The Term "Assault Weapons"

[jack crab]

The National Coalition to Ban Handguns started in the mid-1970's. Josh Sugarmann was the communications director. He left to form the Violence Policy Center in 1988. The NCBH went through several name changes to become Brady today.

Sugarmann has opposed the widespread availability of semi-automatic rifles. In 1988 he published a study, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America. It examined the growing popularity of semiautomatic firearms, referring to them as "assault weapons". Together with the response to a mass shooting in Stockton, California, the following year, his study has been credited for popularizing the use of the term "assault weapons."The Violence Policy Center 1988 study documents advertising by the gun industry that specifically refers to these weapons as assault rifles.

In my opinion, after 10 years of Ted Kennedy trying to ban handguns that went nowhere, the anti's decided to attack at the fringes. In their view, these new fangled assault weapons were low hanging fruit that no one would oppose the way people opposed handgun regulation.

Along with Stockton, there was Lubys and the 101 California street shooting. By May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns".

Clinton signed the 1994 AWB in September.

So, in less than 10 years, actually closer to 6, we went from "never heard of them" to "you can't buy them".

[SteyrAUG]

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.

Assault rifle is a firearm term (select fire, mid range cartridge, etc.) but assault weapon is a political boogeyman word. It's not a firearm classification.

[ramairthree]

I recall being used in the media from the late 80s or early 90s.

Usually paired with a clip of someone firing on full auto.

My impression was it had a goal to confuse the public and associate fully automatic military assault rifles and sub machine guns with semiautomatics and drum up more interest and fear for gun control.

[Kevslatvin]

Right on the cover






Here's a reference to widespread use of "hip fire" by "assault rifle" enthusiasts.








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.

I still have that "Assault Firearms" mag stored away somewhere. Got it in the 5th or 6th grade. As a kid I was all into guns and Vietnam and that magazine was just the bees knees so to speak.

You know you raise a good point as I was talking to someone explaining assault weapon being made up and what an assault rifle was and it occurred to me the only real difference between and AR15 and an M4 per say is some fire control parts.

[Circle_10]

I still have that "Assault Firearms" mag stored away somewhere. Got it in the 5th or 6th grade. As a kid I was all into guns and Vietnam and that magazine was just the bees knees so to speak.

You know you raise a good point as I was talking to someone explaining assault weapon being made up and what an assault rifle was and it occurred to me the only real difference between and AR15 and an M4 per say is some fire control parts.

And when you figure how often full auto is actually used in a military or LE context, we are essentially talking about two weapons that differ only due to one hypothetical mechanical capability that one of them has, that is almost never used in practical situations. 99% of the time a select-fire M4 is being used the exact same way as a semi auto Colt 6920.

I dare say that to the average normie, being informed that the lack of one additional selector position is the salient trait that separates a "modern sporting rifle" from an "assault rifle" potentially hurts our case more than it hurts that of the Antis. To us, the lack of a full auto FCG is a big deal, because we are gun nerds. But Joe or Jane Normie is basically going to go "That's the only difference?? Well shit, they really are basically the same thing..."

Maybe the argument should shift from defensive hand-wringing over nomenclature to purely focusing on the merits an assault rifle has for the average civilian vs more traditional weapons like shotguns.
Another alternative when responding to criticism or hyperbole from Fudds or Antis however is also a good old fashioned "go f*** yourself" which is kind of where I am at this point. Although that's unlikely to win a lot of hearts and minds.

[T2C]

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.

I only use the term "weapon" when discussing something being used to attack and inflict harm on a person, i.e. knife, sharp stick, claw hammer, broken bottle, etc. When teaching a NRA firearm course, we avoid using the term weapon in the building where the class is being held.

I think the term "assault weapon" is a matter of perspective. I own a couple of old 8mm Mausers, which could have been used to "assault" one of my relatives during WWII. If the media could come up with what they think is a more inflammatory term, you can bet a shiny new dime they will use it.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The whole “battlefield” seems to be the new preference modifier..

[1168]

On the subject of assault rifle or assault weapon being a military term, it is. An example is the name of the program that led to the FN rifles of the same name. Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR.

Obviously the term’s use by the public and media is meaningless.

[lowprone]

It matters not what they call them they hate them, and they hate us, better get your head wrapped around that.
Things are going to continue to go south a little at a time, the media glorifying it all step by step.
Sooner or later it all goes off the rails, and deep down you know this.

[Renegade]

Since "Assault Weapon(s)" is not a military term, how and why did it become so widely used and accepted?

The gun industry coined the term and used it extensively in magazines and such...

Attachment 59099

Attachment 59100