The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This

timosman

Banned
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
29,090
http://injo.com/2016/06/627943-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-assault-rifles-and-the-ar-15/

The AR-15 is being dubbed the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters. And the act of terrorism in Orlando has renewed calls for an “assault weapons” ban.

But by any definition of the term, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

What constitutes an assault rifle?
An assault rifle needs to hit the mark on three different characteristics.

1. An assault rifle has selective fire.

That means that the user can toggle between at least two settings, semiautomatic and automatic.

The AR-15 is a gas powered semiautomatic rifle, meaning one pull of the trigger corresponds to only one round being fired.

In contrast, the M16 and sometimes the M4, which are the United States military’s small arms rifle of choice, do fire automatically. The M16 and M4 also allow a three-round burst option, which is also not possible on an AR-15.

Gif-AR-15-firing.gif


2. An assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge.

An intermediate cartridge is less powerful than standard full power battle rifle cartridges, but is still more powerful than the common pistol cartridges. The 5.56 NATO round, used in the M16, is an intermediate cartridge. So is the .223, used in the AR-15.

3. An assault rifle will have a detachable magazine.

The AR-15, like the M16 and the M4, have detachable magazines.

But virtually every modern firearm uses detachable magazines.

Cosmetics.
The AR-15 looks very similar to the M16, which is an actual assault rifle. They are both heavily customizable and have many of the same features.

An AR-15 owner can tack on scopes, muzzle brakes, and spiffy slings. The user can interchange lowers and swap out magazines as well. The AR-15 and the M16 look very similar.

Here is a U.S. Marine aiming an M4.
Screen-Shot-2016-06-13-at-12.34.37-PM.jpg


And here is a U.S. civilian holding an AR-15.
Screen-Shot-2016-06-13-at-12.36.15-PM.jpg


But their functionality could not be more different.

Some misconceptions about the AR-15.
The AR-15 is not that powerful when compared to common hunting rifles. A .223 round is often too small to take down large game like deer and elk.

In many cases, the .223 is prohibited for hunting certain game. Because of its lack of power, it might not fully kill the animal, leading to suffering.

For instance, in the state of Washington, all big game — with the exception of cougar — can only be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber (6mm) centerfire rifle.

Rather, hunters opt instead for more powerful rounds such as a .30-30 or a .308.

ff2c0ffa7a03bd4cc0326cc2fdf9e7a4.jpg


In addition to overestimating its power, inexperienced gun critics often cite the AR-15’s ability to rapid fire.

In the wake of the Orlando attack, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, told CNN’s Erin Burnett:

“If [Matteen] was not able to buy a weapon that shoots off 700 rounds in a minute, a lot of those people would still be alive. That’s exactly right. If somebody like him had nothing worse to deal with than a Glock pistol…he might have killed three or four people and not 50. It’s way too easy to kill people in America today and we have to think long and hard about what to do about that.”
What Grayson said on national television was false. The AR-15 cannot fire 700 rounds per minute. Such an action would be a physical impossibility.

And while Grayson said “a Glock pistol” can only target “three or four people,” the standard magazine for a Glock 19 holds 15 rounds.

But Burnett didn’t challenge Grayson, instead she told him, “You’re right about that. Thank you very much.”

Another misconception is that the “AR” in AR-15 is an abbreviation for “assault rifle.” It is not. The “AR” is an abbreviation for “ArmaLite Rifle,” after the company that designed the firearm.

So while gun control supporters rally their cohorts to bring about an assault rifle ban, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It just looks like one.
 
The next time someone calls an AR-15 an "Assault Rifle", ask who was assaulted with it.
 
Can you go a little further? This post so far sets out to establish the AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle? So what kind of rifle is it? Is there a more accurate term to describe it?
 
An AR-15 with 30 capacity magazine with tactical attachments has zero legitimate purpose for hunting.

You can maybe, maybe say it has a legitimate purpose for Olympic target shooting, which may be the reason why its still legal.
 
