@ech

The term "assault rifle" has a very well defined and specific meaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition

It's a fully automatic firearm (select fire actually).

They use a bottleneck cartridge (the cartridge is where the powder is and is a larger diameter than the lead bullet projectile so that more force is applied to the projectile). It can produce more net energy to the projectile than a pistol round (which is used in sub-machine guns like an Uzi.

It's basic physics p = mv. Even though the bullet is a smaller diameter (smaller mass), like the 5.56 NATO, it delivers more energy than a 9mm pistol round used in a sub-machine gun because it has more powder to produce more velocity. So, e.g., a 9mm Parabellum pistol round produces about 500J of energy, while a smaller caliber 5.56 NATO produces about 1800J because it has more powder.

And since powder weighs less than lead, assault rifles can deliver more raw firepower with a lighter weapon.

But as I said, assault rifles are already banned in the US (unless you have a special permit) because they are fully automatic.

@Pat The term "assault weapon" has lost most of its meaning, unfortunately.

Yes: automatic/select-fire weapons are generally illegal in every state, and those are almost never used in "mass shootings" (probably because they're illegal and really hard to get).

However, this is not what people mean when they respond to shootings like in TN with "we need to ban assault rifles".

And it isn't what California means when it bans assault rifles. (It means things like flash suppressors and various safety features, because it's absurd.)

I think @freemo is objecting to this use of the term, not yours.

@ech

The term "assault weapon" never had a definite meaning, it was always ambiguous; probably to give politicians more wiggle room.

>'However, this is not what people mean when they respond to shootings like in TN with "we need to ban assault rifles".'

I'm not sure what people mean when they say things because I can't read their minds and people often lie these days.

When Pete Buttigieg was running in the Dem primaries in 2015 he needed to take a position on guns and he said he supported restrictions on "assault rifles". I'm pretty sure he knows the difference since he was recently a lieutenant in the Navy. He was likely trying to appeal to the Dem base (because they're ignorant about such things) while sending a dog whistle to the 2A supporters in the party (many of whom would understand exactly what he was saying).

I no longer even watch coverage of mass shootings anymore because I don't want to see a distorted view of what's going on in teams of actual numbers.

@freemo