Clearly you failed writing as well, then. I don't see anywhere where you mentioned rifles with selective burst modes as being included under the term, and when I brought it up you worded your response in a way that differentiated an M16A2 or M16A4 from an assault rifle.

No I didn't. You said a burst-fire assault rifle would "simply be an M16," which implies that it is in someway an M16 but not an assault rifle. Then you said that M16s would be illegal, which again is a needless distinction that implies a difference between M16s and all other assault rifles.

I figured, but in this case I think it was a bit OVER-simplified, since the implication leaves out a massive portion of legitimate hunting and recreational weapons. No worries, though.

"You'll be hard pressed to convince anyone that MERE ownership of a weapon is enough to indict someone of a crime someone else commits with the weapon." This was the point I was originally addressing. Evidently it isn't too hard to do, since a country that ISSUES Sig 556 rifles to its citizens managed it. Now, onto…

Well, what would you say it should mean? Judging from your above post you think it should only apply to fully automatic weapons. We already have a term for that, though. It's "fully automatic".

An M16 IS an assault rifle, and it is not the only burst-fire assault rifle in the world, either. They are illegal for non-Class 3 tax stamp holders, but so are all other assault rifles.

There are a number of breach-loaded pistols, like Derringers. Additionally, most revolvers, whether single-action or double-action, are non semi-automatic since it is not the energy of the expended round that operates the firearm's mechanism.

And also, legally the term "assault weapon" has indeed included various semiautomatic weapons.

ARs can also be burst-fire only. M16A2 and M16A4 rifles only feature semi and three-round burst modes, and the first iteration of the M4 carbine also lacks full auto.

"You verified your qualification (or rather lack thereof) to offer an opinion with the "I hate guns" line."

"In essence, every gun that is not a fully automatic machine gun or a musket."

+ So, so many.

Switzerland (you know, that country gun-nuts like to constantly point to as evidence that gun-ownership can be safe-rainbow-land-fun-times) would like to disagree with you. Gun owners there are legally liable for crimes committed with their firearms.

That would be a Black Friday, indeed.

As importantly, would the number of attacks stopped by arming everyone and their mother outweigh the number of accidental deaths caused by flooding even more lethal firearms into society?

"People WILL continue to get a hold of guns..."

Alex is right! I mean, SERIOUSLY people! We made hand grenades illegal and now look where we are. CRIMINALS ARE ALWAYS USING HAND GRENADES! I can't count how many times I've seen a hand grenade crime and thought to myself, "Those damned fools, if only hand grenades were legal, we could have prevented this."

*idea*

No, would steal.

+1