Forgive me being offtopic for a minute... but there is no IPSC multigun that I am aware of. I wish there was. USPSA does multigun, and they are a part of IPSC, but IPSC wide it does not exist and IPSC seems to have no interest in changing that.
Yes, I Own Assault Rifles
- Thread starter blaxsun
- Start date
- Status
Forgive me being offtopic for a minute... but there is no IPSC multigun that I am aware of. I wish there was. USPSA does multigun, and they are a part of IPSC, but IPSC wide it does not exist and IPSC seems to have no interest in changing that.
Thats why you will notice I listed both IPSC 3 gun AND Multigun and put a comma between them...
For those who don't know, there is a difference between 3 gun and multigun. 3 gun typically refers to a match where you will shoot stages with rifle, shotgun, and pistol seperately. All three are used in the match but only one per stage. So you will have seperate rifle stages, shotgun stages and pistol stages. Multigun on the other hand has stages where you will use a combination of the three guns rifle/shotgun, shotgun/pistol, pistol/rifle etc. to complete the stage and possibly all three on one stage. 3 Gun Nation is actually Multigun from what I understand and adds a bit of confusion.
IPSC only runs 3 gun matches and sometimes solo events for rifle or shotgun. USPSA also used to run 3 gun only events until the popularity of Multigun overtook theirs, now they mostly run Multigun.
Last edited:
If "military style rifles" are assault guns, then by that logic so are the Lee Enfield, 98k, Mosin, kentucky rifle, hell even the blunderbuss because they were all designed and used for war to assault positions. In fact, find me any rifle that does not have its roots in military technology.
The term assault rifle is utter rubbish and was coined by Hitler as a propaganda stunt. None of you own assault rifles, you own sport guns.
The term assault rifle is utter rubbish and was coined by Hitler as a propaganda stunt. None of you own assault rifles, you own sport guns.
Canada has never had marines, but maybe you could visualize that most famous film of D-Day: The Queen's Own Rifles going ashore at Juno Beach. Most Canadians remember Juno Beach - we had it all to ourselves that day.
And we were the farthest inland at the end of the day too.
Canada has never had marines, but maybe you could visualize that most famous film of D-Day: The Queen's Own Rifles going ashore at Juno Beach. Most Canadians remember Juno Beach - we had it all to ourselves that day.
And we were the farthest inland at the end of the day too.
And now the QOR jump out of planes....lesson learned perhaps?
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
So we're now almost up to 150 posts, and people are still hung-up on terminology. Which is entirely missing the point. It's no wonder the media has a field day with this stuff: this is exactly the type of response they're looking for, and the majority fall for it every time. “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
The term "assault rifle" refers to rifles firing a mid-size rather than full-size cartridge, having a large capacity magazine of at least 30 rounds and the capacity to fire in full auto.
They're called "assault rifles" because the idea behind them was that infantry in the assault could provide their own "covering fire". A measure of support that was traditionally provided by stationary machine guns or another formation that was stationary and in a firing position.
This originated in WWI with weapons such as the Pederson Device, Fedorov rifle etc. It reached "perfection" in WWII with the Kurz 7.92 cartridge and the MP44 and similar German "assault rifles". They called them "Storm(ing) Rifles": "Sturm Gewehr".
Anything else is simply a semi-automatic rifle, no matter how black it is, how many folding stocks, pistol grips, picatinny rails, flashlights, lasers or other do-dads you stick on it.
Some people feel cooler if they tell the gaping onlookers that they own "assault rifles"
"I'm big, I'm bad, I own ASSAULT RIFLES".
Sorry kids, it's not an "assault rifle" unless it meets the definition.
They're called "assault rifles" because the idea behind them was that infantry in the assault could provide their own "covering fire". A measure of support that was traditionally provided by stationary machine guns or another formation that was stationary and in a firing position.
This originated in WWI with weapons such as the Pederson Device, Fedorov rifle etc. It reached "perfection" in WWII with the Kurz 7.92 cartridge and the MP44 and similar German "assault rifles". They called them "Storm(ing) Rifles": "Sturm Gewehr".
Anything else is simply a semi-automatic rifle, no matter how black it is, how many folding stocks, pistol grips, picatinny rails, flashlights, lasers or other do-dads you stick on it.
Some people feel cooler if they tell the gaping onlookers that they own "assault rifles"
"I'm big, I'm bad, I own ASSAULT RIFLES".Sorry kids, it's not an "assault rifle" unless it meets the definition.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Sorry, but you're just parroting the dozen or so similar posts that preceded you. If you can't get past the terminology, you've already lost the debate. I'll let the original post stand on its merits, which is simply that we don't need to fear or have an adverse reaction to terminology.
Last edited:
Getting hung up on terminology is precisely what the antis do (among other things), but joining in and participating in promulgating their nonsensical definitions is hardly helping to move the debate forward.
There is, unfortunately, a huge portion of the public sphere that will never be able to get past the words "assault rifle". It is sufficient to trigger an instant and invariably negative opinion with those people. We don't need to be throwing fuel on that fire.
There's an AR-15 in my gun safe, but its not an "assault rifle".
Last edited:
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I think blaxsun needs to get out more
2 more months of snow...
Like any of the Pro Gun wackos did "us" any favours.
Alex Jones? Foaming at the mouth jumping up and down about building 7 in a firearms debate?
This retard? Saying he's going to start killing people because he won't give ONE inch then jumping in the ditch as soon as they come to take his carry permit?
Capt. Magpul has a good point....
Websters defines an assault weapon as: : any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle
the ATF calls a SAW a semi automatic assault weapon.
the former AWB banned assault weapons (duh?) and semi automatic AR-15's were banned.
Personally, I think the facebook warriors that rabidly battled any one who made the simple mistake of saying "clip" did more to set us back than anything else. Arguing non issues and pissing on childrens graves to do it.
"ERMAHGAWDS!!!! help me argue semantics on this 12 year old from Kentucky's youtube comment!!!!!
Plainly you are the one who can't "get past the terminology", which is why you started a thread about it.
The first rule of debate and propaganda is not to let your opponents define the terms.
"Assault rifle" as applied to AR15s, Mini-14s etc. etc. is propaganda pure and simple.
The "adverse reaction" is in the minds of the population at large, obviously, and that is a thing to be "feared".
To concede this point to the antis is both unnecessary and completely at odd with the facts, in short it would be crass stupidity to do so.
If you accept that such rifles as "assault rifles" you have basically conceded that you as an ordinary citizen have no need to own them, and that is the first step towards taking them away from you.
Your original post and your replies fail to address the substantive facts of this matter.
Your avoidance of the facts firearms development and the debate around these rifles and your reliance on emotive hyperbole is peculiar I must say.
What exactly will we gain by incorrectly calling such rifle "assault rifles"?
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I started a thread about a recent discussion I had with a non-firearms owner, and how I handled it differently.
I would actually say the first rule is not to underestimate your opponent (something that's done entirely all too often).
Mini-14, sure.
I'm not afraid of what people think. I'm afraid of them ceasing to think.
You call it concession, I call it a change of tactics. I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you on this point. Handguns are designed for one sole purpose. By your argument, we shouldn't have those either.
We're certainly not gaining anything by denying it.
PorkNBeans
Regular
- Location
- Central Manitoba
I think the point was that arguing what the definition of an 'assault rifle' is and what is not is a waste of time and effort (as demonstrated by the above 16 pages).
- Status