I think these AR-15's would be a lot more safe, if they were made out of wood instead of black composite polymers, didn't have a barrel shroud, no vertical foregrip, etc

For example - this gun is way less dangerous, you can tell because its not even black:

9301999_1.jpg
 
Can you go a little further? This post so far sets out to establish the AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle? So what kind of rifle is it? Is there a more accurate term to describe it?

semi automatic rifle with pistol grip and detachable magazine <<< describes the features of a rifle like the AR-15

assault rifle <<< Describes any generic rifle that has been used to assault someone or is in possesion with the intent to assault someone. You could be assaulted by a black powder rifle... as a matter of fact it was pretty common 150 years ago. When the military purchases rifles... they are assault rifles because they intend to assault people with them. That doesn't mean when I purchase it my intent is to assault anyone.
 
Last edited:
An AR-15 with 30 capacity magazine with tactical attachments has zero legitimate purpose for hunting.

You can maybe, maybe say it has a legitimate purpose for Olympic target shooting, which may be the reason why its still legal.

Even when hunting bounty?
 
Is it just me, or does the OP article make it easy for someone to say the semi-auto AR platform to be considered an assault rifle? The only actual difference I see (based on technical definitions) is the lack of select fire. More so with the advent of 3D printers, doesn't it make the argument of ease of conversion even more usable?

Don't get me wrong, I am confident people that frequent this subforum know my position on firearms. But, looking at that article objectively, I could make a good argument against the AR platform. I don't think that, but if I could, then I think someone vehemently opposed to firearms really could.

Also, fully understand the distaste of the term "assault rifle". But that is something I avoid as well when debating anti-gun people. Because anyone with some basic knowledge of history is just going to say that it's the general term based on the name for the German Sturmgewehr 44, which literally translates to Assault Rifle 44. A rifle built around an intermediate cartridge in a select fire weapon to facilitate both close quarters and long range combat in one weapon system. Technically, correct. It's just to trivial a point to make at the risk of having them breakdown the history of the intermediate round select fire rifle. Because all that people are going to see who are undecided on the subject is an apparent lack of knowledge regarding facts from you. Which means after that, no matter what you say, they are going to doubt every other point you make as being opinion, and the anti-gun person's arguments grounded in facts. More so if they start prancing cherry picked official data and reports after that.
 
I think these AR-15's would be a lot more safe, if they were made out of wood instead of black composite polymers, didn't have a barrel shroud, no vertical foregrip, etc

For example - this gun is way less dangerous, you can tell because its not even black:

9301999_1.jpg

Awww yeahhh....

wYMYTh6.png


u3IqVG8.jpg


ZjL6xQy.jpg


bzi9wEy.jpg


kJWtlnU.jpg
 
Yep those look pretty safe , except for that last one (a bit scary looking)

Understandable. The last one is a special class called a "Short Barrelled Rifle" and is treated by government the same as a pistol. Pistols are scary even when they have wood grips.
 
It's a Sporter Rifle

Okay this is what I was looking for.

This will bug the crap out of people, but I think the term that describes the purpose of the gun is more important that explaining the technical specifications of the gun, what it can do, and how it works; at least in terms of discussing it with lay people.
 
I think these AR-15's would be a lot more safe, if they were made out of wood instead of black composite polymers, didn't have a barrel shroud, no vertical foregrip, etc

For example - this gun is way less dangerous, you can tell because its not even black:

9301999_1.jpg

hahaha. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a collection of a few guns photoshopped together. Looks like the wood is from something like a remington 7400 semi auto rifle, magazine from m14, rear sight area from some shotgun, and barrel from some bolt action rifle, all around an AK platform. I like how the barrel doesn't line up with the ejector.
 
Last edited:
hahaha. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a collection of a few guns photoshopped together. Looks like the wood is from something like a remington 7400 semi auto rifle, magazine from m14, rear sight area from some shotgun, and barrel from some bolt action rifle, all around an AK platform. I like how the barrel doesn't line up with the ejector.

I like this one..

38397.jpg


Only because this one doesn't come in Left Handed.

fnar_std_large.png
 
Back
Top