Hey Malamute explain to me how a object "assaults" someone! It takes a person she could have been "assaulted " by a person but not by an object! The reason I brought it up is because it is one of those Buzzwords that "nonGun Owners" hear and paints us in a bad light is that what you want our rights stripped because we use a negative phrase?
Its not that the object does something all by itself, and that's not how the term or name came about, its what its
original intended purpose or use was. Denying that an object has a name derived from its original purpose isn't realistic, and the term isn't likely going to die out.
Some have tried to claim that the term was invented by anti-gun people, which is incorrect, just as denying that it exists by that name is incorrect. Who cares if its name is/was/derived from a particular term? I think denying it isn't realistic or smart, it makes us look like goobs to deny something exists that does. Falling into the blame the name game is playing by their rules. In common practice in the states (by the gun owning and manufacturing people before it became negatively politicized), it came to mean semi-auto versions of true select fire assault rifles, and was used pretty interchangeably for some time before it became a bad political word. I don't deny that the origin of certain guns was from assault type rifles, that isn't necessarily bad or wrong, nor is admitting or recognizing their obvious practical niche as a defensive arm. That isn't my primary use for them, it also isn't the only purpose they are good for (only good for shooting humans!!!
), contrary to the insistence of many that would deny them to the general public.
Most sporting arms are derived from "weapons of war" or are "military grade" so to speak. Nearly all modern sporting bolt actions are derived from military bolt action rifles, primarily the Mauser 1898. That means absolutely nothing to their use by citizens. Whether for hunting, defense, or any other lawful purpose, including assaulting evildoers. A large number of arms that succeeded commercially were "designed for war", but ultimately weren't successful in that role, or not primarily. That has nothing to do with their lawful use or legitimate ownership. Zero. Nothing. "Only
designed for killing humans" is a pejorative term often used. So what. We use things every day that werent their original design purpose or reason for existence. That's not all they are
used for, nor "
good for", though I also have to say that denying that any gun is a "weapon" is also silly. Any gun can obviously be so used, that doesn't have any bearing on its lawful use, which
may include use in a dire defensive situation.
Calling out incorrect use of all sorts of terms bandied about would be useful, were it possible. "Assault rifles" were unfortunately popularized (if incorrectly) before the gun prohibition folks targeted them. They make up all sorts of terms for shock value, like "military grade" "high caliber" (huh?), and many others. Its probably not effective to ask them to define terms correctly, they aren't interested in truth or factual correctness, but to try to deny "assault rifles" exist as a thing isn't helpful. Insisting on correct use of the term may be more useful. Somehow "semi-automatic" has come to have its own shock value, as if that was somehow extra-dangerously automatic-ish-ly-something-something super scary. And stuff. Like a SEMI-AUTOMATIC assault rifle was way worse than a normal assault rifle. Its a wonder anyone is left alive with all the scary stuff "on the streets".
Apologies for the sidetrack.