AP Stylebook on "Assault Weapon," "Assault Rifle," and "Semi-Automatic Weapon"

I don't agree with everything in the AP Stylebook, but I think this guidance is sound (and I think it's generally useful for prominent media organizations to offer such suggestions to writers):

The Stylebook's weapons entry offers guidance on terms including semi-automatic rifle, assault rifle, assault weapon, military-style rifle and modern sporting rifle. pic.twitter.com/RvNrZp1lu2

— APStylebook (@APStylebook) July 13, 2022

Thanks to Alan Gottlieb (Second Amendment Foundation) for pointing this out.

Comments

[Archibald Tuttle]

They should also avoid adding "high powered" for no good reason.

[Eric VonSalzen]

Is there any cartridge above .22LR that ISN'T called "high powered"?

[BillyG]

.38 and 9mm? Although lunchbox from the Rittenhouse persecution tried to make FMJ sound more ominous than hollow points.

[Doug Huffman]

.17 Remington is ‘below’ .22 caliber and is definitely high powered.

.22 Long Rifle is a preferred assassins round, high powered enough.

Avoid Sorites Paradox of the heap in public discourse.

[Longtobefree]

Now all we have to do is wait for some "journalist" somewhere to actually follow those guidelines.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or make an effort to educate themselves about firearms in general before writing about them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Can't expect that, they think guns are morally suspect. Knowing the details of guns would be like, I don't know, maybe understanding the distinctions between and terms for various kinds of child porn. Even knowing that stuff demonstrates you're morally corrupt, unless you've got some legitimate job related reason for the knowledge, like being a soldier or cop.

And they're not so sure about the soldiers and cops.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or who is a man and who is a woman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My experience as a professional journalist disinclines me to expect or believe that strong journalists should be much in the market for pointers from gun nuts.

Or roundly bigoted culture war casualties.

Or disaffected, anti-social right-wing losers.

I imagine Newsmax, FreeRepublic, Breitbart, Stormfront, Gateway Pundit, Fox News, the Crusader, Red State, One America, and similar publishers would love to hear from the Volokh Conspiracy and its target audience, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, we don't need no education.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That show -- currently touring -- is worth traveling to see.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ivana Trump is dead. Wonder how your "journalists" will handle the story?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I bet she got the Trumpcine.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I have to disagree with them.

"Assault weapon" IS a politicized term with no definition beyond "What we want to ban next."

"Assault rifle", OTOH, is a legitimate technical term meaning a light rifle of intermediate caliber with select fire.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Yep, "assault rifle" is a well defined military term.

[tkamenick]

Yeah, the guide is an improvement, but they're showing their biases calling the actual, accurate term for something "highly politicized"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Like Inuit supposedly having eleven words for snow. We Americans are awash in these things and need a specialized vocabulary to tell them apart.

Next, guidance on distinguishing "mass shooting", "mass murder", "murder spree", "gun rampage", "racial massacre" and "school shooting".

[Brett Bellmore]

"Like Inuit supposedly having eleven words for snow."

Technically, they've got an agglutinative language, similar to German, where you make up words out of primitives. So the word for slushy snow would just be slushsnow, or something like that. It's kind of misleading counting the number of different words in an agglutinative language.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Yellowsnow

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We Americans are awash in these things and need a specialized vocabulary to tell them apart.

"“Oeuf” means egg, “chapeau” means hat. It's like those French have a different word for everything!"
~ Steve Martin

You really are a moron.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Explain to the rest of the world why we need such a specific vocabulary for multi killing guns and why we are the only nation with regular mass shootings (or whatever the word should be).

[Soronel Haetir]

Is there a link to the actual guidance as text somewhere? I am blind and my OCR isn't working on the graphic.

[John F. Carr]

It costs $29 per year for an individual to rent the AP style guide.

[John F. Carr]

The text in the graphic reads:

The preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for a subsequent shot, is a semi-automatic rifle. An automatic rifle continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed and until its ammunition is exhausted.

Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.

More detail is in the Stylebook's weapons entry.

