There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault weapon'. In generic terms, an assault weapon is a weapon that includes a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity ammunition magazine. There are distinct guns designed for sporting purposes. Among these are hunting rifles (bolt and lever action), pump action shot guns designed to hunt water fowl or shoot clay pigeons, and pistols and revolvers designed for target shooting and self defense.
Assault weapons, on the other hand, have design characteristics more akin to combat weapons. Characteristics that do not necessarily augment their use in sporting activities.
You wanted a definition, you got one.
Now, I know your reputation. You will no doubt respond with a smiley emoticon denoting you think this post is funny. If you want to discuss the merits and virtues of the weapons I described as 'assault weapons', fine. But if all you seek are posts you can ridicule as poorly framed, inarticulate or just plain silly, you might find that some opinions that differ from your own still have merit.
well why don't you post up a link with a quote to back your post. Because a knife is an assault weapon, a rock can be an assault weapon, a car can be an assault weapon.
...and so can a semi-auto AR 15, as determined by the law.
so when asking for a ban, name the gun you want to ban. saying ban assault weapons is soooooo general, it implies much much more. And btw, there was a ban on rifles 1994 to 2004 and no statistics changed. so it did absolutely no good. So we have statistics on what a ban would do. And it doesn't solve a murder problem. Isn't that the objective to the rant?
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
"Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.
- Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
- Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “
An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” That report was the final of
three studies of the ban, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”"
I just saw the footage on Fox News as I was coming home. A reporter was sent to some anti-gun March, must of been a very blue state. He is asking a few of the young female protesters if they knew what an assault weapon is. But as expected, they had no clue!
