until the Las Vegas mass shooting.

Instead, they typically argue that semi-automatic rifles are too deadly in their original configuration. While I can understand the argument, it doesn't seem to be very rooted in reality given that their use in crime is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of crimes committed using firearms involve handguns.

I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions, as the data available suggests it would not have a significant impact on crime even if a ban greatly reduced the availability of such rifles. They're being targeted for bans because they're an easy target; it's easy to argue to the average person that there's no legitimate reason for civilians to have them.

"I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions"

I think it's more like a culture war -- go after the enthusiasts and influencers first. Take away someone's rifle when they got it from their grandfather, and you take away one rifle. Take away all of the young enthusiasts' rifles, and you also take their friends and family out of the picture for generations hence; and take away a lot of revenue from the industry as well.

It is difficult to legally define an assault weapon when you still want to allow hunting rifles, and manufacturers are looking for any loophole. Congress did a fairly reasonable job in 1994 under the circumstances. There is a reason armies go to war with assault rifles and not hunting rifles. Intermediate cartridge, pistol grip, large box magazine, and in some cases collapsable stock make a weapon adequately accurate at medium range, handy enough in close quarters, and able to deliver a large volume of fire. These weapons are useful for two things: looking cool and killing people.

"Doing my best to walk on eggshells here."

Why? Sincere question. I think it would shed some light on why our political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.

Just say what you want to say. Others should give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't evil, and ask for clarification as required.

(Note: by "clarification" I don't mean "clarify which side you are on so I know whether to be outraged or not", I mean to clarify whatever unique perspectives you have to offer.)

"[Assault rifle] means a lot in terms of marketability, though!"

Money, more importantly. That's why people who want to starve the gun industry make them illegal; not because they are dangerous, but because they are a good revenue source for the industry.

Also, assault rifles are favored by younger enthusiasts, so banning them is a way to nip the market in the bud.

I don't think that's the reasoning behind it. I think it's more that they've been made the scariest form of gun by the media (disregarding the fact that pistols kill an order of magnitude more people). Any time a semi-automatic centerfire magazine fed rifle is used in a mass shooting, media outlets want to focus on the weapon the shooter used. Then people who know nothing about guns except that they hate them rally to ban the ones with the aesthetic features they've seen on TV, and that's how you get idiotic legislation like California's assault weapon laws (ex: a rifle with a pistol grip is illegal while the exact same gun with a rifle stock is legal).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com