Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does it upset gun owners that people call them "assault" rifles when they are indeed different than other kinds of rifles?
Are you offended by the word "assault"? Does it upset you because it's not completely "accurate" in that you can use them for other things besides assaults?
If so we probably need to find another word to describe these type of rifles that you feel more comfortable with. Or do we have to call them by their brand names and list each brand if we want to talk about them collectively.
Give me a proper name for them and I'll call them that. Because I support "political correctness".... and that is sure as hell what this is. LOL.
Because they aren't, functionality-wise, it's just another magazine fed semi auto rifle. Prove me wrong.
Please explain the difference between an AR 15 and a Ruger 10/22 other than caliber difference. Explain the difference between an AR 15 and the Remington Model 742, other than caliber differences.
Cosmetic things don't count , because they do nothing.
One must assume that AR15 fans are upset considering the number of posts or comments we see on this same old tired topic on the forums. If something is the weapon of choice for mass shooters or commonly used in such assaults, it is an assault weapon. You might not use it as an assault weapon but there is a pattern and a record of it being used as such in mass shootings. Assault weapon or assault rifle is accurate terminology. Confucius would agree.
OK so lots of posts='upset?' Really? Nobody responds to my thread about 'American Marxism,' so does that mean that nobody is upset about Marxism? Really?
BTW, the term 'assault rifle' came from military strategists who were devising 'assault tactics' around the era of WWI and WWII. It has NOTHING to do with the kind of criminal assaults you are talking about. It had to do with 'concentration of force' methods that became particularly favored in WWII.
Your mind-reading capacity is as far off base re Confucius as it is with the posters on the thread. Whatever you do, don't hang out a shingle as being a psychic.
One must assume that AR15 fans are upset considering the number of posts or comments we see on this same old tired topic on the forums. If something is the weapon of choice for mass shooters or commonly used in such assaults, it is an assault weapon. You might not use it as an assault weapon but there is a pattern and a record of it being used as such in mass shootings. Assault weapon or assault rifle is accurate terminology. Confucius would agree.
Then why don't you provide what mass shooting have been committed by the AR15, versus other weapons?
No need to guess. Yet again we're about to be lectured to on an American topic by an old Canadian pensioner who's bored out of his gourd living his 3hrs of daylight to its fullest.
Don't address the premise offered about perhaps some Americans buying the thing simply because it has been called an assault weapon.
Instead just go right to the personal insult - again.
Then you might also consider the fact no one is lecturing you by offering a supporting opinion to a previous post of the thing being called that by firearm aficionados/publications themselves. I have never supported or otherwise agreed with the term used to describe the AR platform as it is not selectively full auto capable out of the box. That's just me.
The good news: once proven incorrect they will skedaddle, never to return to the thread. But when the topic comes back in a few months or so, they'll be back posting the same bunk
Ah no; as I didn't post any "bunk", nor have I been proven incorrect in my premised opinion that there are "some" Americans who probably bought the AR BECAUSE it is commonly referred to (regardless if incorrectly) as an "assault weapon".
I don't know how you could prove me wrong as it is just an opinion and unless you know every owner personally; proving me wrong is going to take some effort more extensive than simply calling it "bunk".
Again, the Gun Digest book was about 35 years ago, and you're still obsessing over it? They got tons of flack for using that terminology. No firearms manufacturer ever used it, to my knowledge.
Hey, you never answered my question. If we call a dog's tail a leg, does the dog therefore have 5 legs?
One of the covers I posted was from 2000, and another one was from 2008.
That isn't 35 years, unless you're using some kind of new math.
Colloquial language doesn't always make sense, but that doesn't make it any less real, accepted, and used. If a couple of stories were published calling a dog's tail a fifth leg, it would catch on and be repeated for the next hundred years.
That's a good idea, come to think about it. I think I'll go over to social media and start the process, and see how long it takes to catch on.
This is another example of either a lack of knowledge or someone flat out lying.
The Army tired the full auto/select fire AR-15 first. The ~80,000 AR-15s brought into service by Curtis LeMay/The USAF were the Armalite/Stoner then Colt select fire versions made specifically for The US Military under contract and which would develop into the M-16.
The idea that LeMay's 80,000 ARs were like the civilian semi-auto AR is false.
Ah yes. The "Stoner" carbine. When Colt made it they designated it CAR 15. The Stoner rifles also were the first ones with 3 round burst if memory serves. It was called "stitch fire" by guys in the field.
Anyway, civilian market AR rifles look outwardly the same as in M16/M4 but looks is where any similarity ends. The AR 15 is nothing more than a semi auto with modern ergonomics. The pistol style grip muzzle brake scads of various fore endswhich offer scads of mounting space for various other modern feature such as fast acquisition optics, lasers, lights etc. In short, it's a modern rifle. Nothing special.
Historically US armed citizens have always had access to and used the very same firearms the military used. Going back from the Brown Bess and Charllevill muskets Springfield rifle/muskets Sharps and Springfield 45 70 rifles and carbines, the 30 40 Krag 03A3 Springfield 30 06 the M1 Garand which is where identical models to the military end for we citizens.
We then had the Springfield M1A (civilian version M14) and now the A 15 (civilian version of the M16/M4.) We citizens having rifles that the military uses goes back a long way but when the military went to select fire rifles that changed as we are only readily allowed semi auto versions. I'm OK with that. Full auto is a waste of ammo for the biggest part.
I commend a mainstream media outlet for even bringing this fact up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.