• @thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    An assault rifle is full auto, or burst fire, a machine gun basically. That’s also the case in every video game I’ve played. You can own them if you get a special federal license, it’s expensive so there aren’t many out there. Guys will set up businesses charging people $50 to shoot one for a few minutes. That’s probably what you saw on YouTube. No mass shooting in recent history was done with an assault rifle.

    An assault weapon is an imaginary legal term created during the Clinton administration so it could look like they were doing something about gun violence. The awb defines assault weapons using superficial cosmetic items like a bayonete mount, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, etc. The same gun with 2 of these is legal, 3 of them and suddenly it’s illegal despite no functional changes to the gun. Assault weapons and the assault weapon ban were idiotic ineffective political theater.

    Mass shootings are usually carried out with a semi-auto rifle, which means it automatically reloads the chamber and is ready to fire another round as fast as you can pull the trigger. The most popular one is the ar-15. It’s the standard semi-auto rifle, they’re everywhere because they’re cheap, common, and reliable. They show up in mass shootings because they’re so common, not because they’re necessarily dealer than any other semi auto rifle. The AR stands for “armalite rifle”. It’s the civilian version of the M-16 assault rifle.

    • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Also they sunset the AWB because it didn’t do shit…VA tech and Columbine happened during the AWB…it was shit legislation based off emotional dribble.

      • @IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can you provide proof of this claim? Because all I have ever seen is statistical proof that it did in fact work, and that’s why Republicans needed to sunset it.

        • @SonOfSuns@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          My understanding is that it was quite effective and no one reversed it, rather, the law was written to only be in effect for 10 years, then the law expired because Congress did not renew it. If someone has good sources on this though (it’s effectiveness, ineffectiveness, whatever), I’m very interested to read more about it.

          • @IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            According to whom, and by what standard? That’s a really generic and platitudinous statement you have made there. What do you consider to be “preventing mass shootings”? Should there be a clause in there that says “please dont commit mass shootings!”?