I'm doing research on the politics of assault weapons laws

>>33192573
That's like doing a paper on unicorns or black inventors. It's purely academic and not grounded in reality.

>>33192580
What do you mean?

Define assault weapon

>>33192573

Back in 1776 there was this group of guys who made their own government. These guys wrote this neat paper called "The Constitution". In it is says that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".

That's about it. Anything else is faggots who want to be cucked like good little bootlickers saying "but may feelings and children!!".

>>33192581
It's a made up legal term that doesn't even have a common law definition. It's literally just describing what some parties deem as "non-sporting" features whenever they draft up legislation. Anything from muzzle brakes and folding stocks to detachable box magazines and bayonet lugs. It's just a way of taking semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns and finding ways of restricting their import, sale, transfer, and manufacture.

>>33192583
They're weapons that some people think should be illegal in order to stop school shootings and other crimes. That's all I really know.

>>33192573
Being a uni student means you have to build your information seeking skill, learn to evaluate sources of info and above all, being objective. All of these skills you will not find on 4chan. Come here to shitpost and occasionally learn some obscure fact but here is not for you to do your homework. Start with review articles from reputable scientific journals. Follow the citations in them. Read read read. Then read some more. Good luck anon.

>>33192590
b8

>>33192588
*common legal definition
lol I'm retarded

>>33192573
Here's a bit of a primer. It's not academic but it'll get you familiar with the names of the laws, executive orders, and other acts of government concerning firearms (the assault weapon thing just being a drop in the bucket)
https://youtu.be/kvR5-f3FNWc

File: Deutscher_Wehrmachtsoldat_mit_StG_44.jpg (88KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x768px

>>33192583
>Assault weapon
from the German word "Sturmgewehr(storm rifle)" is a scary looking weapon, traditionally with wood furniture in modern times also polycarbonate, which is capable of firing storms at a high rate from their shoulder thingies that go up. They have numerous dangerous attachments like evil 30 rnd clippazines that increase the rate of fire, childmurdering laser scopes and and sometimes bipods that allow the user do kill up to 50 kids in 3 seconds at a distance of at least 3000m.

>>33192605
Forgot this one too
https://youtu.be/pc0mxOXbWIU

>>33192583
This.

>>33192592
But this is a source, or at least a trail to sources. Besides, most sources on this issue are very biased. It's hard to separate fact from opinion.
>>33192596
But that's true, isn't it? The people who are against assault weapons always talk about school shootings in a sanctimonious tone. Then the people who are for them start screaming about how anyone who wants to ban guns is Hitler and blah blah blah. Most people-of both sides-seem uninterested in constructive debate on this issue. They'd rather show off statistics that could very well be made up for all I know and call each other names.

>>33192615
The key term in all of this is "sporting purpose". Also
>Most people-of both sides-seem uninterested in constructive debate on this issue. They'd rather show off statistics that could very well be made up for all I know and call each other names.
There's nothing to debate, you have a legislative construction that one side uses emotionally against the other and then you have the others that see themselves, rightfully so, as just trying to defend their own rights.

>>33192573
what is an assault weapon? Where do you draw the line between the rifle your grandpa took out hunting and a big scary black rifle?
You might also want to learn about firearms law in other countries. I'm a Brit, where firearms are heavily regulated owing to past mass shootings - and yet mass shootings have occurred since the bans came in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt
Furthermore, the kind of people who are generally likely to commit crimes are going to find a way to do it anyway - in the case of the UK, thugs and gangsters just have to pay more for the privelege of getting hold of guns smuggled into the country from Eastern Europe. No country can be a fortress, especially when a borderless continent is a couple of hours' boat-ride away - so in quiet little seaside towns and villages, pleasure craft come in from a weekend in France or the Netherlands with a hold full of Skorpions, Zastava M70s, Vz58s, Beretta M12s, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38885581
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36102100
In countries with even tighter controls than the UK, mass killings still occur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yema_stabbings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings
If you ban certain types of firearm, you can reduce the number of legally held weapons, but you can't stop bad people from trying to hurt the innocent. Tighter controls will never stop all crime, and using buzzwords like "assault weapons" doesn't help in finding a way to make laws which work both for public protection and the shooting community. This is particularly difficult in the US, where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.

