Fallacy: The AR15 isn't good for hunting, competition, or self-defense, or children -
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
CapnMac
Member
Actually, that's a good one.
And, it can be tailored to the audience, too.
Like "People don't need Pit Bulls, either ..." or "People don't need 500HP sports cars [or Jaguar SUVs] . . . " And each of those can kill indiscriminately, too.
marksman13
Member
The honest truth is, none of your arguments matter to the people you are debating. They have made up their minds that banning firearms is the only solution and there is no rationalizing with them. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about ending mass shootings. They don't care that the AR-15 is the most versatile rifle in the world. They don't care what size magazines fit in the AR-15's magwell.
They don't care about any of that, and I am done arguing with them. I don't participate in debates with anti-gun folk anymore. I'm not wasting my breath or my keystrokes. I'm just going to keep acquiring firearms to leave to my daughter, because if something doesn't change drastically, our society is headed down the same street as the U.K. and Austalia and there's really not a damned thing we can do about it. We lost this fight way back in the 1970s and 1980s when we started raising kids whom didn't respect anything or anybody, refused to fight for anything, forgot how to live without technology, and decided that an "education" was worth more than life experiences. We're dead in the water and the only thing we can hope to do is stave off the inevitable for a little longer.
They don't care about any of that, and I am done arguing with them. I don't participate in debates with anti-gun folk anymore. I'm not wasting my breath or my keystrokes. I'm just going to keep acquiring firearms to leave to my daughter, because if something doesn't change drastically, our society is headed down the same street as the U.K. and Austalia and there's really not a damned thing we can do about it. We lost this fight way back in the 1970s and 1980s when we started raising kids whom didn't respect anything or anybody, refused to fight for anything, forgot how to live without technology, and decided that an "education" was worth more than life experiences. We're dead in the water and the only thing we can hope to do is stave off the inevitable for a little longer.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
I don't care about all those semantic games. If someone wants to call the AR an assault rifle, I'll let them. If they say that everyone in America is allowed to walk around with these full auto AR machine guns, then that might be worth jumping in and correcting, but claiming something like "it's a semi-automatic modern sporting rifle" to non-gun or anti-gun folks just makes us look glib and dishonest, in the same way that we instantly distrust anyone who starts talking about "assault weapons".
Self defense, same thing. The more you talk about "fragmenting bullets" and "engaging multiple home invaders" the less credible you look -, you're just another redneck yahoo eagerly waiting to kill somebody. The fundamental disconnect here IMO isn't actually assault weapons, it's basically over being willing to shoot someone who invades your property and threatens you or your family. It's hard for gun guys to disagree with that, but there's a good amount of people who actually have their doubts. Either way, that's a wide rift that an internet debate's not going to be able to close.
I've heard the "why do you need an AR for hunting" several times, and while that one's not really germane to the 2nd Amendment, it has an easy, legitimate answer - the AR might be the best varmint rifle ever built. Saying the 223 bullet is too small for deer hunting in a lot of states actually tends to open a lot of eyes as well. Lots of people have this weird image that ARs/AKs/etc are these ultra-powerful magnum caliber death machines, and pointing out in a non-hostile, non-glib way that they're actually pretty anemic is one of the few things I've found that can legitimately change perspectives.
In general, I'd say that the less technical, less semantic, and more concrete your argument is, the better it will go over with non-gun people. And hardcore anti-gun people just aren't worth your time.
Self defense, same thing. The more you talk about "fragmenting bullets" and "engaging multiple home invaders" the less credible you look -, you're just another redneck yahoo eagerly waiting to kill somebody. The fundamental disconnect here IMO isn't actually assault weapons, it's basically over being willing to shoot someone who invades your property and threatens you or your family. It's hard for gun guys to disagree with that, but there's a good amount of people who actually have their doubts. Either way, that's a wide rift that an internet debate's not going to be able to close.
I've heard the "why do you need an AR for hunting" several times, and while that one's not really germane to the 2nd Amendment, it has an easy, legitimate answer - the AR might be the best varmint rifle ever built. Saying the 223 bullet is too small for deer hunting in a lot of states actually tends to open a lot of eyes as well. Lots of people have this weird image that ARs/AKs/etc are these ultra-powerful magnum caliber death machines, and pointing out in a non-hostile, non-glib way that they're actually pretty anemic is one of the few things I've found that can legitimately change perspectives.
In general, I'd say that the less technical, less semantic, and more concrete your argument is, the better it will go over with non-gun people. And hardcore anti-gun people just aren't worth your time.
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
NEWSFLASH. None of these facts matter or affect the outcome of the current anti gun push in the slightest.
Not even a little
This is gonna come down to who has the dominant positivity viewed PR imagine.
And as I see it right now we are losing big time. Because at the end of the day the people we have to convince to join our side are NOT big thinkers. They’re worried about the next Netflix release is, how to determine what gender they are and the latest flavor of tide pod. Right now our only saving grace is you actually have to put out a tiny little bit of effort and physically go somewhere to vote.
The NRA needs to understand the difference in a tactical win and a strategic one. Right now we may have to bite the bullet and work out some minor concessions in order to be viewed as part of the solution. Being perpetually viewed as part of the problem is not a long term sustainable position.
Because I promise you the moment you reply to someone with “an ar15 isn’t an assault rifle” to somebody who has genuinely convinced themselves that it’s only a matter of time before a nutcase murders them or a family member you have not only lost the argument but you have probably set the RKBA agenda back a tiny bit more one voter at a time
Not even a little
This is gonna come down to who has the dominant positivity viewed PR imagine.
And as I see it right now we are losing big time. Because at the end of the day the people we have to convince to join our side are NOT big thinkers. They’re worried about the next Netflix release is, how to determine what gender they are and the latest flavor of tide pod. Right now our only saving grace is you actually have to put out a tiny little bit of effort and physically go somewhere to vote.
