The counter speech that sparked a revolution.
- Thread starter TrainedRage
- Start date
So the AR15 being sold right now, and has been sold for the last 30 years, is not a select fire assault rifle. thats the distinction he is making. the current AR15, which is the one being talked about, since the original hasn't been legal to sell for years, would be a terrible weapon to take into actual combat. Yep an idiot. an idiot that understands the difference between a weapon that was based on the design of a military rifle and one that the military would actually use.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Erm, an assault rifle does not need to have full auto to quality as a military assault rifle.
Last edited:
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Do you know when and why the different modes are engaged? And what is the rate of fire of a semi-auto AR? And why a burst-mode rifle can effectively become a semi-auto? Unless you show that ARs are never used in combat in semi-auto, yours 'b-b-but select fire!' argument that a S-1 AR15 is not combat-suitable is nil.
Regardless, Mr. Robinson's statement that an AR15 with disabled F/B mode would be so unsuitable for combat as it would get you killed in 15 minutes is factually idiotic, and comes to show how little a self-proclaimed 'law abiding' gun owner might know about the weapons they own. So yes, that speech is truly something.
Last edited:
TrainedRage
Banned
Haven't seen this many unfounded 'facts' in a while. Clearly you don't know about how the .22 rounds work vs the standard 5.57 NATO rounds. I don't think you are willing to argue in good faith so let me just say this... If you don't own a gun and wont bother to even try and empathize with the responsible majority of gun owners then maybe you should be the one trying to educate yourself. Just a thought. Though i'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-ar-15/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56ed74379d58
"AR" doesn't stand for assault rifle. It stands for the Armalite rifle, named after the company that developed the weapon.
Colt purchased the rights to the rifle but had difficulty selling it to the U.S. military.
was rejected by multiple government agencies as well as Congress, which didn't want to spend money on a new weapon when the M-14 was already in production.
The military's M-16 was originally fully automatic, meaning it fired several rounds with each pull of the trigger. Its civilian counterpart, the AR-15, is semiautomatic — the user needs to pull the trigger to fire each shot.
So show me one active duty military member who would rather use the .22 semi AR-15 over ANY other actual assault rifle. I will wait.
Last edited:
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
There were zero facts given in my post. Those were all questions.
Clearly.. So I'll go out on a limb and say that one is a higher-energy, heavier-bullet version of the other. 5.56 NATO ammo needs the corresponding chamber and gas system. So perhaps your point is that 5.56 NATO ARs and ammo are unavailable to the general populace?.. Nope: https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/search.do?query=5.56 nato&sku_instock_b=true -- freely available, just as the .223. Of course, with .223 Remington being a lower-performance version of the 5.56 NATO, one can own a 5.56 AR-15 and use .223 ammo. Which changes nothing, as 5.56 NATO cartridges are freely available as well.
Try me.
Wrong. The weapon was named ArmaLite AR-15 (.223 cartridges), a successor to the ArmaLite AR-10 (7.62 NATO), and was primarily an assault rifle, designed as an AR and approved as shoulder weapon for Vietnam -- a war fought primarily with assault rifles: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2859676/ARPA-AR-15.pdf
So yes, ArmaLite AR-15 was an assault rifle by design and by designation. The army wanted higher-power rounds, though, so enter the M16. Moving on..
So, the original ArmaLite AR-15 design was really unsuitable for the militaries? Nope, it passed its mil tests, as noted in the document above. And, shockingly enough, a military AR is what Colt originally sold it for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15#Colt_era said:
Moving on.
No, fullty-automatic does not mean 'several rounds at each pull of the trigger' -- that's burst mode; fully-automatic means 'the entire clip at one pull of the trigger' -- a mode-of-use effectively avoided by the troops for apparent reasons.
The original ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire assault rifle -- it was just as fully-automatic as the M16 modification. The "civilian" lineup (haha, a civilian assault rifle, how original), as already established, has presently models that use 5.56 NATO cartridges, and cannot shoot in full-auto, but so cannot various M16 modifications which are S-1-3. And now, I have to ask you the same questions I asked monegames above at the some point in our conversation: are you aware how the different firing modes of ARs are used in combat? And why a burst-mode M16 can effectively act as a semi-auto?
