Guns: how much longer will it take ....

You’ll never be clear as to what I’m talking about because it doesn’t serve you to ever be clear about it.

There is a reason that mass shooters prefer a certain type of weapon - almost always an AR15 or something similar.

oralloy wrote:

Stoner designed guns with full-auto capability for our soldiers. He did not try to foist any semi-auto-only guns onto the military.

Your ilk can probably bog everyone down with semantics and get away with it, but it doesn’t affect some simple truths.
An assault rifle is by definition capable of firing in automatic mode.
Semi automatic rifles are assault weapons. The operative word is assault.

The ability to fire large quantities of bullets as fast as you can pull a trigger is not something that was developed for sports or hunting though it can be used that way. The capability was developed for killing large numbers of people accurately and quickly. It was developed because of the needs of the soldier in combat.

Thus “military style assault weapon”. The only people who try to act like this is nebulous are you and your ilk. Just like everyone but dedicated perverts understand porn when they see it, everyone but deranged gun nuts understands what an assault weapon is when another mass shooter uses one.

The English longbow was once a military weapon too.

It's nowhere near the efficient battlefield killing instrument that an assault weapon is.

Quote:

It's nowhere near the efficient battlefield killing instrument that an assault weapon is.

No one is arguing that.

These weapons are evolutions of the M1 Garand, the semiautomatic rifle that became the standard issue battle rifle for the US military forces in WWII.

oralloy wrote:

The English longbow was once a military weapon too.

It's nowhere near the efficient battlefield killing instrument that an assault weapon is.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:

It's nowhere near the efficient battlefield killing instrument that an assault weapon is.

No one is arguing that.

Oralloy made the implication by comparison.

You'll never be clear as to what I'm talking about because it doesn't serve you to ever be clear about it.

There is a reason that mass shooters prefer a certain type of weapon - almost always an AR15 or something similar.

Within 10 days after their last mass shooting, New Zealand passed laws banning military style semiautomatic weapons.

It was very clear and concise. They made an exception for .22 caliber rifles with magazines that hold less than ten rounds, and shotguns with internal magazines that hold less than five rounds.

This kind of decisive action is impossible here only because people like you and Oralloy would rather play word games

while shooter after shooter chooses the same kind of semiautomatic rifle,

attaches a large capacity magazine to it, and murders more people.

Quote:

These weapons are evolutions of the M1 Garand, the semiautomatic rifle that became the standard issue battle rifle for the US military forces in WWII.

What point were you trying to make here?

The M1 Garand is no longer a battlefield weapon.

It was once a battlefield weapon, just as the English longbow was once a battlefield weapon. But now soldiers use weapons that are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

The semiautomatic AR-15 is not a battlefield weapon.