• capital@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    They say that because “assault rifle” has a definition which the vast majority of citizen owned AR-15s do not meet.

    Every time someone uses this term incorrectly, like now, it reinforces their perception that those opposed to gun ownership have no idea what they’re taking about regarding guns.

    To avoid this, we should be willing to at least look up the simplest of definitions.

    Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

    Then, usually, the response is “yeah well now we’re just splitting hairs/arguing about terms which doesn’t matter” to which I would respond “this thread started with arguing about terms”.

    • rigamarole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’re right, they have the same outer shell with a completely different firing mechanism. The best anyone can legally get (to my knowledge) is a binary trigger. It fires when pulled, fires when released.

      • BadEngineering@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Binary triggers are a drop in mod, as are rotary triggers that fire as long as you turn the crank. Forced reset triggers are another loophole that’s become popular, they physically reset the trigger so that as long as you pull with the right amount of force, not too much not too little, the gun will continue to cycle. Its also not hard to adapt an ar-15 to have an autosear. They mostly use the same trigger configuration as a full auto assault rifle, just with the auto-sear and selector switch missing. Its as simple as drilling 2 holes and then adding the 2 parts and a spring.

      • Perfide@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        A few years ago, maybe still, you could buy modified parts literally on Ebay to turn an AR-15 into a full auto, for really cheap. I have a family member who’s a conservative gun nut and bought one, so I can personally confirm it is legit that easy. Probably suuuper illegal, but clearly no one was(is?) keeping an eye on that kind of shit to even catch it.

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I always took it as the distinction between a moped and a motorcycle. Different even if a lot of the functionality is close.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I tend to agree. I wouldn’t give a fuck if the weapon I’m currently being shot at with is considered an assault rifle or not. It’s still just as capable of killing me.

        I’m just frustrated at people unwilling to update their definitions when provided good evidence that theirs is wrong.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.

      The smaller 5.56 round is an assault rifle round, this is to distinguish it from the previous larger battle rifle rounds.

      The AR-15 was designed with select fire. The ones sold to civilians don’t have this capability because it’s illegal.

      The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts. Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.

        I gave the definition that excludes what the vast majority of civilians own and gave a source.

        If you’re claiming the round is the only consideration then please source your claim.

        The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts.

        Also the US Army, which seems relevant.

        Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.

        And there it is. I’ll refer you to the last part of my initial comment. I can’t believe I pre-addressed this and it’s still a thing… lol.

        Except that’s not usually how this argument comes up. None of the nuts are saying, “but it’s not an assault rifle” when others claim guns kill people. It’s always a direct response to “AR’15’s are assault rifles”. My simple suggestion is to stop being incorrect about a simple term.

        Similarly to the way I, a techy IT guy in the industry for ~15 years, don’t want old farts who know fuck all about the internet to be regulating it or the way that women don’t want old men who know fuck all about reproductive health to regulate their bodies - It’s understandable for those who know what they’re talking about to not want ignorant people regulating their shit.

        But it’s not hard to just be aware of simple definitions…

        • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I’m always reminded of this loon when I hear well meaning idiots try to argue about assault rifles and magazine capacity:

          Rep. Degette said “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”