Summary
At a Lafayette, Indiana anti-Trump rally Saturday, a man pulled an assault-style rifle after clashing with protesters who blocked his truck at a Third Street intersection.
Video shows the man in a MAGA hat yelling at protesters, prompting another man—angered by the confrontation with women—to intervene.
The two exchanged shouts before the protester headbutted the man. He returned to his truck, retrieved a rifle, and reentered the crowd.
Police detained but released him, citing self-defense. The “Hands Off!” rally drew nearly 1,000 people and ended early amid safety concerns.
The source loses my respect for calling it an “assault rifle” when it almost certainly was not. This summary (which I assume was written by MicroWave) calls it an “assault-style rifle”, which has no meaning at all.
This is not an assault rifle, and not fully automatic. If it was, the gun’s existence would have been almost certainly illegal.
Words have meaning. The meaning in this case is important. Use your words.
At this point it’s difficult to take this critique seriously when right wing gun nuts use arguing over minutiae like this to prevent any kind of constructive discussion whatsoever.
Yes, there is a technical definition of an “assault rifle”. It’s also a shorthand that regular people not familiar with firearms use to mean “gun that looks like something the military carries” or something approaching that. It’s not even relevant here. We do not need to break up every single discussion involving firearms with arguments over meaningless definitions.
they do it to intentionally derail the conversation. Fuck them.
deleted by creator
Who fucking cares
“…which has no meaning at all.”
OK. So I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out a donut and gives it to me, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.
Next, I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out an assault-style rifle, waves it around, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.
Yeah, words have meaning. What part of returning to his vehicle, pulling out a firearm and threatening the protesters with it did you fail to attach meaning to?
He threatened assault with a rifle. The fact that we don’t know if the firearm was legally classified as an assault rifle, in any sane location on earth, would be immaterial.
Or are you worried that he may be confused with someone who could have got a few more shots off into the crowd before being disarmed or killed, due to their faster firing firearm with rifled barrel?
What would you call it?
A rifle
why not just say “a gun” then? why attempt any amount of specificity that folks who aren’t firearm nerds might still possibly understand to any extent?
The article says “gun” seven times. It’s accurate and gets the point across about his crime, unlike “assault rifle”, which falsely states that he had an illegal type if gun.
“Rifle” is a word that everyone knows is a type of gun. Even if not everyone knows the specifics, news people should at least look up the word before using it if they don’t know. It’s wrong for news people to use falsely the phrase “assault rifle” because of their ignorance.
What was the actual model of rifle that this article discusses?
Nobody knows. The police didn’t say. There are no photos close enough to identify it.
So how do you know it wasn’t literally an assault rifle?
Because assault rifles (or any fully automatic rifles) are highly illegal in the US, and very rare in practice. If it was an assault rifle, its existence would have been as notable of a crime as his brandishing and threatening. The police would have been unlikely to let him go, would likely have confiscated the gun, and would have reported all that to the media.
It was a rifle, used for an assault, ergo, an assault rifle.