The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.
Well, you have to realize that this is basically an opinion piece, with absolutely no statistics or evidence to confirm these claims. I have lived in large cities all over LA, and the vast majority of gang related crimes I hear reported involve pistols. So if you can find some proof of your claims with evidence, I would appreciate it.
Oh, and many of those weapons listed are not "Assault Rifles", specifically the TEC-9 and Uzi. Those are sub-machine guns, or "machine pistols", not "Assault Rifles" at all.
Oh, and those weapons you just listed? None of them was used in Stockton. That was a Type 56 (Chinese AK copy) and a Taurus PT-92, a Brazilian copy of the Beretta. Not an Uzi, not a TEC-9. So basically the claims made are all pretty much busted. Columbine had a TEC-9, but not an Uzi. And at Columbine they had many weapons, including shotguns and bombs.
In what well regulated militia are you actively serving?
US Army.
Educate yourself further on the subject before you issue more incorrect statements about firearms.
This is why I so often laugh at such claims. They are made by people that are totally ignorant in weapons. Much like the earlier claims that it is the round, then the same person turns right around and mentions weapons that use pistol ammunition.
Shifting definitions, shifting qualifications, not any kind of real answer.
Perhaps we need to clarify what an assault RIFLE as opposed to an assault WEAPON means. My understanding is that an assault rifle is capable of automatic or burst fire, with a detachable magazine, firing an intermediate cartridge, and is generally issued to armed forces.
An assault weapon is something slightly less effective as a killing machine, but with the features pictured in James' confused OP.
Many assault weapons such as the Bushmaster, come in different configurations depending of which state's restrictions you wish to avoid.
Nope, wrong. And several people (including me) have already posted the definitions in various states as well as the US of what an "Assault Rifle" is.
Any sutomatic or burst weapon does not count, because these are already prohitited by other laws.
MAC-10 and the Uzi fire pistol cartridges, not an "intermediate cartridge" at all.
And a great many weapons fall under the shifting definitions. What if I made an M-16 clone, chambered it to 9mm, and installed an internal 100 round drum that is fixed to the weapon? By following your definition, it is no longer an "assault weapon". But it can kill far more people then a standard M-16.
Heck, in the hands of somebody who is trained, a bolt action rifle is far more deadly then a semi-automatic one. Why do you think the majority of snipers use bolt action weapons?
I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.
You claim to be a hunter, fine. How many hunters do you know that use the M1 or a variant of it for hunting?
A lot of them, I know that is one of the rifles my uncle uses. In California, that is an "Assault Rifle". And no question, it was designed for the US Army, for killing Germans, Italians and Japanese.
I can take offensive action and storm just about any place I want with a Ruger 10/22, or a baseball bat. I could even do it with a bolt-action weapon like the M-1903 Springfield.
It is not the weapon that does the assault, it is the person. And trust me when I say I could kill a lot more people with a Springfield then some moron with an "Assault rifle" doing "spray and pray".
Why? Because I am trained, I have the experience, and I would operate smartly. Heck, in 2002 we had 9 killed and 3 wounded, pretty much one at a time by such an individual. Operated at a distance, killed one at a time from hiding, and moved on. If not for cops getting lucky the Betlway Sniper may have killed a lot more people. And yes, he used an M-16, but people like Charles Whitman did even better, with much older weapons.