Hi mom'sfolly,
I cannot contest your info on the comparison of crimes between the UK and the USA without some more time researching the subject.
But, I can speak on the definition of assault. There needs to be no injury in the USA, just a perception, or a fear of such. A charge of assault can even be brought from unwanted or offensive contact. Example; spitting ... gross and disgusting, yes, injurious, no. Here is an excerpt from ..
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault it is easy to confuse assault with battery.
Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.
Elements:
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.
In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a
Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.
Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
Ok, so if were are talking about the forms of gun control that you mentioned, what restrictions do you have in mind that would not threaten the constitution? I would consider reasonable and constitutional solutions, and am interested.
The ammunition ...... or 30 round clips that hold the ammunition more to your point........ The 30 round clip is what is reasonable for infantry to have. You see it all goes back to the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The citizens must be allowed to have arms that an oppressing force (foreign or domestic) would have. That is it in a nutshell .... People (myself included) are protecting the Constitution of the United States Of America. If there is a solution that does not threaten that then you've got a winner. But that's the whole problem. There doesn't seem to be one.