Does it need to be active duty?
Last edited:
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Funny, this is pretty similar to the argument of pro choice people.
A neverending string of senseles shootings in schools that kids today have to fear now more than ever are indeed part of the 'real world' just as much as this man's perspective and experiences are, first of all.
Secondly, unless the 2nd amendment is abolished it's going to be difficult to arbitrarily just take away everyone's guns unless there's a good reason for it. Just because retired Justice Stevens calls for such a thing doesn't mean it will be happening.
What people seem to forget is that a sensible approach to gun control combined with a focus on preventing those with mental illness, domestic assault issues, making threatening statements against others etc. to have access to a firearm is what the outcome is likely going to be should sweeping reforms ever take effect on a federal/national scale.
People will still die from gun violence, everyone knows that. But it's not a stretch to say that shootings like Parkland could have been prevented.
Last edited:
TrainedRage
Banned
TrainedRage
Banned
Do you have a point? Or are you trying to have a gotcha? Because i'm pro choice.
TrainedRage
Banned
What is your sensible approach to gun control? And how would that have prevented Parkland?
StrikeNinja24
Banned
More like I've heard this song and dance before and heard people discredit the argument on this board.
Last edited:
TrainedRage
Banned
...again do you have a point? Or argument on topic?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Well, we could have discussed the advantages of low-free-recoil rifles, their pros for combat use, the precision advantages of the .223 Remington chambers, etc, but since I've been off duty for decades now and I pay visits to the local shooting range not as frequently as I'd like, it's a touche for me. You were right, Mr Robinson has demonstrated great knowledge of combat rifles in that remarkable speech of his -- I concede.
TrainedRage
Banned
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
No, I was infantry, just not in the US army. I was in another NATO army -- Bulgaria, Easter Europe. I've had two issued weapons -- AK47 (7.62 Soviet) and AK74 (5.45 Soviet) -- it was in the '90s and at that time the infantry had just initiated the switch to NATO standards. Nowadays they use 5.56 NATO cartridges and H&K G36, AUG and AK74 5.56 -- all superb ARs (particularly the AUG). But I guess some 7.62 Soviet AK47s could still be found.
My experience with .223 Remington is entirely from the civilian-life firing range. But I greatly prefer the AR-15 (.223) over AK74 (5.45), even though the latter was my weapon for the better part of my service. Depending on the number of rounds and duration of use in the field, I prefer 7.62 cartridges (when fewer rounds need to be shot), followed by 5.56 (slight preference over .223 R), and last comes the 5.45 -- too darn light a projectile. Though 5.45 saw some major redesigns/revisions in the late 20'th/early 21st century. But I was already soured on it /shrug
TrainedRage
Banned
Good insights. I agree with what you said about preference in round size. I know the US military is having a push to replace the M4. I would suggest a bullpup like a FAMAS or AUG. I even think a SCAR type AR would be better.
I feel like if the AK wasn't a classic Russia/mid east weapon the US would or should have been more apt to use it. Hell they just switched from the Glock to a Sig.
PerezDeCorcho
Member
Great, insightful and evidence-based counter-argument.
Here is the board you are looking for: https://www.resetera.com/
ar0s
Member
Agreed. Pulling out a gun during a mass shooting and firing wildly at the shooter is just going to get you killed when armed police turn up and take out any idiot holding a firearm.
What happens if you miss the shooter and kill an innocent person behind them? Are you tried and jailed for murder?
Last edited:
mustardman
Banned
People are allowed to have discussions here now. Pretty upsetting to some people apparently.
Says the people calling dissenters "The loony left"
Replay the speech but replace the word "Gun" with "Drunk Driving" or "Texting and Driving". Why are we condemning the majority of people who drive drunk and never get into an accident? The irresponsible kids aren't going to stop doing it why should I? Should we allow people to drink and drive just because they can do it responsibly? Or do we have a law in place to protect society?
Obviously the analogy breaks at certain points as guns can be used for home defense, but the overall point still stands. The data is clear, people who own guns are at a significantly higher risk of having someone in the household be shot by that gun than any American being attacked by someone else with a gun. America has SIGNIFICANTLY higher per capita rates of gun deaths than any other country in the world. Mass shootings do not occur at the frequency and scale that they do in the US anywhere else, and despite many Americans having guns.
