Since Trump’s election, gun groups catering to progressives and people of color report a surge in interest as they look to defend themselves in a country that, to them, feels increasingly unstable.
Since Trump’s election, gun groups catering to progressives and people of color report a surge in interest as they look to defend themselves in a country that, to them, feels increasingly unstable.
The ar-15 is not an assault rifle. Regardless of how much cosmetic crap you throw on it, it’s semi auto. Not burst fire or full auto. It’s no more deadly than any number of wood stock semi auto hunting rifles.
It does most of what an assault rifle does and the part it doesn’t do is rarely used in combat because it burns through ammo too fast. So an ar-15 is for all practical purposes pretty much the same thing that soldiers use in combat and whether or not it can do full-auto is nearly irrelevant. A wood stock semi auto hunting rifle typically won’t be as efficient as an ar-15 in either handling or ammo capacity for a shooter to very easily kill lots of people.
I say this in a neutral manner, not claiming that these weapons should be banned or not, which is a philosophical question. Yes, “assault rifle” is used loosely by anti-gun people to scare but it’s also a term used narrowly by pro-gun people to defend their right to own weapons that are clearly capable of military combat and killing large numbers of people fast.
Completely agree with your points. I own several AR-15s (that I refer to as assault rifles in long form and AR in short form) and even battle rifles and if you even walk into any gun store they would call them AR. Which they’d say means armalite rifle, except that it’s a brand name… so it would certainly seem they’re either saying Kleenex, or it’s referring to something with a more common name… just gun people think anyone saying “assault rifle” isn’t in the know or is looking to take their guns. Which is stupid.
Common parlance is changing and it’s very simple.
The ar-15 isn’t a military rifle. The m-16 is. The m-16 supports burst fire and full auto, the ar-15 does not. That’s what makes it an assault rifle. You’re probably confusing “assault rifle” with “assault weapon”, which was defined as a semi auto rifle that looks scary. This was on purpose so the Democrats could say “see? We’re doing something”
This is apparently the only significant difference between the two, and at least full auto is rarely used by regular soldiers from what I found from multiple sources. I’m not sure about burst fire, but I imagine that it’s also used in a minority of cases. I looked all of this up except burst fire before making my previous reply. I’m not confusing them, I’m making the specific point that ar-15 are for the most part the same as m-16.
Burst fire/full auto is what makes it an assault rifle. Whether we should ban the ar-15 is a separate conversation. My point is if you have strong opinions about something you should know what you’re talking about about and use proper terminology. You’re wrong when you call the ar-15 an assault rifle. That’s not good for your argument. It makes you easy to ignore.
I may not have been very clear. I’m not arguing that it is or isn’t an “assault rifle”. I don’t care what it’s named. My point is that an AR15 is at its most essential function (high-capacity semi-auto rifle) the same as a military weapon. Like I said, I’m not making a judgement on whether everyone should be allowed to own military weapons or not. I’m just pointing out that that’s what it is.
It’s not a military weapon. It’s a civilian weapon that is shaped like a military weapon. Nobody in the military is carrying an ar-15.