Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting

[sofa king]

195. The headline, at least, is simply incorrect.

The AWB would have covered components of the rifle, not the rifle itself as implied by the article headline and not very clearly spelled out in the article, either. If I can point that out in two sentences, you know gungeoneers will, too.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the one component that clearly facilitated the shooter was the high-capacity magazine, untold numbers of which were grandfathered into the AWB law and comparatively easy to get even when it was in effect.

Other components covered under the AWB might actually have inhibited the shooter's ability to kill. A collapsible stock would have made the gun less accurate and he may have sent more bullets out of the killing zone. Using a bayonet would have kept the weapon focused on only one person for a few seconds, instead of on hundreds, and might have given someone the chance to jump him. And so on, the point being that the AWB would have scarcely inhibited this shooter's ability to kill with virtually the same gun.

Like I said, go around spitting the disinformation (in the headline, if we must split hairs) and you will be instantly discredited by the people who know better.

And again, for the people in the back, I am not arguing in favor of guns, dammit! I am pointing out that if you take this bullshit article to a gun control debate, you are going to lose and reverse the progress of your cause.