The "Majority" of Americans want stricter gun control. Why do we keep pretending that there is no better solution to the current madness when every other western country has a better one?
There is no responsible drinking and driving. There is not wrecking while drinking and driving and there is wrecking while drinking and driving. The "Majority" don't get to decide what becomes law, as we don't live in a pure democracy, and just because the "Majority" want something doesn't make it right. Was it right when the "Majority" of Americans were fine with slavery or putting Asian Americans in internment camps during WW2?
Cybrwzrd
Banned
It's great isn't it? Seeing people have discussions instead of moderated hug fests may be scary for those not used to critical thinking, but part of growing up is leaving those safe places and entering the real world. I'm glad we can have these discussion now without seeing thread graveyards of wrong think.
mustardman
Banned
Right, I agree with everything you said. But do you not see how this could apply to gun ownership and to limiting what types of guns people can have?
How do we decide what becomes law then if it isn't by the majority? Do we look at the evidence and discuss is logically? That's what many of the people advocating for some improvements to gun legislation in the US are doing. The data is clear that the US has a problem compared to the rest of the western world.
"There is no (responsible gun ownership) because the data is clear that it increases the chance of death of the owner and people around it"
I also want to be clear, while i do support heavily restricted firearm ownership I don't believe the quote above and that is purely a philosophical exercise I think that there can be responsible gun ownership for the purpose of hunting..
We decide what becomes a law by voting for representatives and senators that then vote on the behalf of the people they represent. Each representative and senator is supposed to vote based on the majority of their represented area. In doing so, the vote isn't controlled by the majority, but the majority of the represented area, similar to how the electoral college works.
ilfait
Member
People who drive, drunk or not, are at a significantly higher risk of dying prematurely or of killing someone else.
mustardman
Banned
But we know that isn't what is actually happening in practice: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarch"Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy" (oh sorry,, apparently BI is hard left all of sudden, but the study it cites is academic).
Legislators largely represent special interests and donors rather than their constituents.
Yes, but the aspect of drunk drivers in the driving pool increases everyone's risk of dying, so we add regulation for it. We also have regulation for drivers on what kinds of vehicles they can drive and can have their license removed if they are deemed a risk to society (previous accidents and citations, non fatal included). We also regulate the vehicles themselves and add safety measures to them to reduce fatalities for the driver and society. Why not extend that logic to guns?
ilfait
Member
That logic is extended to guns.
The study doesn't disagree with what I said. Its arguing that even though the majority agree it doesn't become a law, which I already said. Did the study check to see how each representative's majority constituents were on the issues?
mustardman
Banned
This is problem #1 and the study disagrees with your point. If our elected officials don't respond to our demands, how is that an effective democracy? Again the majoirty of Americans wan't stronger gun control Survey Link
I would also argue that the American system is flawed where peoples votes in certain states count for more than others due the electoral college as well as gerrymandering.
You keep saying the same thing. But I am not disagreeing that the majority want something. I am saying that isn't how laws are made in America. The majority doesn't get to rule. Does each representative vote on behalf of the majority of their constituents?
The reason the system is the way it is set up is to prevent majority rule. The founders understood that the majority wasn't always right. Its was originally set up to prevent the slave states, which were the majority population at the time of founding, from imposing their will on the rest of the country. This has morphed into the coasts and the interior, or urban and rural.
prag16
Banned
You present that as if it's some kind of gotcha, but imo it's not a good comparison, and the way impaired driving is handled is far from ideal. A lot of people are just bad drivers and will drive worse than other people who are great drivers, but slightly over the legal limit. I'm all for throwing the book at people for reckless driving (beyond your usual mild speeding or rolling through a deserted stop sign) if they're found to be impaired during an incident. But prosecuting solely based on that isn't reasonable imo. Some people can hold their liquor, and some people can't. And there are tons of other types of impaired driving that are largely not prosecutable on their own, such as tired driving, angry driving, depressed driving, stressed driving, etc, all of which can be more dangerous than a grown experienced adult driving while slightly above the legal limit.
But I don't expect most to agree with me, and I'm off on a tangent now, so carry on. But just stating that I don't like / agree with the guns to impaired driving analogy.
