|
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
None of the bold are functionally different from each other in terms of what's available for US civilians to legally own. What you're talking about here is one of the key things that people get caught on emotionally when they don't have an understanding of the subject matter because it's one of those things that seems right, and it's with the best of intentions, but that's not what's reflected in reality.
This sounds like you're saying "You're wrong, I'm right, because I know something that you don't know, and I'm not gonna tell you what it is". That pretty much sums up the entirety of the subsequent post.
And look, I get that "AR-15" sounds like something scary, but it's not.
Oh, really? They're "nice" guns?
Unfortunately, that combined with outright lies and the emotions that run high for some people after the MSM gets done monetizing the deaths of innocent people and mass hysteria leads to otherwise intelligent people being fed enough misinformation and complete falsehoods that they end up saying goofy shit.
It's not nearly as goofy as you're making it sound
None of the mistakes you cite, if they are indeed mistakes, undermine his argument.
Ok, let's go.
This is simply untrue. The AR-15 was around before the M16 or the M4.
Nope. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b4cf01af84b1
It was first used during the Vietnam War as an alternative to the M-14 rifle,
See
This is untrue and directly contradicts his prior assertion that it was "a civilian version of a military assault rifle."
The AR-10 was created in very limited numbers for military testing based on the weight of the gun, but it lost out to the M14. The AR-10 is a rare gun with fewer than 10,000 of them ever having been created and was largely experimental. The AR-15 was based on some of the same principles that were developed with the AR-10 in terms of it weighing less. Regardless, the AR-15 was not made for the military.
This is really hair splitting stuff. His point here is that the gun's designed purpose is to inflict multiple, successive, casualties very quickly. Who cares who the historical intended market was?? It's a practically useless, and extraordinarily dangerous item that a 19 year old can acquire easier than beer.
This is also clearly untrue for many of the reasons listed above, but there are plenty of other uses for an AR-15 than killing people.
False. Name one use for an AR-15, other than killing people, that isn't already served better by a different class of gun.
That's just in the first paragraph. The next few paragraphs are typical "let's say scary shit about how bullets fuck shit up when someone gets shot" designed to get emotional reactions from people who don't know any better.
Are you really denying that the bullets used are not designed to inflict maximum damage to the insides of the target??
Kennedy got shot twice. Once by Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle shot that was effectively like a laser beam. It went through the back of Kennedy's neck and out the other side. Then it went through a car seat, through the shoulder of the Texas Governor, out through the front of his shoulder, then through his hand, then through the bottom of the car. Fucking laser beam. It's widely believed that had that been the only hit, that Kennedy would have lived.
In the commotion, a secret service agent accidentally fired his weapon. Not sure it was an AR-15, I believe I read it was an AK-47, but nevertheless, the same type of ammunition was in play. That bullet hit Kennedy's skull and blew it into a jillion pieces.
There is definitely, definitely an important difference.
This is completely false. Elements of the AR-15 were designed to limit recoil, but you cannot shoot accurately by just rapidly pulling a trigger. The same can be said for virtually any semi-automatic rifle.
The police responded to the Aurora movie theater within 3 minutes. In that time, the guy shot 90 people. That's too rapid for any practical civilian use.
This is misleading. Magazine size provides an insignificant increase in shooting time with a rifle like this because of how fast reloading is.
More bullets = more deaths. What's hard to understand about this?
None of the mass shootings the author of this article cites used an assault rifle.
Merely a semantic distinction that proves nothing.
Civilians have not had legal access to assault rifles since the 1980s. Again, he has no idea what he's talking about.
From the WaPo story linked above, apparently civilians do have access, it's just highly regulated.
This is another intentionally misleading meme that the drones on the left have been mindlessly puking out over and over by stretching the meaning of "school shooting" to mean any time a gun went off on the campus of any kind of school or university for any reason whatsoever.
Actually I heard this stat echoed by Fox News as well multiple times last night. I think the people that put it out are intentionally misleading people. Then it was re-tweeted by Bernie Sanders and some other people who just believed it without checking on it. I don't think that was a deliberate misinformation campaign. Just a bad source. Alot of the re-use of that stat was by people who believed it to be accurate.
TLDR: The amount of misinformation is tremendous and has otherwise seemingly intelligent people saying shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Almost all of it is because they have been misinformed, and if they have the actual facts in front of them, I have no doubt that they'll see things differently
Were you going to suggest even one remotely practical civilian use for an AR-15?
|