[and for that weapons entry, pay $29 per year]

[Eric VonSalzen]

On the "news" the preferred term of art these days seems to be "gun violence". It doesn't matter so much who did the violence or why, it was the "gun" that did it. I'm waiting for a new description of D-Day.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sucks. I'm gradually going deaf, myself, and find myself frustrated over the fad for "podcasts" without meaningful transcripts. But at least I can read without mechanical assistance.

I imagine you appreciate the podcasts a lot more than I do.

[Soronel Haetir]

Actually, no. I hate listening to human speakers. Much prefer my synthesizer with the speed cranked up to "super-fast". (I have programs that can modify the speed of recorded audio that simultaneous lower the frequency so it doesn't sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks but they don't do nearly as good a job at it as the synthesizer).

[Brett Bellmore]

Podcasts: Not even preferred by the blind!

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I WILL REPLY TO YOU IN ALL CAPS GOING FORWARD!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Good on you, but I don't for the life of me know how you follow some of these comment threads.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.

Cannot agree with that part at all. The anodyne distinction which precedes it—to distinguish a semi-auto rifle from a fully-auto rifle is insufficient without more. For a reader unfamiliar with guns, it implies nothing else worth knowing distinguishes AR-style rifles from others. That is of course precisely the message gun advocacy types, including the NRA, want to indoctrinate the public with. They know better themselves.

In short, insisting on that as a limit to the description is itself highly politicized. In this case, the AP style tip misleads the part of the journalistic profession which is short of gun information. As a result, the AP inadvertently suggests an erroneous, NRA-friendly talking point become the journalistic standard.

The missing information is only slightly complex, and can be understood by anyone. What distinguishes an AR-style rifle from others is a specific combination of features. They are:

1. Semi-automatic operation;

2. Interchangeable magazines;

3. Light-recoil ammunition;

4. Ammunition sufficiently powerful to make an attack on a human efficiently lethal.

Other rifles may offer such features individually. If so, they do not add up to anything like the capacity for human assault that an AR-style rifle achieves by combining them all.

The first factor, semi-automatic operation is described accurately above, but not sufficiently. There needs to be comparison to alternatives, to show what that feature adds to the final comparison. Alternatives to semi-auto operation include principally bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, and various configurations to open the gun for single- or double-shot manual loading, as with double-barreled rifles and shotguns.

None of those methods enables a shooter, and especially a relatively inexperienced shooter, to fire repeatedly as quickly as does the semi-automatic action. In the hands of most shooters, repeat fire with a semi-auto will happen at a rate at least several times faster than with any of the alternatives.

The semi-automatic advantage does not end there, however. Semi-automatic operation uses some of the energy generated by the expansion of gas which drives the bullet down the barrel to operate the process which ejects the spent cartridge, to reload a fresh cartridge, and to cock the gun for the next shot. Crucially, energy employed that way is subtracted from the recoil experienced by the shooter. Compared to all other actions, that delivers two advantages: less disruption of continuous aim; and less physically punishing shooting for the rifleman. A corollary third advantage becomes optionally available as a result. The gun itself can be made lighter in weight. Gun designers rarely choose to make light-weight arms if they expect recoil to be a factor, because a light-weight arm makes recoil both harder to manage and more painful.

Interchangeable magazines are another force multiplier. Magazine size has been distractingly over-emphasized. That matters little if a pre-loaded magazine—even one of modest size—can be rapidly substituted when its predecessor is empty. When interchangeable magazines are added to the mix, however, very-rapid fire made possible by semi-automatic operation becomes very-rapid sustained fire, continuously available with interruptions of only a few seconds, at most.

Light recoil ammunition is key. It further addresses the problem of continuous aim. When firing a rifle, recoil disrupts aim. With rapid repeat fire each shot in succession drives the point of aim farther from the target, typically by deflecting the barrel upward. Military experience taught gun designers that few shooters could make use of standard military rifle cartridges—designed to deliver heavy bullets accurately at long ranges—in any rapid-fire hand-held configuration, but especially not for fully-automatic fire. That insight was a key factor in the development of the military assault rifle—which in its earlier incarnations typically fired less-powerful pistol bullets—and the new development was passed on to AR-style weapons. They now usually come equipped to fire standard military cartridges which have been redesigned for actual fully-automatic assault rifles, and thus deliver minimal recoil.

That re-design delivered a second lethality-enhancing advantage. The new bullets are lighter in weight, and smaller in size than the ones they replaced. That makes it possible for a shooter to carry more of them. It also makes them less expensive to manufacture.

Efficiently lethal ammunition means what it says. Gun advocates disingenuously scorn critics when the critics refer to, "high-powered," assault weapons. That is because the gun advocates understand that older military-standard ammunition (and much hunting ammunition) was notably more powerful than the cartridges typically used in an AR-style rifle. The previous ammunition was designed that way to maximize long-range performance, which was later judged less necessary, and even found to be an impediment to combat efficiency. It was military experts who decided the new less-powerful cartridges could feature in a more-lethal overall package, by taking advantage of the combination of factors mentioned above, and especially so when the formula for the new ammunition was a design to shoot a relatively light-weight bullet at especially high velocity.

So how much power does an AR-style rifle actually deliver, by the standard measure of foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle? Well, less than the formerly standard .308 NATO cartridge. But notably more than the most powerful handgun in common use—the formidable .44 magnum revolver.

Thus, here is the entire difference summarized: relatively few shooters are comfortable carrying or firing a .44 magnum revolver. Too big, too much weight, too much recoil. And only six shot before reloading, with no interchangeable magazine option. What an AR-style rifle delivers with its unique combination of features (and what no other weapon can do as well) is to put in hand more lethal power than a shooter can get from the .44 magnum pistol, combined with an easy-to-master shooting experience available even to novice shooters, with a higher rate of fire, with more sustained fire capability, with far better long-range capability, and better accuracy.

Nothing else available matches that combination. The AP style tip blunders when it parrots NRA talking points, apparently without realizing it is doing so.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

4. Ammunition sufficiently powerful to make an attack on a human efficiently lethal.

As opposed to...inefficiently lethal? Joe Biden says 9mm will blow your lungs out. I mean, how much more efficient can you get? By the way, that and the other numbered items that accompany it are true of any magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle chambered for intermediate cartridges (for instance, the Ruger Mini-14, among many others) that are not "AR-15 style" rifles, nor are they generally referred to as "assault weapons" (and they're definitely not "assault rifles"), even by most of the gun control crowd.

Interchangeable magazines are another force multiplier. Magazine size has been distractingly over-emphasized. That matters little if a pre-loaded magazine—even one of modest size—can be rapidly substituted when its predecessor is empty.

Uh, that's not what "interchangeable magazine" means, you pompous windbag.

You're more full of shit than the average septic system.

[Grifhunter]

How about this: a gun that can SIMULTANEOUSLY fire twelve to twenty four .22 to .33 lead projectiles in ONE SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER!!!!! OMG. And has a magazine that can hold 4-8 shells containing those projectiles. So that in say just five pulls of the trigger, 45 to a 100 projectiles are fired in under 3 seconds, with those rounds traveling faster than the speed of sound. Makes you crap your statist pants at just the thought, huh?

Well, its called a pump shotgun and has been around since 1898, and will chew up a room, church or store just as fast as an AR. And its what you'll come for next. We know it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Grifhunter — Are you really dense enough to suppose I do not know about buckshot and pump shotguns? In previous threads I advocated for shotguns as home defense weapons. I did that because I understand what you do not—that shotguns are notably less useful for mass murder than AR-15 style rifles.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Your initial comment leaves no doubt how ignorant you are about guns in general and ARs in particular.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Well, less than the formerly standard .308 NATO cartridge."
Also, not true.
. 308 was a Winchester commercial round. 7,62x51 became the standard NATO round (now being replaced with 5.56x45mm)

[Longtobefree]

A very wordy description of a Ruger 10/22.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Longstobefree — I was clear. AR-15 with .223 is more powerful than a .44 magnum pistol. And it puts that level of killing power at the disposal of weak and unskilled shooters. The .22 LR features about 10% of the muzzle energy of the .223. They are not comparable, and your comment is not serious.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Ya ya, and A-bombs are not as powerful as H-bombs.

Wanna volunteer to be shot by a .22LR and tell us how less lethal it was? A .22LR will do just fine in all the mass shootings I have heard of, except the Whitman tower sniper, and even then, I wouldn't volunteer as a test subject.

