Assault Weapons are not real

[TITAN308]

This is from HBO Real Sports. Jim Sullivan, the designer of the M16, states:





Video below. 1 minute long.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/inventor...-bryant-gumbel

Is this the same one where the inventor came out after the video and explained they completely manipulated his answers and excluded some?

Give me a few min, let me find a link...

[Machismo]

Every argument brought up by gun fans is absurd and profoundly idiotic.

High capacity magazines, loaded with intermediate cartridge rounds in a long barrel semi automatic rifle is designed to kill a lot of things fast. They are controllable, have a high rate of fire with very low reload times.

They are not designed for hunting. If you need 20+ rounds to kill a deer, you need to learn to shoot, or you should have used a rifle that actually chambers a full rifle cartridge.

I can see the sporting and hobby purposes, but arguing semantics is stupid. An AR15 or Sig XCM is not a hunting rifle, nor is a self defense tool (unless your seriously expect facing a zombie horde). It's a big fun murdering tool.

Actually, it is quite a good self-defense tool. It has minimal kick, they are light, and very easy to use.

[Schattenlied]

There are some pro-gun folks that sound like they are in a cult trying to defend the leader no matter what they do.

Thinking an AR-15 is not an assault rifle falls into that category. And I've seen multiple people actually say it this week. AR-15 manufacturers have simply tried to steer themselves away from the assault rifle name through creative ways, because of the negative connotation that has for marketing especially after Sandy Hook, etc. But an AR-15 is absolutely an assault rifle.

that is factually incorrect, assault rifle has a definition, that definition includes select fire (burst or full auto) as a requirement.

That's why the company that makes the AR-15 that was used changed the name to "Armalite", since that sounds better than assault rifle. Call it whatever you want as a branded product for marketing, it's still an assault rifle. Renaming cigarettes to smoking sticks or tobacco toothpicks doesn't make them any more healthy.

The company that originally designed the rifle was called Armalite, almost every firearm Armalite produces, even their bolt action rifles use the AR-X naming theme... Stop with the ignorance please.

"an ar-15 isn't an assault rifle". To me those arguments are just ridiculous to even propose.

What is ridiculous is proposing that a a rifle that doesn't fit the definition of assault rifle is an assault rifle.

[Machismo]

Can't blame him for getting angry, you don't realise how frustrating seeing you jumped up red neck, Murica fuckwits constantly devalue life. It would be fine if you lot stayed in your corner of the world and left everyone else alone.

It's times like this i thank god im living in a normal, sane country.

I value life plenty. Part of that is valuing freedom. Just as guns can be used to take a life, they can also be used to protect a life. I think it can easily be argued, that if you do not support freedom, then the lives you support are devalued.

[Torgent]

And its different in tons of places. So it has no real meaning, means this here and that there and different things here and there. And its still a shock word used by politicians to label guns they dont like. there is no definitive definition of what and Assault weapon is. Or what a military style rifle is.

Goddamn son, the Olympics haven't even started yet and you're already in the running for the gold in mental gymnastics. It's very clearly defined by the DOJ, but just because someone in Kansas says an assault weapon has to be fully auto, that means that the DOJ is invalid. Gotcha.

[TITAN308]

This is from HBO Real Sports. Jim Sullivan, the designer of the M16, states:

Video below. 1 minute long.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/inventor...-bryant-gumbel

Oh bloops, sorry! Try again!

Jim Sullivan Responds, He is NOT Anti-Civilian AR-15, HBO Selectively Edited the Interview

"[As] predicted the anti-gun HBO Sports interview misrepresented much of what I had said. They were apparently trying to make the AR15 civilian model seem too dangerous for civilian sales. They didn’t lie about what I said, they just omitted key parts which changed the meaning. The examples I most object to are:

Full Text: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ivan-responds/

[RuneDK]

Jesus, you don't need a machine gun to do extraordinary damage.

You don't need a gun at all to do extraordinary damage. So what's your point...IF it's not a gun it's something else. The terrorists behind the 9/11 attack used box cutters and planes.

[Torgent]

Okay look, I like shooting guns, I'm fine with appropriate gun ownership.

