Logicman said:So one of the factors of late that is a point of discussion regarding AR-15s and their legality is the massive horrible wounds they apparently create (or more specifically, the .223 and 5.56 rounds). Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person, with an AR-15, the person has a baseball or grapefruit sized hole and the internal organs are completely destroyed. Lungs gone, bones made into powder, etc...so some naturally are using this as a way to demand that these weapons be banned, that they are extra-super-lethal.
That premise is ridiculous on it's face: there are other guns that are more powerful and are accepted as fine by those that would ban the AR-15. This gun, or that gun, are not the problem.
I'm suspicious of the "medical professionals have noted" statement.
Have you read through the thread a second time because that is effectively the discussion we have been having.
Perhaps not exactly that argument, as I read the posts in this discussion. As long we allow the discussion to focus on the AR-15, we are allowing the anti-gun side to again control the narrative. Today they have fixated on the AR-15, and their argument is that it's unreasonably lethal. The counter-argument (IMHO) isn't that ARs aren't unreasonably deadly, or that most rifles are deadly, or that there are rifles that are MORE deadly -- the counter-argument is that firearms, in law, are classified as "lethal force" for the reason that they can kill. That's why we have them. Not that we want to kill anyone, but that we want effective defense against violent attacks. Under carefully prescribed conditions, the laws of every state allow us to employ lethal (or "deadly") force for self defense. If we're allowed to use deadly force, then we should be allowed to use the most effective iteration of deadly force we can get -- when necessary, and under the conditions prescribed by law. Anything beyond or outside that is already illegal multiple times over.Lohman446 said:Its kind of a red herring argument that doesn't even address the premise that AR-15s are too deadly for an individual to possess. Some on here are articulating an argument that the deadliness of the AR-15 is precisely why individuals should be allowed to possess them.
That premise is ridiculous on it's face: there are other guns that are more powerful and are accepted as fine
HiBC said:None of those,nor the AR-15,are the root cause ,and no action on any of those will remedy killing.
And I'm recognizing a trend.
Fairly new members with low post counts starting discussions such as this.
With a little orchestration,the discussion will polarize.
And then the posts take on the tone" The status quo you know is untenable.Compromisei is unavoidable. You must concede common sense gun safety measures. Resistance is futile.You must assimilate"
Sorry ,but my robot is saying "Danger Will Robinson"
I'm feeling like I am being mined for ore for the opposition. Trojan.
To discuss the AR-15 bullet" is something like labeling and boxing "Native Americans" or "Women" or "White Males" into one monolithic group.
I can assure you within that box will be subsets and individuals who will invalidate any conclusion you may come to...but that does not deter media or politicians.
turkeestalker said:The problem is that you've already lost the argument because that is not how it should be but how it actually is.
That is the reality of it all and you've given your opposition the upper hand by not demanding that fact be acknowledged to begin with.
If that "just smacks of evasiveness in the debate", then it was never an actual debate.
Allowing our opposition to control the narrative in such a way simply means that we've already lost by choice.
added:
Including the word 'mostly' in what I copied and pasted above is proof of that, but I've done the same sort of thing.
Not one more inch.
thallub" said:IMO: There's no need to defend the choice of your preferred self defense firearm. Use your preferred firearm for self defense when absolutely no other option is available: In the "gravest extreme".
Defending/debating/arguing such with anti-gunners is a waste of time.
Bartholomew Roberts said:The people who think the AR15 is special in this regard don’t understand how bullets do their work. Which is a common problem in debating gun control... someone will say 20 things demonstrating complete ignorance of firearms and it is easy to get lost in the weeds trying to educate them on what they don’t know instead of just going to the meat of the argument.
Bartholomew Roberts said:Accepted for now maybe... before there was an assault weapon ban, there was "Handgun Control, Inc.". When banning handguns couldn't get traction, it was "ban Saturday Night Specials." It is really about setting the precedent that some type of firearm can't be used by the bourgeoise.
Once you've got that foot in the door, it is easy... that one carries too many rounds in its magazine, that one that has fewer rounds is too powerful. Etc. Goldilocks gun control, except there isn't any "just right."
12 gauge shotgun: "These were nicknamed "trench brooms" in WWI, they are far too powerful and deadly for a person to use. They also are too difficult for the average citizen to use without training, therefore they should be banned!"
The intention of any military small arms cartridge is to wound not kill.