What a maroon.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf — Go out and kill some game with various gun loads. After you get first-hand experience, and have seen and compared tissue destruction which a .22LR inflicts, with what a .22 magnum rimfire inflicts, with what a .223 AR-15 inflicts, we can have a conversation which will not be a silly waste of time.

You write like someone who has only seen guns kill on television. You apparently do not understand the role of happenstance in shooting injuries, or the way that projectile energy affects the outcomes of injury processes which are inherently more random than uniform. Bullet placement matters. That said, all gunshots are potentially lethal. More bullet energy means more tissue destruction, more lethality, and more severe permanent disability among those who survive their wounds.

The differences are not small. There is more to this subject than you apparently understand. Go get some first-hand experience using a gun to kill game.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, yeah, but what does all that have to do with Section 230?

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. Semi-automatic operation;"

That's almost all rifles.

"2. Interchangeable magazines;"

Virtually all rifles feature this. Heck, I have a bolt action shotgun that has this.

"3. Light-recoil ammunition;"

More the rule than the exception.

"4. Ammunition sufficiently powerful to make an attack on a human efficiently lethal."

So, anything more than a BB gun.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, after I say it is the specific combination of those features which makes the AR-15 the menace that it is, there is no point coming back to cite those features used separately. If you want to address my point, try to come up with something relevant, to show where I am wrong about the AR-15.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No, you only illustrated your ignorance of guns in general and ARs in particular. You have had several responses showing your errors, and have not responded to them.

[PeteRR]

The M-1 Carbine is an assault weapon under your definition. A rifle that's been on sale in the US since WWII.

The Mini-14 also fits your criteria. Been on sale since the '70s.

Neither one is banned under the various state AW laws. Or under the '94 federal AW ban. Why? For cosmetic reasons. Both sport wooden furniture.

[Stephen Lathrop]

PeteRR — What's your point? Under my criteria both probably should be treated alike with the AR-15. As you suggest, they do combine the features on my list.

Notable differences compared to the AR-15 do include less powerful ammunition for the carbine, and a lower practical rate of fire. The Ruger Mini-14 I have a small bit of experience with. My brother bought one of the first sold. Subjective impression was that it was notably inaccurate, and had an action which worked slowly. I doubt anyone would trade an AR-15 to get either of them.

I opposed previous bans based on meaningless descriptive characteristics because the bans made no sense, and were doomed from the start to fail at their purpose.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is that you've constructed criteria that declare almost all rifles to be "assault weapons", on the basis of features which are generally useful for legitimate purposes.

It's like declaring a model of car an "assault vehicle" because it has four wheels, an internal combustion engine, and uses a door to allow entry.

Your definition only makes sense if you wanted to maximize how many common guns get called "assault weapons".

[Stephen Lathrop]

So far, commenters have identified 3 designs which meet the criteria of combining all the features. One of those designs is basically obsolete, another is a niche seller. Neither performs to the AR-15 standard of feature integration.

Note once again, I am not saying that a gun which has any of those features is an assault weapon. I am saying a gun which combines them all is an assault weapon, because it is that combination which largely defines assault weapon capabilities—especially with regard to defining them with regard to civilian use in public.

I do not understand why this is hard for you.

[Sharper]

You've posted quite the ignorant comment. "What distinguishes an AR-style rifle from others is"... actually the manufacturer. The AR in AR-15 (and other similar rifle names, like the AR-10 or AR-19) stands for Armalite Rifle, similar to how AK- stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova, otherwise known as a "Kalashnikov" after the original designer.

Having AR- in a rifle name has nothing to do with the features you mention. As the style guide notes, that part of a rifle's name "convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon."

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Way to go -- write so many fallacies all in one go that no one will take the time to even read it, much less rebut it. Just for starters, this is utter bullshit:

What distinguishes an AR-style rifle from others is a specific combination of features. They are:

1. Semi-automatic operation;

2. Interchangeable magazines;

3. Light-recoil ammunition;

4. Ammunition sufficiently powerful to make an attack on a human efficiently lethal.

There are all sorts of rifles and handguns with those features, especially the first two, which are not ARs, and there are some ARs without any or all of those features. Your ignorance is amazing.