The NRA needs to understand the difference in a tactical win and a strategic one. Right now we may have to bite the bullet and work out some minor concessions in order to be viewed as part of the solution. Being perpetually viewed as part of the problem is not a long term sustainable position.
Because I promise you the moment you reply to someone with “an ar15 isn’t an assault rifle” to somebody who has genuinely convinced themselves that it’s only a matter of time before a nutcase murders them or a family member you have not only lost the argument but you have probably set the RKBA agenda back a tiny bit more one voter at a time
Last edited:
someguy2800
Member
I hate that term "modern sporting rifle". Who do we think we are fooling with that nonsense?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Depends on what you consider sporting? Would you consider a football to be "sporting goods?" They aren't used for hunting.
I agree with all you say except one disagreement. When you say it gives us the right to weapons used by military. The second amendment does not give the right, that right, to keep and bear arms is assumed, already there. The second amendment guarantees that right, which is preexisting, will not be infringed. The point of the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting uses. The point is if again the need to put tyranical government back in its place arises, the citizenry is able to do so. They had just finished doing so! Minor disparity, but an important one.
Russellc
Last edited:
I didn't say that it "gives us the right". I said it exists to protect that right, which as you say, was assumed by the founders to be inherent to us as human beings.
The ar15 can be as great as sliced bread but if they keep ending up in schools killing score of children you are going to lose them.
The reason is that when enough popular support is on one side, things happen.
I would say one or two more big shootings and we are going to see big losses in gun freedom.
The reason is that when enough popular support is on one side, things happen.
I would say one or two more big shootings and we are going to see big losses in gun freedom.
Saddlebag Preacher
Member
My brother-in-law who knows nothing about firearms told me yesterday that he doesn't think "assault rifles" should be legal, and brought up these same arguments. I said well, your Bro-in-law (me) owns three. Then I asked him if he remembered his deceased father's guns the family gave me because no one wanted them. When he said yes, I said well, there was an "Assault Rifle" in the group. He brought it back from WW2 and deer hunted with it a few times. It is called a German Mauser 98. He didn't say another word.
Old Dog
Member
Sheesh, even on a gun forum, we cannot agree about what to call the AR-15 ...
And then ...
If we don't speak up to counter the arguments, than we have already lost.
And then ...
If we don't speak up to counter the arguments, than we have already lost.
marksman13
Member
We lost a long time ago.
CapnMac
Member
That's becasue the antis keep calling it all sorts of spurious things, and we try to keep up with their rhetoric to the point where words almost have no meaning (which is a socialist ideal, as they will then use their centralized authority to tell us what words mean in doublegood rightthink).
They could not sort out automatic versus semi-automatic, so they trotted out "assault weapon."
They could not keep "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" weapon straight, so they have trotted out "weapon of war."
We recognize this enough to, within our own community, refer to EBR (Evil Black Rifle), despite a trend towards FDE
But, EBR is exactly what the antis mean, and they are willing to change the talking points to obfuscate that as much as they can. because, they do not care what language is used, as long as they win the argument. And they count anything less than a 100% win as a loss. Which means they have to come back harder the next time.
Old Dog
Member
Uh, yeah, so we just give up? Lighten up, Francis ...
Old Dog
Member
I'm thinking that you kinda missed my point ...That's becasue the antis keep calling it all sorts of spurious things, and we try to keep up with their rhetoric to the point where words almost have no meaning (which is a socialist ideal, as they will then use their centralized authority to tell us what words mean in doublegood rightthink).
They could not sort out automatic versus semi-automatic, so they trotted out "assault weapon."
They could not keep "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" weapon straight, so they have trotted out "weapon of war."
We recognize this enough to, within our own community, refer to EBR (Evil Black Rifle), despite a trend towards FDE
But, EBR is exactly what the antis mean, and they are willing to change the talking points to obfuscate that as much as they can. because, they do not care what language is used, as long as they win the argument. And they count anything less than a 100% win as a loss. Which means they have to come back harder the next time.
Meanwhile, back in my bunker ... I'm just gonna embrace the term "assault rifle." Why? Kinda a 2A thing. We spend way too much time letting our opposition frame the issues and defining the verbiage. The words don't matter, only the principles.
marksman13
Member
I didn't say "give up". You can give up arguing with antis though. It accomplishes nothing.
It has been said already but to clue you in, or maybe bring you up to speed, with 17 more children lying in the ground, the internal debate of whether it should be called an assault weapon is moot. Greater America sees it for what it can do and they dont give a damn what you want to call it. They are willing to tolerate rifles and guns we want to have as along as they don't semi annually end up laying 15-20 high schoolers down semi annually.
SO stop arguing about what it is called and start figuring out how to keep them out of schools, and shopping malls or they will be GONE. That should be your focus, if you want to legally keep yours.
SO stop arguing about what it is called and start figuring out how to keep them out of schools, and shopping malls or they will be GONE. That should be your focus, if you want to legally keep yours.
cdb1
Member
It is a fallacy to most people that are members of a website such as this one. For the people who believe the fallacy, of which the vast majority have probably never shot a firearm much less an AR, logic, reason and facts will not sway them. Those people are either hoplophobes or fascists.
. . .
OR, to put it simply, "Perception is Reality".
That said, as to Gersh Kuntzman, women, universally, are SO happy they are
not saddled with this weasel as a representation of their gender. This "male"
is a worldwide embarrassment to his sex. He redefines the term "pussy", and in
so doing, makes females appear so much the nobler and stronger.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
But if you DON'T argue, those on the fence hear only the anti argument -- because they'll never shut up.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Hokay. This is enough of our political thoughts about gun-rights problems. Figure out your own communications with the elected types.
- Status