I guess @RepSwalwell is unable to answer this question.
This simply reinforces my suspicion that Swalwell uses “assault weapon” interchangeably with “semi-auto rifle.” He wants to legislate based on a rifle’s appearance and not the actual mechanics or caliber of the rifle. (1 of a few)
He and others know enough to stop short of saying “semi-auto rifles” so they use the vague and non-technical “assault weapon” descriptor as though they only mean some rifles and not all of them. Two problems with this. (2 of a few)
First, the majority of gun homicide is due to illegally possessed handguns. This is supported by FBI UCRs (2016 for example ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u… ) .
Second, the argument is inconsistent. Example: you want to ban a .223/5.56 but not a .308 or 30.06? Have you actually compared these rifles? See photo for reference. You’re arguing for an unknowledgeable ban of things based strictly on cosmetic appearances. 
The argument also completely excludes a multitude of contributing variables from consideration, like the recidivism rate, the percentage of homicide driven by prohibited possessors, a cultural rot eroding respect for life, etc etc. (cont)
Instead, people who claim to care so much for life and solutions, as you will see in the comments, would rather yell “WHORE!” and “TERRORIST!” at law-abiding gun owners than engage in any real good faith discussion on the issue, which is why we get nowhere.
Lastly, threatening (either seriously or even facetiously, progressives tell me nuance and euphemisms are dead and everything is literal in meaning) voters with nukes because you, not they, don’t understand the argument is both bad lawmaking and advocacy.
Lastly for real this time, the presence of a pistol grip doesn’t affect the velocity of a round. I’m not even sure why anyone would intimate such.
All of this is why Swalwell wouldn’t answer my question. It’s impossible without having to admit the goal is to ban all semi-auto firearms. /finis.
