"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...

>> Good explanation, but I still think Lena need to justify and explain her
>> cockamamie statement:
>>
>> "Assault rifles are capable of taking out cars. That's my working
>> definition."
>>
>> I can "take out" a car with my .45 revolver or .40 S&W semi-auto, but no
>> matter what angle I hold them at and no matter how much I squint, neither
>> of
>> them looks anything like an assault rifle. Matter of fact, I have a
>> really
>> nice Smith & Hawken pitchfork with which I could easily puncture 4 holes
>> in
>> a car's radiator. Was this garden tool mislabeled in the catalog? Is it
>> really an assault rifle?
>
> no. when I said "take out" a car, I did not mean just sending a bullet
> straight through the car. I meant "disable the car for future use."
>
> Lena

Adding "future use" to the mix, almost any handgun with a minimum caliber of
..38 +P up to .45 would do as good a job as an "assault rifle". I will not
explain the reasons to you. Why? Because I believe it's a normal human trait
to want to learn more, through independent study, so as to stop embarrassing
yourself by saying ridiculous things.

The information you need is based on 100 year old science and is easily
available at your local library. Do not ask for web links.