File: 1488608088075~2.jpg (71KB, 756x496px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 756x496px

>>33192606
This tbhq OP

>>33192590
>That's all I really know
That's because that's all there is to know. The definition of "assault weapon" varies from person to person and is dependant on how much that particular person wants to ban.

Here are the real facts:
• Assault Rifles are fully automatic rifles chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Examples would include the M16 and actual AK-47s. These weapons are banned at the federal level, except for any firearm that was owned by a civilian before 1986. Ownership of a "pre-86" exception requires several hoops, including a licence and a $200 tax on top of the already incredibly high price of such a weapon. Some states ban all fully-automatic firearms, exceptions included.
• "Assault Weapon" sounds like "Assault Rife" enough for people to misuse the term and take advantage of the confusion.
• Many fully-automatic weapons have civilian versions that are permanantly locked in semi-automatic. The AR-15 and AKM are such examples. By law, civilian firearms classified as semi-auto must not be easily adaptable to full auto, and the act of modifying a weapon to be full auto is a felony.

File: bosnian ss.jpg (25KB, 420x257px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 420x257px

>>33192631
>Where do you draw the line between the rifle your grandpa took out hunting and a big scary black rifle?
Well, my grandfather bought my a bolt action rifle because he said it reminded him of the rifle he had when he was in the Bosnian SS. Like I said, I don't know much about guns, so what's the difference between that and an assault weapon?
>>33192640
My grandfather was a devout Muslim, and he never killed Mickey Mouse (just lots of Serbs and Jews in the war).

>>33192642
I read on some political website that these "assault weapons" are used in a disproportionate number of school shootings. Is that true or just fake statistics.

>>33192654
Fake stat. The definition of a school shooting varies along with the lack of a constant definition of assault weapon

>>33192654
nice bait. If a weapon gets used in a crime, it gets labelled as an assault weapon. "Assault weapon" is a catch-all label applied to anything that is considered "dangerous", as opposed to the "soft", "safe" hunting rifles your grandpa knew - which, of course, are just as capable of killing a lot of people, but because they're not scary-looking they're not typically held up as "dangerous".

y'all are niggers posting in a bait thread.

the first reply should have been "go do your own fucking homework, kid" and then send this /pol/tard back to his containment board

>>33192654
Again, "Assault Weapon" is a phrase who's definition can mean whatever the speaker wants. If I say "Shitty Cars" are the leading cause of all auto accidents, you can't easily argue because it's a subjective phrase that I can define.

>>33192654
As other people ITT have said, "assault weapon" is an entirely legal term that varies between states and has nothing to do with how the gun functions. If the gun was really an assault weapon, then all it would mean is that the gun was illegal in the time and place where it was used.
Whenever gun control people talk about assault weapons, it's basically just shorthand for "guns that I either want banned, or are already banned".
The term "assault weapon" is so meaningless that gun control people can literally just arbitrarily declare any gun to be an assault weapon, so obviously they're going to say that every mass shooting is committed with assault weapons.

File: 1467948215725.png (343KB, 640x624px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 640x624px

>>33192573
>>33192590
>>33192615
>>33192647

People will hate this photo I am showing you here Op the sad thing is it is true.

>>33192685
>>33192684
I see, so why do people get so worked up about the AR-15? They keep saying that it has been used in more mass shootings than any other weapon. They keep saying that it's not a hunting rifle. That it's only use is for killing large numbers of people. Is any of that true?

Pump actions, lever actions and bolt actions are next. Here is the logic path they will follow to ban bolt actions, WW1 had bolt action rifles used. Ergo bolt actions are weapons of war. Just use a bow if you want to hunt. Bows and arrows were used during the Plains Wars and in European wars, bows and arrows are weapons of war. Lever actions were used In the Spanish/American war and WW1, lever actions are weapons of war. That is where it will go.

