My view regarding guns in the USA as a foreigner.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be an selective fire automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles like the M-14, and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder which guns firing full rifle cartridges can’t do.    It was sort of ground breaking mainly in that it used a smaller caliber full length round rather than rifle caliber short round like the AK-47 or StG-44.

Full auto isn't a requirement of assault rifles.  Selective fire that -can- include full auto is, though we opt for burst.   Our "battlefield weapons" like the m4 may look like an ar-15..but they are mechanically distinct from them in ways that the current selection of ar-15s and knockoffs is -not- mechanically distinct from my sears .22lr..... which is also not an assault rifle or battlefield weapon despite being the functional equivalent of any ar 15 chambered in .22lr...and thus, if not for specific grandfathered exemptions would fall into the category of "assualt style" rifles..or Brian's even more ambiguous "battlefield weapon".  

Modern guns sold commercially as AR-15 style range from guns that are essentially identical to the original AR-15, similar to M-16 and M-16A2, and guns that retain the external styling cues of the AR-15 family but mechanically substantially different.

Factually inaccurate.  No ar-15 or ar-15 knockoff is "essentially identical" to either the m-16 or the a series.  Not only would extensive modification be required, a special stamp would need to be procured for their purchase.  Aint nobody got time for that shit, and so the rifle sold to civvies was designed for that market when the patent on the action expired in 77.  

An assault rifle is any rifle that is shorter than your typical full length rifle from the WWII era and fires a less powerful round than the typical WWII rifle so it is handier in close combat and can be fired accuractely at higher rate than any rifle firing full powered rifle cartridges, while at the same time the round it fires is more powerful than pistol rounds fired by full automatic submachine guns, so it can be used like a rifle out to medium range.

You know that's not the definition of an assault rifle, right? Worse, perhaps..is that a substantial number of ar-15s will evade this novel interpretation, itself.

Most rifles the media call “Assult style” fit that definition. So most assult style rifles are full on assult rifles.  Even those prevented from firing full automatic are still arguably assult rifles.   M-16A2, the standard assault rifle used by the US military during the 1980s, lacked full auto capability.

No "assault style" rifle meets the definition of an assault rifle.  Assault rifles do, "assault style" rifles fall short..thus the distinct moniker.  Ironically, you mentioned many assault rifles up above.  The STG 44 and AK47, the m-16, and the a series.   Neither the ar 15..nor my sears 22..are assault rifles...even though they -are- mechanically and "essentially" identical.....the latter being a grab by sears in the late 70's on the recently public DGI action...but in a nice traditional wooden stock that doesn't evoke that joe-tingle (it wasn't a thing yet, that would wait until the direct industry support of 3-gun). 


All of this..but the underlying point is simple.  There's no need to mis-classify firearms or defend inaccurate classifications.  This makes the work of gun control -harder- and isn't required to justify regulations in the first place.  Can we at least agree that removing some valid article of objection from gun nuts would probably be better than planting our feet in the ground and making ourselves the idiots in the discussion who don't know guns but imagine themselves qualified enough, at least, to regulate them?  "Assault style" rifles and "battlefield weapons" are empty signalling terms. Their use and acceptance tells us about a persons political affiliation but nothing about the difference between my 22 and an AR-15, or an ar-15 and an m4. Over and above and around all of this is the simple fact that all firearms are dangerous. Some more inherently dangerous than others. Not even because of crime, or school shooting..certainly not because of their "military styling". In the best of conditions, popping off 30 rounds outside of a range or known backstop provides 30 unique opportunities for tragedy.

This is a valid and technically accurate underlying justification for why one rifle or group of rifles x needs to be regulated in ways that another or another group does not. The NRA and gun nuts would have to eat safety crow if we went this route, rather than attempting to polarize public opinion by making boogeymen out of black rifles. In this case, the slogans and talking points that help work people up don't actually help to move or craft effective legislation. The last "assault weapons" ban failed to reduce gun crime, gun death..or even hit assault rifles. It hit sport shooters...a group uniquely unlikely to go on a shooting spree or rob a liqour store....and that got them all het up about the govmint coming to take their silly guns based upon an undelying ignorance of both guns and their users and their very own data on the subject.

So we can keep doing that..if we want to fail.....but.......