Man Armed with ‘Assault Rifle’ Threatens Ex-Girlfriend, She Kills him

[old lady new shooter]

Hey OP just an FYI there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle" Not knocking you for reporting it the way you read it, but if We the gun communtiy as a whole want this term to die. We can't be using it ourselves the only way it goes away is if we quit using it and push that everyone does as well.

The article cited by the OP put "assault rifle" in quotes. Given that the author is a strong gun-rights advocate, that was likely his way of saying "The mainstream media are calling the weapon an assault rifle but it was probably a normal, but black, rifle."

 

[Malamute]

Hey Malamute explain to me how a object "assaults" someone! It takes a person she could have been "assaulted " by a person but not by an object! The reason I brought it up is because it is one of those Buzzwords that "nonGun Owners" hear and paints us in a bad light is that what you want our rights stripped because we use a negative phrase?

Its not that the object does something all by itself, and that's not how the term or name came about, its what its original intended purpose or use was. Denying that an object has a name derived from its original purpose isn't realistic, and the term isn't likely going to die out.

Some have tried to claim that the term was invented by anti-gun people, which is incorrect, just as denying that it exists by that name is incorrect. Who cares if its name is/was/derived from a particular term? I think denying it isn't realistic or smart, it makes us look like goobs to deny something exists that does. Falling into the blame the name game is playing by their rules. In common practice in the states (by the gun owning and manufacturing people before it became negatively politicized), it came to mean semi-auto versions of true select fire assault rifles, and was used pretty interchangeably for some time before it became a bad political word. I don't deny that the origin of certain guns was from assault type rifles, that isn't necessarily bad or wrong, nor is admitting or recognizing their obvious practical niche as a defensive arm. That isn't my primary use for them, it also isn't the only purpose they are good for (only good for shooting humans!!! ), contrary to the insistence of many that would deny them to the general public.

Most sporting arms are derived from "weapons of war" or are "military grade" so to speak. Nearly all modern sporting bolt actions are derived from military bolt action rifles, primarily the Mauser 1898. That means absolutely nothing to their use by citizens. Whether for hunting, defense, or any other lawful purpose, including assaulting evildoers. A large number of arms that succeeded commercially were "designed for war", but ultimately weren't successful in that role, or not primarily. That has nothing to do with their lawful use or legitimate ownership. Zero. Nothing. "Only designed for killing humans" is a pejorative term often used. So what. We use things every day that werent their original design purpose or reason for existence. That's not all they are used for, nor "good for", though I also have to say that denying that any gun is a "weapon" is also silly. Any gun can obviously be so used, that doesn't have any bearing on its lawful use, which may include use in a dire defensive situation.

Calling out incorrect use of all sorts of terms bandied about would be useful, were it possible. "Assault rifles" were unfortunately popularized (if incorrectly) before the gun prohibition folks targeted them. They make up all sorts of terms for shock value, like "military grade" "high caliber" (huh?), and many others. Its probably not effective to ask them to define terms correctly, they aren't interested in truth or factual correctness, but to try to deny "assault rifles" exist as a thing isn't helpful. Insisting on correct use of the term may be more useful. Somehow "semi-automatic" has come to have its own shock value, as if that was somehow extra-dangerously automatic-ish-ly-something-something super scary. And stuff. Like a SEMI-AUTOMATIC assault rifle was way worse than a normal assault rifle. Its a wonder anyone is left alive with all the scary stuff "on the streets".

Apologies for the sidetrack.

 

[hdwhit]

Malamute wrote:
Where did this idea that assault rifle "doesn't exist" come from?

The people who coined the term, "Sturmgewehr", the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany, gave us the definition of it as well and it included that the rifle be "selective fire". Thus, according to the definition an "Assault Rifle" must be capable of fully automatic fire. Since no rifles generally available to American citizens is selective fire, they must be something else.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Calling out incorrect use of all sorts of terms bandied about would be useful, were it possible. <...> Its probably not effective to ask them to define terms correctly, they aren't interested in truth or factual correctness, but to try to deny "assault rifles" exist as a thing isn't helpful. Insisting on correct use of the term may be more useful.

^^^
This.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The people who coined the term, "Sturmgewehr", the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany, gave us the definition of it as well and it included that the rifle be "selective fire". Thus, according to the definition an "Assault Rifle" must be capable of fully automatic fire. Since no rifles generally available to American citizens is selective fire, they must be something else.

Excellent piece of information, I'm saving that.

 

[Malamute]

The people who coined the term, "Sturmgewehr", the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany, gave us the definition of it as well and it included that the rifle be "selective fire". Thus, according to the definition an "Assault Rifle" must be capable of fully automatic fire. Since no rifles generally available to American citizens is selective fire, they must be something else.

And that is basically correct, though as I mentioned above, they like to use "semiautomatic" in front of assault rifle to make it sound even more sinister, not realizing they are describing something "less than" or "half" automatic, rather than "extra-bad!!" or "super evil!!".