File: UncleTed.jpg (134KB, 652x755px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 652x755px

>>33192712
Because they are all owned by a group of people pushing an agenda.

File: 1488085720910.jpg (2MB, 2832x3916px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2832x3916px

>>33192726

I'll address some points on the 'appeal to military scariness':

'Assault rifle' is a military designation of a class of guns. They were designed to replace the 'battle rifle' class of guns. The main lethality difference between them was assault rifles were to use a smaller, less powerful round, and that assault rifles could fire in fully automatic (then later a burst of a few shots).

'Assault weapon' is a poorly defined political and legal weasel word, that basically includes any gun that in some way duplicates the real or imagined appearance of an assault rifle proper, often entirely subjectively.

Any argument that makes the claim that civilian guns shouldn't be substantially similar to military weapons because of some vague perceived lethality has no understanding of the military procurement process.

Firstly, militaries procure from civilian contractors, either government-owned or privately-owned enterprises. Firearms are often an adaption from civilian designs and specifications. They also absolutely must use civilian knowledge and expertise, because if you were closed off to the civilian research and development world, then let all your experts go between new procurement processes (which may be decades apart), that expertise would be lost.

More importantly, militaries have to balance competing interests, including function, cost, greatest range of use, things which may compete directly with lethality. The military does not have the luxury of finding a 'best fit' for every user, so their weapons systems are designed to work adequately with the widest range of individuals, as well as being designed in such a way that they can be manufactured in the large quantities required by the military.

The civilian is not constrained any of these requirements, they may pick and choose things equivalent to or better than a standard military offering. So although it might seem reasonable that a military rifle equates to lethality, the logic is completely fucking retarded.

>>33192712
Here's the thing;
The AR-15 is a popular rifle. A VERY popular rifle. This means that it is owned by a lot of people, and so also can be obtained by people perhaps not in the right mental state to own a rifle.
The AR-15 just so happens to be the weapon most common, so if it's actually used in more crime, that would be the reason. There is nothing more dangerous about the AR-15 than any other semi-automatic weapon. If it wasn't the AR-15, it would just be something else.
AR-15's also are commonly fitted with modern features. Lightweight or adjustable stocks, rails for accessories, and of course, generally black. None of this makes the weapon any more dangerous, but it does make it looks like something the military would use. This only serves to further enhance this belief that the AR-15 is something it's not.

I wouldn't be surprised if the actual most common weapon used in crime is some brand of pistol. Like a Hi-Point or a Glock or something, but I digress.

>>33192712
>They keep saying that it has been used in more mass shootings than any other weapon.
If I'm not mistaken it's the most popular rifle in America, so that's not really a shock.
>They keep saying that it's not a hunting rifle.
Any rifle can be used for hunting, really. Ask yourself *why* people think the AR-15 can't be used for hunting, because if their reasoning is "it's too powerful" then they're talking out of their ass. Hunting rifles tend to use much larger rounds than the AR-15.
>That it's only use is for killing large numbers of people.
Every gun is made to kill things, and obviously a good gun is going to do it well. But plenty of people use guns for self-defense, and no gun manufacturer is actively trying to appeal to the mass shooter market because that would be retarded.

>>33192726
>>33192728
Is /k/ an antisemitic board? My grandfather was literally in the SS, and he even he didn't hate Jews that much. He said killing them was just a job for him.
>>33192737
>So although it might seem reasonable that a military rifle equates to lethality, the logic is completely fucking retarded
I never thought of it that way. Thank you.
>>33192738
>>33192751
So it's used in more crime because it's just more common. Kind of like a popular model car being in more car crashes.

OK, so what's this big deal about magazines I keep hearing about? Every conversation about assault weapons mentions magazines.

File: Adler Rapid Fire Kindergarten and Kitten Killer.png (109KB, 1136x400px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1136x400px

>>33192738
>I wouldn't be surprised if the actual most common weapon used in crime is some brand of pistol. Like a Hi-Point or a Glock or something, but I digress.
Yup, criminals fucking love conceal-ability. New-Tone Loc's Third Law of Getting The Drop on Foolz.

