Somewhat misused? It is understandable that the history of the "every-day" term is not generally known. Media and anti-gun groups have misused it for so long that it has become popular. But the "technical" term is generally accepted as referring to a true military-grade weapon with automatic fire capability. Originally Posted by roosterYou keep talking about the misuse of the term "assault weapon" as if it's even germane to the argument. It's not, really, but since you insist...
"Technically", there really is no clear-cut definition of what "assault weapon" even means. I assume it was given a definition as it referred to the law that no longer exists, but look up "assault weapon" and you won't get a singular definition. It's vague. Kind of like "beautiful people" or "great athlete". So even ignoring the extent to which such a vague term can be "misused", the issue over its supposed "misuse" is silly.
As to why i suggested your comment was lazy was, in part, for that very reason. But separate from that, as i read it, it came across as a comment that sounded strong, but in reality didn't have any real point.
Assume your comment is correct in that people are misled on what "assault weapon" means, and because of that they're led to believe millions more of them are on the streets than is actually the case. So what? If people want to ban assault weapons, and assault weapons are banned (based on whatever definition is used), then only assault weapons are going to be banned. And it doesn't matter if there are 2 million of them on the streets or 200. And it won't affect the weapons that we ignorant dumb-bells only think are assault weapons.
But it is like those who say "the data is in" rather than "the data are in." Just because 99.9 percent of people do not know that the word is plural does not mean that it is correct to keep saying it. It is ignorant. Mutual friends would agree.There's an open question as to whether "data" is a mass noun, singular or a count noun, plural. But that's a debate for another day. Tell your friends.
Millions of people know how to use them well enough to accomplish what this guy in Connecticut did. All of this stuff about "high-capacity magazines" and "rapid rates of fire" being inherently more deadly is a bunch of crap. A person reasonably competent with a 12 guage could slaughter dozens in minutes. Ask anyone who really understands firearms.You and others keep saying this, and i think you're resorting to some trickery when you do. So i'm going to ask you straight up.
Two equally competent people (of basic, average competence) walk into a mall. One holding a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, and the other holding an M16 and five 30 round magazines.
All else being equal in a 10 minute time period:
A)Who kills more people? And...
B)Who offers greater opportunity(ies) for bystanders to step in and subdue him?
I am really upset when innocent people get shot. But then I have to listen to asshats like Slaughter and Cuomo use those tragedies to further THEIR bias. Fuck....Fair enough. And that simply balances out my disgust for people who watch 20 6 and 7 year olds get massacred only to turn a blind eye while screaming "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment!" when, in reality, they don't give a rats ass about the 2nd Amendment - or any other amendment for that matter. At least to the extent that they'd be screaming just as loud about something else if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist.
No, what they really care about is their ability to go hunting, and their ability to whack off while staring at the gun-rack on their bedroom wall. All because they got their butts kicked in gym class back in 5th grade.
All your bitching, Rooster, and not one sentence out of you on how assault weapons (under whatever definition) are necessary for anything. Not for self defense. Not for hunting. Nothing. Hell, you've spent more time bitching about how the term "assault weapon" is used than you have defending the need to have assault weapons.
Not good enough.
