I said the exact opposite. The definition has nothing to do with appearance.Mad American wrote:Nice to know that you agree that all you and the gun control zealots have is a definition based in opinion on appearance. Again, it is the same as calling any woman a hooker simply because she adds heels and a short skirt.rstrong wrote:An assault rifle looks like anything the designer wants it to look like. Meanwhile a non-assault rifle can look like an assault rifle. You can buy BB guns and paintball guns that look just like assault weapons including the M16, which the shooter's AR-15 is a variation of.Mad American wrote:This thread is titled "lets have that discussion about guns". Seeing as how a lot of people are now calling for a ban on assault weapons I thought it might be good to see just how many folks can actually IDENTIFY an assault weapon.
The most pedantic purists will point out that the semi-automatic AR-15 counts meets the definition of an assault weapon, rather than an assault rifle. Those who are more realistic will point out that with the AR-15's high rate of fire, high-volume magazine and a muzzle velocity high enough to cause severe brain damage through hydrostatic shock even with a hit to a limb, there's effectively no difference.
In any case, see the links above. The shooter's AR-15 is indeed an assault weapon.
Not that anyone expected an honest response from you.