Even here in Australia, something like 80% of gun crime happens with a handgun (even though they're obscenely rare legally), and when they do use a rifle, it's usually either sawn-off shotgun or an extremely cut-down .22 rifle.

Which is why the whole Adler debate was fucking stupid, because you can't saw down a shotgun with a tube magazine and still have seven rounds. So as far as a criminal is concerned, literally nothing has changed, because he was going to saw that seven round tube down to within the legal capacity anyway!

>>33192763
>pointing out facts is hateful

>>33192763
>OK, so what's this big deal about magazines I keep hearing about?
Higher capacity magazines mean more shots before you reload. That's all there is to it.
This is the closest argument that has any grounds in reality, but it's not by much. So the thought goes, a limit on magazines would slow down an active shooter and allow more people to escape. As it actually turns out, the shooter just brings more magazines and the reload time doesn't really hinder anything. Not to mention, we're on the very cusp of 3D printing being commonplace, and there are already AR-15 magazine print files available. A determined shooter that does a little bit of planning would easily bypass any restrictive magazine limit.

>>33192777
When you are literally calling people evil and putting stars of David over their pictures, that does seem mildly antisemitic, don't you think?

>>33192763
>I never thought of it that way. Thank you.
No problem. You mentioned you went hunting with your grandfather, if you were hunting deer or something, chances are you were using a round more similar (and thus deadlier) to a battle rifle round than an assault rifle round.

I actually wrote a bunch more but had to delete a lot to fit it in the word limit, but when hunting animals, your job as a hunter is to select a cartridge that will kill stuff, and kill it fast.

Some of these rounds that are used in hunting are actually banned from use in war, because there are different considerations at stake. In war, you're aiming to hit someone, but the rifle rounds have to take into account the long-term effects of injury to your opponent, something which you do not have to, and often legally must not take into account as a hunter. If it's still alive, you have to shoot it again until it's not. If your opponent in war is still alive, you get someone to patch him up.

So when it comes purely down to lethality on a single shot basis, it's often a hunter's rifle and techniques employed that are superior to the military equivalent.

>>33192763
>Is /k/ an antisemitic board?

/k/ is /pol/ as all 4chan is /pol/. /k/ think they would not be the autsperger losers they are if Nazis won, because the Third Reich loved fat neckbeards so much...

This is 4chan. We hate kikes. You don't come to 4chan for serious discussions because it was never built for that.

>>33192763
>being used in more crime
School/mass shootings are a tiny tiny fraction of gun related crime. It's just a much more dramatic situation so it's covered more throughly. Most criminal shootings are done with handguns.

File: 1487890328457.jpg (158KB, 650x966px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 650x966px

>>33192763
>is 4chan antisemitic?
kid you're asking the wrong question.
>why are the jews trying and infiltrate, subvert and control the most powerful nations of the world, when trying to do so in Germany 80ish years ago blowbacked on them so hard it led to the second greatest bloodbath in history of man? and still they try - and with success, at least until now in the USA.

Now you obviously don't want to go /pol/ on them, but just keep it in mind when reading news, or wondering about middle east wars american involvement etc.

Back on topic, you either are free to use any guns, or you're not, as per american constitution. The ratio behind the fathers was to avoid tiranny, so there's no excuse.

The moment US govt starts reclaiming guns from its citizens is the exact time they envisioned the need for them in the first place. Now how to adjust this to the recent, mellower, changed times, a few hundred years later? that's the question.

>>33192796
>t. newfag

>>33192796
Go away /pol/

/k/ loves /an/, as it was in the beginning and always shall be.

We'll never go to the spring carnival with you, loser.

>>33192784
It takes more time to aim properly from target to target than it does to reload, if you've been practicing.

>>33192805
>k loves an
K used to be with /x/, hunting ski walkers and such, but that same old adage applies even online; "don't stick your dick in crazy"

>>33192793
Well, the rounds I used hunting are called 270 Winchester. I don't really know anything about them. I just know they worked really well.
>>33192797
>Most criminal shootings are done with handguns
But then they say handguns should be banned too.
>>33192798
>middle east wars american involvement
Not to get sidetracked here, but George W. Bush wasn't a Jew, and he was the one who started the Iraq war.

