Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would be okay with the term under two conditions (4+ / 0-)

    The first would be that people had a keen awareness that the term honestly has no one fixed definition: it's whatever a given state dubs an assault weapon. What constitutes an assault weapon in California is different from New York. The one thing every definition of an assault weapon has, though, is that it is a semiautomatic firearm.

    The second would be that it is heavily distinguished from an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a selective fire(as in can be shot on full auto) rifle that uses an intermediate power cartridge. They're not submachine guns, they're not light machine guns, and they definitely are not the AR-15s that people are clamoring to heavily restrict or ban.

    The problem is that most people see the word assault and jump straight to "Oh, that's an automatic weapon." To be fair, some of them think "Oh, it's a semiautomatic version, so that means it fires bursts," but that's not any better.

    •  To people wondering what the fuss is about (9+ / 0-)

      Last time around, 1994, news programs showed full-auto fire in clips about the "assault weapons ban". Press descriptions said things like "rapid fire" that didn't alleviate confusion. Phrases like "military style" made it possible to believe that the weapons in the ban had military capabilities.

      It was a reasonable conclusion at the time to assume that the confusion was deliberately created.

      There are people who get pedantic, but many of the people you're hearing from here are protesting outright dishonesty.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site