As an aside, I love the Orwellian phrase "assault weapon". Out of curiosity, what would a "non-assault" weapon look like? Is there such a thing?
"Assault weapon" (as used here, there are other uses) is a blanket term (adopted specifically in efforts to regulate the class) for a class of weapons that are primarily semiautomatic versions of fully automatic military assault rifles, assault carbines, submachine guns, machine pistols, and combat shotguns; while the exact definitions used in different laws vary they typically are semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines, pistol grips (whether the weapon is a pistol or not), collapsible or folding stock, and mounting points for accessories like a bayonet, grenade launcher, suppressor, etc.
Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols + ... is too much to say. It's a meta-category, which we use all the time to describe things and is incredibly helpful.
That's why gun manufacturers were able to make a few cosmetic changes to turn illegal guns into legal guns the last time we had a (completely useless) "assault weapons" ban. The California "assault weapons" ban was even dumber - they listed models in the ban, making it trivial for manufacturers to sell essentially the same weapons by changing the model number.
This problem has already been solved in other areas. Look at drug laws. They cover designer drugs easily - which is the exact same problem as you describe here.
And also - it can be a meta category, and it's helpful to have that. We can define semi-automatic pretty well, and the law has ways to cover "equivalents". Your scare quotes don't change that.
And yes, you can define semiautomatics pretty well. But semiautomatics will not be banned. The problem is you can't define "assault weapons" in a way that they don't cover all semiautomatics.
It's completely reasonable to put scare quotes around a nonsense term like "assault weapons". If you say that at your local range people will point at you and laugh.
What about tear gas and grenades? Automatic RPG's?
You're arguing in black and white and our world doesn't work like that. Subtlety is what makes law. Me? I'd prefer most guns were illegal. You'd prefer we all could own subatomic weapons (it seems, since you're basically implying any discussion on "level of strength" is moot).
It's not hacking language. It's subtlety. Once you throw that out the window you can't have a conversation.
> Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984.
> In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.
However, some languages translate assault weapons into storming weapons, which I think describe this type of guns better. The storming weapons have the hint of the gun being used against a threat in an offensive way, whilst being able to inflict as much damage as conveniently and fast as possible. Therefore, by definition, it even sounds off on a linguistic level to use an storming weapon for hunting or for defense, since deers and whatnot are not real threats. Moreover, when the ammunition is manufactured to pierce kevlar, you can already figure out that you are using the gun for the wrong purpose.
As for having a storming weapon for collective purposes sounds to me just as sane as having a collection of bongs and marijuana seeds in a country where recreational marijuana is illegal. It just doesn't sound sane to collect something for the sole purpose of owning them so that you can rub them.
I gone to the army and I guess the rubbing effect is also the reason none of the officers let conscripts touch the guns outside of training, so that nobody would get charmed by the gun and it's deadly but rather simple working method. I guess they have figured out that some people get these kinds of mental conditions which make it seem justified to own one. However I do admit getting keen on my own storming weapon and its serial number as well, but at least the officers kept everyone on planet Earth by reminding that just how dangerous the thing is. Pointing an officer with assembled yet unloaded and safety locked gun would end up getting yourself beaten up and carrying the gun outside of training would end in criminal investigation.
http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/rifles/model-94/model...
My impression is generally assault rifles tend to be lighter, shorter and generally less accurate than say a typical hunting rifle. (Rifles types tend to blend into each other the same way different types of hammers do)
"Assault" weapon has never been used as in "assaulting" someone, but as in "a squad assaulting an enemy position", implying weapons capable of fully-automatic suppressive fire. Which really is nowhere what civilians can get access... unless you want to spend >$20k on a pre-1986 firearm.