File: cartridges.jpg (91KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 400x300px

>>33192818
>270 Winchester
You can see visually how much larger they are right here. Compare that to the .223 on the right, which the 5.56 NATO round was based off of.

Larger cartridge = more explosives and a heavier bullet.

>>33192787
There is nothing more hateful than a jew. You are not even human to them, you have no soul and are a mere creature here to serve as a slave to the one chosen master race. Jews are insane bigots who holocaust entire countries aligned against their banking cartel.

There is nothing wrong with being against that filth.

>>33192573
That almost sounds like a challenge!

Kill 50 or more people without using a gun!

We can call it the Brady challenge!

File: HONK HONK.png (200KB, 314x804px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 314x804px

>>33192835
>That almost sounds like a challenge!
...almost, anyway.

>>33192647
I bet your filthy Mudslime grandad killed more people with that bolt action than anyone in the US has killed with a semi auto!

>>33192818
>But then they say handguns should be banned too.
are criminals known for following the law?

>>33192845
I asked him how many he killed. He said he lost count.
>>33192847
By definition, no, but isn't that why we have prisons?

Take a look at this.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
Pistols>>>>>rifles for crime.

>>33192856
you do realize prisons in the US are almost universally over capacity, right? and i'm not talking mildly over capacity, i'm talking 250% to 300% over capacity.

the solution to the problem of criminals having guns is, and this may be distressful, to just allow everyone to have guns and encourage the law abiding citizens to start a genocide of criminals.
there is no other solution.

>>33192860
>there is no other solution.
>

Oh come off it. There are probably dozens of viable solutions, including but not limited to exiling them to Alaska.

File: 1477449794648.gif (492KB, 260x183px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 260x183px

>>33192606
>capable of firing storms at a high rate

>>33192863
exiling them to alaska with no food? yeah that works.
sending them to mars with no supplies would also work, it'd probably be cheaper than keeping them here if you did it in bulk

>>33192606
This. Assault weapons basically create non-stop warfare. It's because of them that the speed of death rates have tripled in wars

>>33192860
But the point of prisons (or any form of punishment) is not to send people there but to use them as a deterrent.

>>33192872
mass murder is a better deterrent.

>>33192573
Go to /pol/ you fucktard!

>>33192860
Who let you on 4chan Duterte?

>>33192867
But a really easy way to bring a gangbanger some perspective would be just to draft them into a trade school in Africa, make them build roads and schools while living within the community for long enough that they get citizenship, then bring them back to America, parole them, but tell them if they ever fuck up again, their American citizenship gets revoked and they get sent back to Africa 4reelz.

Also, with the trade school qualification, they'd actually stand a good chance of getting a job as an ex-con.

>building schools while the seleka and anti-balaka militias are slaughtering each other with machetes
>guaranteed they'll be crying for their mothers by day four

>>33192897
> what is cruel and unusual punishment

This is why inmates dont break rocks anymore, its considered forced labor.

>what is due process

While sending the niggies back to Africa would be an elegant solution, those niggies are citizens.

>>33192842
Trucks are cheating!

>>33192787
If you like funs and someone tries to take them is that evil to you? How about They get the state to do, it is it evil then? At what point does it become evil?

File: FXJ183044.jpg (28KB, 411x248px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 411x248px

>>33192904
>cruel and unusual punishment
>breaking rocks
We still have a few labour prisons in Australia, but it's not considered cruel and unusual by either Australian or international standards.

They're not breaking rocks with other, larger rocks though, they're using modern techniques and machinery. Which is just like they would in my proposition, because the idea of learning the skills would be to learn skills which are actually utilised in the modern industry in civilian life so they can actually get their life on track.

Prisoners here are coerced into working, but they also have a wide range of industrially accredited shit they can do, they can even do (and plenty do) university coursework by correspondence. One example is >pic related, Bernie Matthews, who I think got a Master's degree in journalism from some mainstream university and ended up writing for a newspaper from behind bars for a while.

http://www.baka.com.au/national/bernie-matthews-on-drug-arms-charges-20080424-28a5.html

>those niggies are citizens.
Yeah, that's why I said revoke their citizenship. Three strikes rule or something, fuck 'em.

My philosophy is, give them a real chance at getting their life back in order. Don't discriminate just because they're an ex-con, give someone a real hard go.

If they don't take it, they can go get fucked.

>>33192588
you're obviously pigeonholing this on purpose

>>33192573
nobody on /k/ owns guns or knows what they are talking about, go someplace better.

File: 1475542249280.jpg (42KB, 640x633px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x633px

>>33192939
>Australian wants to ship all the criminals out

Kekd.

Reguardless the jew lawyers prevent american criminals from being treated as such.

>>33192939
>http://www.baka.com.au
Fuck you Hiroshimoot, fuck you.

http://www.%53%4D%48.com.au/national/bernie-matthews-on-drug-arms-charges-20080424-28a5.html

>>33192860
We could just throw out the death penalty more often or decriminalize shit that's illegal for no reason.

File: 1488332542322.webm (580KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 300x300px

>>33192960
or we can start killing and not stop the killing until something gives (of course the critical assumption prior to starting the killing is that our killing apparatus is sufficiently resilient to not bend over to some niggers).

>>33192953
It's literally the same reasoning as convict labour way back here. The people with the best chances of rehabilitation were usually the ones who were shipped here, because they could then start a new life once released.

The vast majority of the worst offenders were simply executed. You didn't see many rapists or murderers end up in Australia.

This process also started in America I'll have you know. The reason behind it happening here was because they couldn't send them to America anymore, but it was abolished after a few decades here too, as the so-called Bloody Code was relaxed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code

1/3 of the prisoners who were sentenced to transportation to the colonies ended up in America, 2/3 ended up in Australia.

>>33192976
Good to see he finally grew into those teeth.

>>33192863
I'm all for bolstering the space program with convicts. Start shipping them to mars/moon and have them start digging.

I would not ruin based Alaska with a bunch of convicts!

>>33192868
Actually that's the targeting of civilian populations that increased the casualty rates. Strategic bombing, artillery, fire bombing.

>>33193108
And once you made civilians targets every place became a war zone.

>>33192738

Hand guns are literally the most commonly used type of guns in crime. Rifles used in crime (not just ARs, all rifles in general) are very few.

>>33192573
Here ya go
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit#https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit#

>>33192978
Yeah, Georgia was originally a penal colony.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/mobilebasic

>>33193125
Whoops, didn't see that you posted the exact same thing

Why not make a paper on banning cars, period? You could literally save tens of thousands of lived and hundreds of thousands of wounded.

Then a followup ban on bicycles, alcohol, medicine and women. All of humanity would be perfect within a hundred years.

Oh, me stupid. I entirely forgot kitchen knives. They are the most used weapon in homicide worldwide, and the number one terror weapon in China. We don't need those anyway, so let's ban them. Oh, and scissors. Lethal stuff.

>>33192573
>No one should be able to kill 50 Americans
>Unless you're the US Govt, of course

>>33192587
>muh feelings and children
literally the only solution is executing those with faggy feelings and issuing children with their own 22 subcompact on their 5th birthday

>>33192818
If handguns are banned, then how will I defend myself on the street? And it's not like thugs obey laws right? If handguns are banned, there is a higher chance I'm going to be mugged by somebody with a gun and not have anything. Hell even a knife would be overpowering, by banning handguns you're basically promoting crime.

>>33192573
As somebody mentioned the term was bastardized from the German stg-44 (Sturmgewehr) which translates almost literally to Assault Rifle.

Back then rifles fired long powerful cartridges in order to maximize their effective range because most battles were fought across large fields between trenches and fox holes.

For closer combat you had submachine guns which fired pistol rounds with automatic fire capability and had shoulder stocks kind of like a rifle.

