This is an interesting take, although it does raise a question about what else Visa could block and what kind of activism we'd be okay with them dabbling in.
Exactly what I'm sure is being discussed in boardrooms right now.
But good lord it grinds my gears whenever someone uses the term "assault weapon" and I know that's the wrong thing to focus on but please at least have some familiarity with the subject you are writing about.
Speaking as the former owner of an assault weapon,
get over it.
A guy I know and respect well, whom I have ended up on the wrong side of a debate many times, used to say "the first person to argue semantics has lost." And while yeah, Richard Speck killed eight people with just a bayonet the fact of the matter is, military-derived semiautomatic long guns are disproportionately represented in mass slayings.
You can want everyone on the planet to call it "bath tissue" because fuckin' hell Puff's doesn't make Kleenex, but the world's gonna keep calling it Kleenex regardless of the manufacturer because here in this modern world that's the term we've settled on. If the audience has a very clear picture of what an "assault weapon" is, you do not serve them by insisting it's an "AR-15 style semiautomatic firearm." Especially when the whole reason we mince words about "assault weapons" is because the NRA wants us to.
Phillip Peterson, a gun dealer in Indiana and the author of “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons” (2008), said he had fought with his publishers over the use of the term in the title, knowing that it would only draw the ire of the gun industry.
After the passage of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons, Mr. Peterson said, the gun industry “moved to shame or ridicule” anyone who used “assault weapon” to describe anything other than firearms capable of full automatic fire.
His instinct proved correct: The National Rifle Association refused to sell the book on its Web site, he said. So in 2010, Mr. Peterson produced another version that contained “90 percent of the same info,” but was retitled “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Tactical Rifles.” That book made it onto the N.R.A. site, he said.
That '94 ban? exempted 650 different weapons and required two of five if not specifically exempted: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash surpressor, grenade launcher(!). It was a tortuous way to enact law, especially as the term "assault rifle" (storming rifle) was coined by Hitler for this guy:
Can you hunt deer with an AR-15? Sure you can. Is that the AR-15's primary purpose? No it is not. So we can dance around with terms all day long but it doesn't change the fact that even the cartridge used in common "AR-15 style semiautomatic firerarms" is designed to turn humans into hamburger.
Run an experiment and report back to science. Open a word .doc and put a picture of a .223 Savage, a Remington 1100, a Colt 1911 and a Bushmaster .223 on it. Now go wander your local mall and ask random passers-by which one's the assault weapon. For bonus points, ask which ones should be banned. Regardless of the individual scores, we know which picture's gonna have the highest number.
We all know what we're talking about... and the people not interested in splitting hairs are all outta patience. After Sandy Hook, they were pointing at the Port Arthur massacre which led to Australia banning semi-autos. Now they're looking at Dunblane which led the UK to ban semi-autos and handguns.