I agree. There's no way such a confusing term was chosen at random, by accident. And, of course, not a single anti-gun politician or activist has ever acknowledged that their "assault weapon" is NOT the same as an assault rifle.44 AMP said:ASSAULT WEAPON is a term defined in the Federal 1994 law (which sunset in 2004). It does not cover machine guns, it only covers certain semiautomatic firearms, rifle, pistol and shotgun.
I believe the choice of "Assault Weapon" as a term can only have been deliberately done to enhance confusion.
People have a very strong tendency to reduce complex concepts down to simple sounding terms, but doing so often changes important meanings.
School children are dead, county workers in California are dead, concert and nightclub goers are dead... all have the AR15 in common.
Trying to ban "assault" rifles is like trying to ban Hoodies (hooded sweat shirts) because criminals might wear them.
M-W has even changed the definition of "assault rifle": "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire"As much as it pains me to admit it, the ship has sailed on the term "assault weapon." Even Merriam-Webster has changed its definition. What's even worse is that MW's examples of "assault weapon" in use are quotes in support of banning them.
Most data comes from FBI-2106 reports that are readily available to the public.
Criminal background checks save lives. The 19 states that require them for all handgun sales have seen: 46 percent fewer women shot to death by intimate partners, 48 percent fewer in law enforcement shot to death with handguns, 48 percent fewer people killed by firearms suicide, 48 percent less gun trafficking and 52 percent fewer mass shootings.
Still a worn out argument. The people that want the semi auto rifles and the potential deaths that each one rifle can cause.
They don’t care about the other numbers and and they consider comparisons to other methods of being killed as a weak argument. Most of the ones listed above already have restrictions, because they are dangerous. Guns don’t get heavily regulated like most of those other ways to die.
They don’t care about numbers at all except for these 30 and 10.
Attempts to sugar coat or out-logic gun control advocates have already failed.
My opinion is this: “hell yes my firearm is dangerous and that’s why it’s my right to own it!”
The most effective way to sway someone to look at gun rights more positively is to explain why we have that right.
The way to have your argument shot down quickly, just try to deflect by spewing unrelated stats to them; that will end any chance you had at influencing them.
Since the chances of getting injured by a rifle are so astronomically low... why do we need semi-auto rifles at all? Maybe all we need is single shot rifles. Since death by crime wasn’t even in the list, why do we need any gun for that matter?
I see where you're going with that...but..Several laws have gone on the books that make it illegal to text while driving.There were 374 Rifle Homicides nationally, but there were 4000 Texting While Driving Deaths. That means you are MORE THAN 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by your Smart Phone than by a Rifle. Where is the call for age restrictions on Smart Phones, where is the call to ban "Assault" Phones?
with a defense of why such guns are integral to the RKBA