TrainedRage
Banned
mushy tailspin
Banned
ilfait
Member
Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle
Would you disagree with those definitions?
Last edited:
mushy tailspin
Banned
Isn't that what I said
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Did you bother to look at the linked page?
mushy tailspin
Banned
Is that our problem, or yours?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Not having to worry that my kids might get shot at school or at the cafe by a wacko with an AR? What do you think?
mushy tailspin
Banned
Yours?
Wasn't the highest body count for a killing over 100 people in Japan by a guy with a knife. Do you worry about your kids being killed at school by a person with a knife? Why not cuz the news doesn't report as much on them or because the schools don't have these mass knifer training days that coiniced with the day a real knife wielding maniac comes every time
Edit it was 19 people. I was thinking of a fire
Last edited:
TheAtomicPile
Member
Lol op doesn't know what a revolution is.
If all you're arguing is for the status quo to remain the same, where conservative idiots make all of us less safe because "muh gunz"... that is not a revolution. That is more like just being a dumbass and a pussy.
The parkland kids are heros and have shown acual bravery in telling dimwitted NRA types the truth, that their time is coming to an end.
If all you're arguing is for the status quo to remain the same, where conservative idiots make all of us less safe because "muh gunz"... that is not a revolution. That is more like just being a dumbass and a pussy.
The parkland kids are heros and have shown acual bravery in telling dimwitted NRA types the truth, that their time is coming to an end.
royox
Member
Well I'm not living in the country famous for having school shootings every week.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Maintaining the status quo of daily mass shootings is not a "revolution". But good try, OP.
prag16
Banned
Try to keep up. The TC was mocking the other ridiculous "speech sparks a revolution" topic.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Try to keep up. The comments are mocking the stupidity of this topic, and can do so while finding validity in the other topic.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
And what's the statistics on knife mass murders? 'This one case in Japan' does not cut it. If it was 'this one case of a guy with an AR' in the States we wouldn't be discussing it. Yes, you have a problem in your country.
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Our phones are far more secure than our guns. Even $400 phones have faceID, touchID, passcodes and so many other ways to make sure that only the person that owns the phone is able to unlock it.
And yet this is the state of our guns...
With smart guns, your kid couldn't accidentally shoot themselves, you couldn't accidentally shoot yourself while adjusting your belt buckle, and a home intruder couldn't use your own gun against you and your family.
With the dumb guns we have now, people are far more likely to have their kid/family member shoot themselves with it than they are to actually shoot a home invader with it. Smart guns would be good for every single gun owner that wants one.
Yet the NRA continues to tirelessly work to put anyone that tries to develop smart guns out of business...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...to-reform-itself-the-nra-nearly-destroyed-it/
Also thanks to the NRA, a gun manufacturer that makes a defective gun that causes an accidental discharge without the trigger being pulled is immune from law suits. Companies that make literally any thing else can be sued if their products do not work as advertised. Gunmakers, on the other hand, don't even have to do recalls and fix the problems.
Gun manufacturers are the one and only exception to companies having to fix defects, and we can thank the NRA for that as well. They don't care about gun owners, they care about gun manufacturers, that's who gives them most of the money.
And yet this is the state of our guns...
With smart guns, your kid couldn't accidentally shoot themselves, you couldn't accidentally shoot yourself while adjusting your belt buckle, and a home intruder couldn't use your own gun against you and your family.
With the dumb guns we have now, people are far more likely to have their kid/family member shoot themselves with it than they are to actually shoot a home invader with it. Smart guns would be good for every single gun owner that wants one.
Yet the NRA continues to tirelessly work to put anyone that tries to develop smart guns out of business...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...to-reform-itself-the-nra-nearly-destroyed-it/
Also thanks to the NRA, a gun manufacturer that makes a defective gun that causes an accidental discharge without the trigger being pulled is immune from law suits. Companies that make literally any thing else can be sued if their products do not work as advertised. Gunmakers, on the other hand, don't even have to do recalls and fix the problems.
Gun manufacturers are the one and only exception to companies having to fix defects, and we can thank the NRA for that as well. They don't care about gun owners, they care about gun manufacturers, that's who gives them most of the money.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked