3 ms·

Can you really blame people for all of the confusion around whether or not an "AR-something" is 'technically' an "assault rifle"? I mean, if you go to the Wiki

Can you really blame people for all of the confusion around whether or not an "AR-something" is 'technically' an "assault rifle"? I mean, if you go to the Wiki article that you cited, the piece you quoted links to the Wiki article about the Colt AR-15, which says: >The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark which it uses only to refer to its line of semi-automatic rifles. So, yeah, sure, it's not technically an automatic rifle, but if the manufacturer is going to call it a semi-automatic, I'm not going to fault the average joe for not getting it perfect. "Semi" is halfway there, or at least "is that thing to a degree", after all. To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction.

whaleofatw2022 2y ago
AR meant Armalite, the original designing company IIRC. Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too?
- jjulius 2y ago
  >Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too? If this is something that you're genuinely asking me for my opinion on, then I'd ask you to re-read my comment, because you've missed my point entirely.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction. It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there. The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons. As someone who lives in a society where firearm ownership is heavily regulated, I can tell you serious crime is not rampant, that I don't feel unprotected, and that I am confident very few criminals do have firearms, and that those criminals who do are very conscious about firearm usage and only employ them against similarly armed criminals. As an added bonus, my kids don't need to go through active shooter drills at school. It is a completely different cultural background, I understand. It's, however, always possible to change a culture, and that's something I always remind my American friends it can be done.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    I don't accept that the government can be trusted to keep me safe, but you do. That is the fundamental difference. Guns used to be everywhere in the US, including in schools, and nobody was overly concerned about crazies with guns attacking schools. The reason is, anyone going crazy with a gun would be shot dead by any self-respecting person rather quickly. Our kids are more likely to die from any number of freak accidents than school shootings. If schools kept a few armed guards or even armed teachers and had secure fences and doors, the chances of someone doing a mass shooting there would be near zero. We have gun free zones that render everyone but criminals completely defenseless. It's a shame that people do not understand or appreciate the many benefits of being armed. The classic gun-free society is the UK where even decorative knives or anything resembling an effective weapon will land you in prison. The place that sends people to jail for such things as witnessing a protest, or posting mean tweets online. Once you give up your guns, you have given up any hope of actually curtailing government power. The people who want to take our guns all have guns and professional armed security. Another point to consider is, guns are only one possible weapon. In gun-free societies like China, they face mass stabbings instead. Then there's always someone willing to run people over with a car. Too bad the victims of those crimes did not have guns. They might have had a chance. So in summary, I don't want gun-free culture. I want everyone but known violent criminals and mentally deficient individuals to be armed. The gun is the great equalizer, and it insures your freedom against all kinds of brutes. Without a gun, the average person doesn't have a chance against a typical criminal.

whaleofatw2022 2y ago

AR meant Armalite, the original designing company IIRC. Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too?

jjulius 2y ago
>Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too? If this is something that you're genuinely asking me for my opinion on, then I'd ask you to re-read my comment, because you've missed my point entirely.

wakawaka28 2y ago

>To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction. It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there. The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.

rbanffy 2y ago
> any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons. As someone who lives in a society where firearm ownership is heavily regulated, I can tell you serious crime is not rampant, that I don't feel unprotected, and that I am confident very few criminals do have firearms, and that those criminals who do are very conscious about firearm usage and only employ them against similarly armed criminals. As an added bonus, my kids don't need to go through active shooter drills at school. It is a completely different cultural background, I understand. It's, however, always possible to change a culture, and that's something I always remind my American friends it can be done.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I don't accept that the government can be trusted to keep me safe, but you do. That is the fundamental difference. Guns used to be everywhere in the US, including in schools, and nobody was overly concerned about crazies with guns attacking schools. The reason is, anyone going crazy with a gun would be shot dead by any self-respecting person rather quickly. Our kids are more likely to die from any number of freak accidents than school shootings. If schools kept a few armed guards or even armed teachers and had secure fences and doors, the chances of someone doing a mass shooting there would be near zero. We have gun free zones that render everyone but criminals completely defenseless. It's a shame that people do not understand or appreciate the many benefits of being armed. The classic gun-free society is the UK where even decorative knives or anything resembling an effective weapon will land you in prison. The place that sends people to jail for such things as witnessing a protest, or posting mean tweets online. Once you give up your guns, you have given up any hope of actually curtailing government power. The people who want to take our guns all have guns and professional armed security. Another point to consider is, guns are only one possible weapon. In gun-free societies like China, they face mass stabbings instead. Then there's always someone willing to run people over with a car. Too bad the victims of those crimes did not have guns. They might have had a chance. So in summary, I don't want gun-free culture. I want everyone but known violent criminals and mentally deficient individuals to be armed. The gun is the great equalizer, and it insures your freedom against all kinds of brutes. Without a gun, the average person doesn't have a chance against a typical criminal.