 

[9MMare]

It's not at all clear how the idea that a restraining order existed originated.

Understood. One poster pointed out how her approach to her 'problem' was more effective than a restraining order...and others commented on it.

I admit, I would be interested in data on how effective they are, but apologize for the tangent.

 

[shafter]

Their effectiveness is not so much in that the aggressor will obey it, but rather that it gives law enforcement a means to intervene earlier than they would be able to otherwise and potentially stop a hostile situation from getting to the violence stage. They aren't perfect by any means, and there are ways for them to be abused, but people are arrested all the time for violating them. If the victim didn't have a protection order law enforcement might have to walk away...and likely come back later once things turned violent.

The problem with firearms in cases like this is that the victim needs to buy one, learn how to shoot it, and then develop the mindset to use it if necessary. Developing the mindset to shoot someone you were formerly in love with, and possibly had children with, is not the same as being able to shoot a stranger in a ski mask.

 

[Choctaw]

That's the point.


Rather than get a useless restraining order she chose to have a firearm to protect herself.

And it worked far better than a restraining order has for so many victims of domestic violence.

I've worked CAPERS for many years, and for the last nine years I have worked strictly domestic violence cases. In Texas, protective orders are tools law enforcement may use to arrest the respondent upon violation. Violation may be as simple as a text message the respondent had his mommy send to the victim. It doesn't have to be him kicking in the door. However, once he violates then we get a new warrant and add a new offense (Violation of a Protective Order). It is a great way to keep the respondent in jail and away from the victim. Of course it is just a piece of paper, but it is a very useful piece of paper.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The people who coined the term, "Sturmgewehr", the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany, gave us the definition of it as well and it included that the rifle be "selective fire". Thus, according to the definition an "Assault Rifle" must be capable of fully automatic fire. Since no rifles generally available to American citizens is selective fire, they must be something else.

I am not sure that Hitler was all that concerned with the minor issue of selective fire when he referred to the MP44 as Sturmgewehr. Certainly it was. However, if we are going to run with this as the operative terminology, then we cannot use the term suppressor for silencers because Maxim named and patented the device as a SILENCER (yes, I am shouting here) and defined the attributes clearly in the patent, so silencer must be used and not suppressor. He did give us the definition of it.

Then there is the issue of the vegetable, the tomato, which as we all know is a fruit, but is defined by law and accepted into terminology as a vegetable even though biologically it is a fruit.

 

[CapnMac]

there is no such thing as an "Assault Rifle"

Actually there are quite a few.
What there are none of, federally, are "assault weapons."
"Assault Weapons" exist in about 5 States, as well, as those states have seen fit to so describe cosmetic features of certain firearms.

Precision is needful lest we refer to "the thing that goes up."

 

[RPZ]

The term as applied, regardless of it being applied in any legislation, was a media/left propaganda term from the get go. It had no technical or institutional useage when the media first introduced it. It still has no technically nor intellectually sustainable application. This is proven by the cosmetic only definitions in the few laws we have had.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Turns out this may be a 'Stand Your Ground' Law case.

http://washingtonfeed.com/man-appro...eives-lession-about-the-second-amendment.html

Placing the burden on the police to prove a person is guilty, rather than putting the burden on a person to prove their innocence, is the result of a new bill that was recently signed into law by the state’s Governor, Rick Scott (R) known as SB 128. According to the new law, which simply strengthens the state’s already established “Stand Your Ground” law, “once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection [one].”

See in that state they have changed self-defense to be a burden of the state to prove guilt instead of an 'Affirmative Defense', I.E. you have admitted to murder so it is up to you to prove your innocence.

Apparently the restraining order got into it cause the Sheriff said he could NOT find any restraining order.. only that she had said he was threatening her.

Deaf

 

[Malamute]

The term as applied, regardless of it being applied in any legislation, was a media/left propaganda term from the get go. It had no technical or institutional useage when the media first introduced it. It still has no technically nor intellectually sustainable application. This is proven by the cosmetic only definitions in the few laws we have had.

Not sure quite what you are meaning to say. Do you mean nobody, ever, used the term assault rifle before the media began using it in the 80s?

Nobody in the gun industry ever used the term before the media began using it in the 1980s?

The term as applied,

Nobody used the term assault rifle to refer to semi auto versions of military select fire guns before the media began using it in the 80s?

I'm not sure how the last two sentences quoted proves anything technical about the term, other than the laws were written by people that had little understanding of the subject matter, in ways that were difficult to define other than cosmetically, and therefor not difficult to circumvent.

 

[RPZ]

I think my wording is clear.

Never saw it used in any of our military manual of arms or combat manuals. Have you?

 

[Robert]

Well since we seem to only want to argue the meaning of one word and not talk about the events in the article I'd say we are done here.