You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it down.
>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle.
Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.
Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed.
Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."
Then they should learn to change their emotional response to it, or seek to repeal the 2nd Amendment that allows people to open carry. Their emotional response is on them.
I disagree given that it’s impossible to know the intentions of the gun wielder, and there is lots of precedent for people who look just like that (white man carrying an AR15) being a mass shooter. If I was marching around (legally) carrying a big ass knife, I’d think I’d also possess enough awareness to realize that some folks might be uncertain of my intentions.
"Machine gun? Not a machine gun? What's the difference?"
You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it warrants a correction.
the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44).
It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.
Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.
Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word
> The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word
Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:
Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.
Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon
Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip
Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip
Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle
Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.
I don't think general population cares about the full-automatic distinction of "assault rifle" because you don't actually need full-auto for the kind of attacks people are potentially worried about.
And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)
Just to be pedantic, as we're already in the weeds here, all but "rifle" in your list probably do not use a "clip", they use a magazine. The M1 garand is a rifle that uses a clip, the mini-14 would be a rifle that uses a magazine. Generally.
I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.
right, parent commenter seemed to claim that it's a legally clear definition. Which people do all the time, and then don't back up if asked, but still feel the need to make sure to let everyone that doesn't use their definition know that they are wrong. While "assault weapons" at least has been used legally to also include semi-automatics, which muddles the water for general usage quite a bit.
>>>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle.
>>>It’s not always a false claim;
Words have meaning and details matter, especially when discussing legalities. It absolutely is always a false claim.
To a lot of people, any big Navy ship that is not an aircraft carrier is "a battleship". To a lot of people, anybody banging away on a keyboard from the command line = "hacking". That doesn't make either claim true. Specificity and clarity are important. To mutually work through a problem set we need commonly-understood definitions, and the lexicon thankfully isn't limited to the simplistic understanding of the uninformed masses.