But someone please tell me why they NEED an AR-15.
Seriously, tell me why it's necessary. They're terrible for home defense due to being larger. They're not for hunting. The only thing you can claim they are good for is when we "take over the government and rid Washington of those damn commies!".

[Xar226]

Media and politicians throwing "Assault" Or "Military style" in front of rifle or weapon for shock value is beyond retarded

I agree that assault rifle implies automatic, and that hasn't been the case. I see absolutely no problem with "military-style," however, considering the guns in question are typically just their military variant simply with the automatic option disabled. In this particular case I believe the ammo is also smaller, though the barrel is modular and can be replaced to fire identical rounds to its military counterpart. (No, I'm not implying the shooter did so.)

More importantly, when people are talking about things like this, they are referring to the incredible damage the weapons inflict. The gun the shooter used (Sig Sauer MCX .223) is such a powerful gun that there are already conspiracy theories that there must be multiple shooters because of how high the death toll was. No. That's just how devastating the weapon is.

In the words of one of the trauma surgeons who worked on the victims--also, incidentally, an expert marksman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan: "The wounds are just otherworldly. You're talking big, giant cavities and a hole you can put your fist through. [...] It actually puts kinetic energy into tissue that it didn't hit. It can go next to the blood vessels and still destroy the blood vessels. It can go next to the liver and still destroy the liver." One patient who was shot in the hip required 90 units (nearly 100 pints) of blood--enough to replace every drop of blood in the average human body more than seven times over--and four surgeries just to stop the bleeding.

The muzzle velocity of this gun with a .223 round is estimated to be about three times that of a typical handgun, which because of the way kinetic energy works, imparts nine times the energy of a same-size round fired slower. And we haven't even touched on the fact that it can push out 30 rounds before even needing to to reload, which takes only a handful of seconds.

So you're right. "Automatic" isn't the right word to use. "Assault rifle" probably isn't either. And none of that changes the over-arching point: The average person does not need this kind of firepower available to them.

[petej0]

For the gun grabbers out there:

What is the difference between the rate of fire of a Semi-Auto AR15 (rifle) and a Semi Auto "Glock" (handgun)

[Machismo]

People make a big deal out of mass shootings, but they are statistically insignificant when it comes to gun deaths. If this was about protecting lives, they would try to restrict pistols, as they are responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths.

Then there's that little issue of an attempt at prohibition without getting rid of demand. It didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with marijuana... and it won't work with guns. People will find a way to get them, and all prohibition will do, is make the black market the only market. Then there will be no regulation at all, nor will there be away to track the sale/use of firearms. Gun control advocates are really their own worst enemy in all of this.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay look, I like shooting guns, I'm fine with appropriate gun ownership.

But someone please tell me why they NEED an AR-15.
Seriously, tell me why it's necessary. They're terrible for home defense due to being larger. They're not for hunting. The only thing you can claim they are good for is when we "take over the government and rid Washington of those damn commies!".

Nobody NEEDS them, they simply want them. Nobody needs a sports car, but they are fun as shit.

[TITAN308]

Okay look, I like shooting guns, I'm fine with appropriate gun ownership.

But someone please tell me why they NEED an AR-15.
Seriously, tell me why it's necessary. They're terrible for home defense due to being larger. They're not for hunting. The only thing you can claim they are good for is when we "take over the government and rid Washington of those damn commies!".

You do realize the AR-15 platform comes in more than one cartridge platform correct?

300 blackout is one of the most effective hog hunting rounds there is.

[petej0]

Okay look, I like shooting guns, I'm fine with appropriate gun ownership.

But someone please tell me why they NEED an AR-15.
Seriously, tell me why it's necessary. They're terrible for home defense due to being larger. They're not for hunting. The only thing you can claim they are good for is when we "take over the government and rid Washington of those damn commies!".

Its not for YOU to decide what someone else NEEDS. But if you want just one example, try to kill a boar with an Bow and come back and report your results.

[TITAN308]

It's because they don't have a really good argument besides emotional attachment, because they were brought up in tough guy gun culture and manipulated by advertising to think that allowing everyone to walk around with military style weapons is a good thing.