Semi-auto has been around commonly since around 1900, and in prototype form hundreds of years before, long before the Armalite company even existed to invent their Armalite Rifle.

Interchangeable magazines are similarly old.

Your last two features are contradictory.

Your light recoil feature is more a function of rifle weight and recoil system than the ammunition.

Your powerful round feature is meaningless; you can buy .22LR ammo with primer only, one of the weakest rounds available, and I sure as heck wouldn't volunteer to be shot by it.

Your ignorance is wondrous to behold. I wonder if you pasted that from some Bloomberg playbook.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf — In short, the only way you can argue against what I said is to pretend I didn't say half of it.

Like essentially all the pro-gun advocates here, you know exactly what I am saying, you know what I say is accurate, but you do not want to be seen conceding the point.

But your point about recoil deserves comment. You can buy an AR-style rifle chambered for .308 ammunition. Very few people do that. Also, there is this:

In 1961, marksmanship testing compared the AR-15 and M-14; 43% of ArmaLite AR-15 shooters achieved Expert, while only 22% of M-14 rifle shooters did. Le May ordered 80,000 rifles. In July 1962, operational testing ended with a recommendation for adoption of the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle chambered in .223 Remington. In September 1963, the .223 Remington cartridge was officially accepted and named "Cartridge, 5.56 mm ball, M193". The following year, the ArmaLite AR-15 was adopted by the United States Army as the M16 rifle and it would later become the standard U.S. military rifle. —Wikipedia

Twice the practical accuracy, despite the .308's reputation as an outstandingly accurate load for snipers. What do you think accounted for that? Why did the U.S. military make the switch?

Just for your info, the M-14 is listed as 9.2 pounds. The AR-15 as 6.55 pounds. Other things equal, lighter rifles recoil harder. But the AR-15 has half the muzzle energy of the M-14. So much less recoil with weight held constant.

You call me ignorant. I owned a beautiful little lever-action Browning, chambered for .308. I kept it just long enough to learn it kicked so hard I would never be able to shoot it without flinching. I switched to a heavier Ruger .270 and started shooting accurately. Recoil matters.

But why am I arguing, when you say this:

Your powerful round feature is meaningless; you can buy .22LR ammo with primer only, one of the weakest rounds available, and I sure as heck wouldn't volunteer to be shot by it.

If you had your choice with a kid in school, and an active shooter, you say it makes no difference, .22LR primer only, or .223 AR-15? You don't even take yourself seriously.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Name one mass shooting, other than the Whitman tower, where a .22LR would not have done as much damage. Most are in classrooms or malls, short range. Are you seriously suggesting a .22LR is not dangerous as 10 or 20 feet?

[Mr. Bumble]

"So how much power does an AR-style rifle actually deliver, by the standard measure of foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle? Well, less than the formerly standard .308 NATO cartridge. But notably more than the most powerful handgun in common use—the formidable .44 magnum revolver. "

Absolutely meaningless statement. Ar style rifles are chambered for all types of ammunition. Ammunition makers offer multiple combinations of bullet types and weights and powder loads all of which affect performance. Also, why compare a rifle to a handgun: apples and oranges. And Dirty Harry not withstanding the .44 Magnum is no longer the most powerful handgun available.

[Grifhunter]

And just a reminder, the .223/5.56 round is overwhelmingly disdained as under-powered and not suitable for use in hunting deer.

[Mr. Bumble]

..in fact prohibited in many areas.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And yet more powerful than a .44 magnum pistol for killing humans. What do you make of that, Grifhunter? Or is it possible you do not even know it is true?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

What difference does all that power make at typical mass shooting distances? None.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf — If your descriptions and conjectures about mass shootings were accurate, there would be no survivors from any of them. You do not know what you are talking about.

If you cannot bring yourself to kill game, see if you can find an ER trauma surgeon who has seen a lot of gun injuries. Ask how gun injuries present, how unpredictable they are, and what factors seem to affect outcomes.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Your refusals to answer simple questions are more and more involved.

Are you willing to be shot by a .22LR in a classroom?

Why do you think a 5.56/.223 is so much more deadly than a .22LR in a classroom mass shooting?

[David Nieporent]

If your descriptions and conjectures about mass shootings were accurate, there would be no survivors from any of them.