You also had carbine rifles which fired lengthened pistol style rounds.

Automatic fire sucks. It offers very little accuracy. But people don't like to gamble with their lives. So if somebody is spraying a Salvo of bullets at you... you are probably going to stay in cover. So the purpose of automatic fire isn't to kill... but to force your opponents head down so you can advance forward.

The Russian gunmaker Simonov actually came up with the design of a rifle style carbine first. (Shortened rifle cartridge instead of lengthened pistol round) but didn't get authorization to produce it until 1945.

But yeah. Ww2 saw the advent of a lot more urban warfare. You didn't need the same range on rifles. As a result by giving light infantrymen automatic fire capability suddenly they were able to provide most of their own covering fire.

There were other automatic rifles in use but they were bulky and it was hard to carry a lot of rounds.

So eventually after world War 2 having seen the effectiveness of the German "assault rifle" other countries started following suit. The term stuck and refers to intermediate (medium range) rifles with automatic fire capability.

An ar15 is not capable of automatic fire and is thus not an assault rifle by any military standard. It just happens to look like an M16 which is one.

Incidentally, can someone explain to not-American me how the word 'liberal' became the same as 'ban-it-all'. Where I live the word liberal mean someone who want more freedom, not less.

>>33193897
International Jewery.

>>33193879
Also I should mention that the term "Carbine" never means the same thing for more than 3 minutes when you are talking about the technical design of various firearms.

>>33193897
literally psyops.

the progressives, (originally an American English term for socialists,) knew that they were, and still are, a severe minority in the U.S. so they advertised their ideology under several different monikers and act(ed) like there are somehow distinctions between them.

you will literally find people who identify as progressive who think that they aren't liberal, and liberals who swear they aren't progressives, and not a single point of ideological difference between them.

>>33192573
To put it basically, an assault weapon is a military look-alike weapon. While the military counterpart is almost always capable of full auto fire, the assault weapon is not. While the 1A, M1 carbine, and mas-49 are military weapons, because they don't look like an m-4 or Ak-47, they arent assault weapons, thought they function in mostly the same way. Its a double standard.

The politics side of it is that while in majority of school shootings a pistol or revolver is used, government perpetuate the idea that military look-alike weapons are what is most dangerous so they create bans and restrictions to limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain them. While many theories exist as to the true reasoning why government does this instead of acknowledging the true threat (mental illness), my personal theory is that they knowingly ban these assault weapons because they are more effective against troops in an attempt of a coup to overthrow government

>>33192868
>speed of death rates have tripled in wars

are you retarded? it's been going down...guess how many people had automatic/semi auto arms in ww1? guess how many russian soldiers actually had guns? look at any recent war, modern automatic arms are statistically safer.

get of /k/ you stupid fucking fudd

>>33194077

I guess I can understand that. Thank you. The only political party here that is even vaguely against personal weapons - and they never front that view in elections - has about 3 per cent of the votes, according to the latest polls. On the other hand the parties are unifiedly against allowing full auto guns so there you go.

>>33192615
>But this is a source
I hope your prof humiliates you in front of your class for daring to use 4Chan as a source.

>>33192573
Just print out a copy of the second amendment. You're going to get a poor grade anyway if you make your paper pro gun.

File: 1382576557135.jpg (1MB, 1029x4529px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1029x4529px

>http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
1. personal firearms are used in self defense on the order of hundreds of thousands of instances per year compared to some 9-10 thousands killed by firearms
2. zero statistical correlation between gun regulation and murders

>>33192580
>Doesn't know who George Washington Carver is

Our schools have failed you.

>>33192573
Don't ask /k/ for advice on your shitty research paper.

>>33192798
Wow, sure is /pol/tarded in here.

Please return to your containment board.

>>33192587
They also used the word amendment.

I heard or read somewhere that fun crime rates are tied to poverty rates more than strict laws. If it's true, should bring that up in your paper

>>33192573
you're gonna get expelled nigga

>>33192573
I support a ban on airplanes, because no one should be able to kill 2996 Americans

>>33194160
Oh, to be underaged again...