As usual, imprecise language around firearms and related laws.
It starts with the correct (but nebulous) usage of “assault-style rifles”, and then just reverts to plain “assault rifles” for the rest of the article. By definition, assault riflesmust be capable of selective fire (burst/full-auto), and without even looking up any numbers I can guarantee “Assault rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s are the types of guns which have been used in some of the most high-profile school shootings” is not an accurate claim if they’re talking about the US. It’s also not accurate to say that assault rifles are currently legal in HI.
He supported the bill saying its prohibition on the number of bullets a gun can fire at a time would limit fatalities in the event of a shooting, and would allow the police to get to the scene before more people could be killed.
Talking about the “number of bullets” gives the impression they are referring to selective fire, but if that was the case it realistically wouldn’t have an appreciable effect on the time saved for police to get to the scene (and then idly stand around if occurring in TX) – think along the lines of 2 seconds to mag dump vs. 15 seconds. The quote makes more sense if talking about magazine capacity which is usually talked about in relation to “assault weapon” restrictions.
said the bill would criminalize existing owners of assault rifles, per Hawaii News Now.
She said: "Now, by their mere possession, because we decide to pass this bill, we decide to label them as criminals and that to me, it’s unethical and should not be tolerated by this body.
Legal select fire firearms are already exceedingly rare across the US due to federal laws, I suspect the quotes are talking about owners of standard semi-auto rifles with 16"+ length barrels and not specially licensed armorers or law enforcement with exemptions to make/own actual assault rifles.
We use different words to mean different things, and being sloppy about it in important subjects is extra frustrating to say the least.
As usual, imprecise language around firearms and related laws.
It starts with the correct (but nebulous) usage of “assault-style rifles”, and then just reverts to plain “assault rifles” for the rest of the article. By definition, assault rifles must be capable of selective fire (burst/full-auto), and without even looking up any numbers I can guarantee “Assault rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s are the types of guns which have been used in some of the most high-profile school shootings” is not an accurate claim if they’re talking about the US. It’s also not accurate to say that assault rifles are currently legal in HI.
Talking about the “number of bullets” gives the impression they are referring to selective fire, but if that was the case it realistically wouldn’t have an appreciable effect on the time saved for police to get to the scene (and then idly stand around if occurring in TX) – think along the lines of 2 seconds to mag dump vs. 15 seconds. The quote makes more sense if talking about magazine capacity which is usually talked about in relation to “assault weapon” restrictions.
Legal select fire firearms are already exceedingly rare across the US due to federal laws, I suspect the quotes are talking about owners of standard semi-auto rifles with 16"+ length barrels and not specially licensed armorers or law enforcement with exemptions to make/own actual assault rifles.
We use different words to mean different things, and being sloppy about it in important subjects is extra frustrating to say the least.