I'd say it's pretty likely that at some point these weapons will be banned and disappear from everyday life and people will look back on the gun culture as barbaric, but it might be a very long time from now.

You do realize that gun ownership extends beyond your typical able body white male I hope.

You like to spout off about cliches, but really, you are trying to jam gun owners into the same tiny box most cliche anti-gun advocates do.

Just an FYI is all.

[Bodakane]

lol.

Got to love when the HJWs get triggered when someone calls all semi automatic rifles assault weapons....but has no problem calling all muslims terrorists.

[Torgent]

Its not for YOU to decide what someone else NEEDS. But if you want just one example, try to kill a boar with an Bow and come back and report your results.

I didn't say they couldn't use guns. I'm also not trying to decide what someone needs. I'm asking them why they need it. Are you actually this illiterate or just trolling?

[Machismo]

You do realize the AR-15 platform comes in more than one cartridge platform correct?

300 blackout is one of the most effective hog hunting rounds there is.

I thought you were talking about something else when you spoke of hog hunting. Man, I was WAAAAYYYY off.

[McFuu]

Okay look, I like shooting guns, I'm fine with appropriate gun ownership.

But someone please tell me why they NEED an AR-15.
Seriously, tell me why it's necessary. They're terrible for home defense due to being larger. They're not for hunting. The only thing you can claim they are good for is when we "take over the government and rid Washington of those damn commies!".

Need is a strong word here. But lets look at this from 2 different ways.

There is a 100% reasonable case to be made that according to the 2nd Amendment, you need to own an AR-15, M16, or comparable style rifle. Because the military, government agencies, police agencies use these rifles, in order to maintain some semblance of balance that is the main purpose of the 2nd, we should own similar weapons. I'm not saying tanks, planes, full auto machine guns, nothing like that. Same way the 2nd didn't mean cannons and warships back in the 18th century.

Other way is basically the AR-15 is a solid all around weapon. If you could only afford one weapon the AR-15 is the way to go, you can hunt with it, defend your home, and target shoot. There is no reason why the average citizen shouldn't be able to own this weapon. From the car analogy, it's a mini-van that can haul your boat, seats 7, and runs the quarter in 12 seconds.

[Paranoid Android]

Oh bloops, sorry! Try again!

Listen we won't agree but its spin.

1. When I appear to say that the civilian model AR15 is just as effective or deadly as the military M16 they omitted that I had said “when firing semi auto only and that the select fire M16 on full auto is of course more effective”

It said in the interview that Army manual say semi-auto is more accurate. As many stated you can still put many rounds into the air by simply pulling your trigger finger.

2. The interviewer pretended not to understand the relevance that due to the Hague Convention military bullets cannot be expanding hollow points like hunting bullets that give up all of their energy in the target body instead of passing through with minimum wound effect with most of the energy still in the bullet and wasted. Instead we (Armalite) went the small caliber high velocity rounds and gave the bullet the right twist 1:14 to be stable in air but unstable in tissue where it tumbled and gave up all of its energy in a few inches and complied with Hague. This gave us a small cartridge that was half the size, weight and recoil of 7.62 NATO so the soldier could carry twice the ammo, fire controllable full auto and be far more deadly out to 300 yards, the 3 characteristics that determine military rifle cartridge effect. But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling and their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are. 5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet.

Okay this about ammuntion. Basically they are saying Hunting bullets are designed to go through the target, while military bullets are designed to tumble or inflict more injury. Okay, I agree but that is light argument when you are still using it as a mass killing weapon.

Plus in military they design rounds to wound people. Tending to wounded people tie up more resources and are more beneficial in the scheme of things to the military. I really don't think mass killers worry too much about wounding or killing. I guess they want to kill the most.

. [What I said] doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR15s sell on the civilian market. It just means I didn’t realize they would 57 years ago.

He did not say he approved of selling of AR-15s just did not realize would be sold to civilians 57 years ago. Honestly he is not really clear.

But that was not asked in the interview link. Asked the question; "In fact the gun is functioning exactly the way the military model is in semi-automatic." Jim Sullivan said "Its the same".

[Brocken]

A guy that shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, just bought two and killed 50 people.
And you guys sit and fight over the definiton of a word....