Or maybe — just maybe — whether one survives depends not so much on the ammunition used (or the firearm, for that matter), but more on where one is hit and how quickly one gets treated?

[Bruce Hayden]

Guess what? I have a .44 Magnum lever gun set up as a bear gun. Something that I would not do with a 5.56/.223 AR-15. And, yes, there is more recoil in a 44 mag rifle, than in a 5.56 rifle. Significantly more.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hayden — Lever gun. More recoil from a less powerful cartridge. One of the points I made. Thanks for the help. And of course, it could be that your .44 magnum fired from a longer barrel is a good deal more powerful than the pistol I had used as an example.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Even less recoil in a .22LR rifle, which you apparently think is much less dangerous than a .223 AR at classroom shooting distances; yet you refuse to volunteer to be shot by one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf — Mainly because the .22LR delivers far less tissue destruction than the .223 fired by the AR-15.

Also because the AR-15 is a more formidable weapon to keep law enforcement at bay.

Police body armor reliably stops .22LR. Normal police body armor will not stop .223.

Wikipedia and other sources report protection against .223 from normal military grade body armor is iffy, depending on bullet velocity, what bullet is used, and where the bullet strikes the armor. There may be higher-standard armor still. I am not expert in any of that. You can see for yourself that police reluctance to confront shooters armed with AR-15 rifles has become notorious.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Police body armor reliably stops .22LR. Normal police body armor will not stop .223."

Police body armor will not stop any rifle cartridge larger/more powerful than a .22LR.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Police body armor comes in several levels of protection.
Most common police body armor is rated for the most common handgun rounds encountered on the street, and are not rated for rifle rounds or velocities.
The body armor capable of stopping rifle rounds including 5.56x45mm NATO/.223 Remington and up are bulkier, heavier, not suitable for everyday wear and are usually reserved for SWAT and other special service units.

[Stephen Lathrop]

àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf — Your repeated insistence that I volunteer to be shot is measure of the stupidity of your commentary. It shows you have no substantive response to anything I have said. It does not in the least show that the .22LR is comparably dangerous in a mass shooting situation as the AR-15 .223.

You have no first-hand experience with the wounds gunshots inflict. You apparently know no one with medical expertise to set you straight. You are obviously unwilling to listen to me. Stop wasting my time. Fix yourself if you can.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You have no first-hand experience with the wounds gunshots inflict. You apparently know no one with medical expertise to set you straight."

Don't recall you citing your' experience.

[David Nieporent]

He has looked at a few satellite photos.

[gVOR08]

Kurt Vonnegut was a POW held in Dresden when the allies firebombed the city. His experience was the basis for his novel, "Slaughterhouse Five". He visited the city after the war and told of a taxi driver who spent some time telling him all the details about the RAF Mosquito fighter-bomber and it's 20mm autocannons that shot out the rose window on the cathedral. Vonnegut had other Germans similarly go deep into the technical details of the destruction all around them. Vonnegut recognized that it as a way to avoid talking, or thinking, about other things.

Admittedly "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" are not technically correct, although everyone knows exactly that they mean in context. Personally, I prefer "pretend assault rifle" which is both technically correct and captures something of the psychology. But whatever you call them, a bunch of cops in Uvalde, with comparable weapons and body armor, were sure afraid of one. And it sure killed a lot of kids. But I guess you guys would rather talk about something else. Anything else.

[Longtobefree]

You keep referring to a thing called Kenosha; what is that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"'Mass murder": A murder in Massachusetts.

"Mass shooting": What occurs on a firing range

"Murder Spree": A normal day at an abortion clinic

"Gun Rampage": Nonsensical. Guns are inanimate objects, and can't "rampage".

"Racial Massacre": A normal weekend in Chicago that the media doesn't really cover.

"School shooting": A filming event at a school

[BillyG]

Probably means Waukesha

[MatthewSlyfield]

Kenosha is a city and a county in the SE corner of the state of Wisconsin. The southern edge of Kenosha county is on the Wisconsin/Illinois state line. The eastern edge is Lake Michigan.

However, the Christmas parade attack referred to happened in Waukesha, about 36 miles (straight line) north west of Kenosha (52 miles driving distance).