 There are many people who claim the AR-15 bullets (the .223) are uniquely deadly, or that you can get shot one place and have it exit somewhere else, and other myths propagate by FakeNews outlets like The Atlantic, NYT, or CBS's 60 minutes. Some of these rumors were created by the military to make the troops more comfortable with using a gun that was far less powerful than the AK-47's that our troops were facing, and much weaker than the hunting rifles they had used at home. But sometimes weaker is better. Wounded soldiers cost more resources than dead ones, and lighter guns/rounds are easier to carry and shoot: and that's why the military chose it. But the facts are that.223 isn't even the most powerful varmint round, and is one of the weakest of the rifle rounds. It is so weak that it can't be used to hunt deer or larger game in many states. Anyone trying to sell this AR-15 bullets are more deadly than other rifle bullets, is either a fool or a propagandist. And if they're a media organization with a single fact-checker, you know which one.
There are many people who claim the AR-15 bullets (the .223) are uniquely deadly, or that you can get shot one place and have it exit somewhere else, and other myths propagate by FakeNews outlets like The Atlantic or NYT.
Some of these rumors were created by the military to make the troops more comfortable with using a gun that was far less powerful than the AK-47's they our troops were facing, and much weaker than the hunting rifles they had used at home. But sometimes weaker is better. Wounded soldiers cost more resources than dead ones, and lighter guns/rounds are easier to carry and shoot: and that's why the military chose it. But the facts are that.223 isn't even the most powerful varmint round, and is one of the weakest of the rifle rounds. It is so weak that it can't be used to hunt deer or larger game in many states. Anyone trying to sell this AR-15 bullets are more deadly than other rifle bullets, is either a fool or a propagandist. And if they're a media organization with a single fact-checker, you know which one.
Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's for short) is how many times guns are used for good (to stop a crime, or for "defense") as opposed to doing harm. If you don't know how many times a gun is used for good, then how can have context on the good-to-bad ratios? In other words, if guns are used for good, far far more often than they're used to commit crimes, or for bad uses, then gun control could easily do more harm than good.
Best estimates on both are that guns are used in ≈9,000 murders per year (only about 1/2 to 2/3rds of murders are with a gun), but they're used about 2.2 million times a year to stop a crime. That means if you outlawed all guns (pure gun control), and you're naive enough to think that would stop 9,000 murders, you'd probably increase crime (including violent crimes) by a couple million more cases a year? Whether that is a net win for you is based completely on your irrational fear/hatred of an inanimate object (hopolophobia).
Almost every discussion with a gun-controller looks the same, I show them how if they really cared about lives, crimes, or the things they claim they care about, they would be putting their energies elsewhere. The evidence seldom changes their minds, but it often irritates them into never wanting to discuss the topic with me again.
After every mass shooting (especially School shootings), there's the hue and cry, "this happened again, we have to do something!" They usually don’t say what, and the few who do, usually aren't very informed on the topic. So let's tear it down and look at what we should do, and should not do, and what people are asking for. And understand why were are likely to stay divided between gun controllers and those with a clue.
This is a short list of some of the "smartest Gun-Controllers in the room". This isn't just "gotcha" type mistakes, this is about Gun Control advocates fundamental failure to understand the basics of what they're talking about. I'd be happy to find a gun-controller that could talk about the basic parts and operation without sounding like an idiot, but this article is about the examples of the 99% that are giving the rest a bad name. The things they said that make the informed gun-owners double-face-palm, and undermines the interests of any rational gun controllers. Some day I'll meet one of the latter.
Igno-arrogant is similar to Dunning-Kruger, with a different cause. Smart people confusing their expertise in one area, with expertise in everything else. Which is annoying as hell to those who do the research to know what we're talking about. Gun debates are often filled with the igno-arrogant -- people tugging at the heart-strings instead of brain-strings, proposing things that can't be effective because they don't even fully understand the technology or problems, but using political theater to rile up the gullible or themselves. And worst of all, many of these types are so self-assured that they're the hardest to teach because their egos and mouths are doing the thinking, before they even have their basic facts straight.
While I wish it was a joke, California, UK and Oz (Australia) all have "knife control" to keep the public from having pointy things. And they're adding more of these laws to protect us, all the time. Never mind that criminals ignore dumb laws by nature of them being criminals, so all the laws can do is punishing the innocent. Worse, since gun control laws seem to result in more violent criminals using knives, and thus more stabbings (up to 5-10x our rate of stabbing), they are looking at adding many more laws to protect us from the dreaded assault utensils. Seriously, don't stop rampant criminal immigration, or punish criminals, it's time to outlaw pointy things, and demanding cooling off periods before ordering cutlery. Politicians are willing to turn law abiding citizens (collectors/practitioners) into criminals, and waste the courts time and money, and distract law enforcement from more serious issues.
What is a gun? It's an inanimate tool, that does not kill people, or do anything without a human driving it. Fewer people are killed by guns than cars, and far fewer than drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol. While far more are saved because of them. Those that fear guns, usually fear their own self control.
Since the 1930's an assault rifle is fully automatic (select fire) military weapon (one squeeze of the trigger fires multiple bullets). Then in 1988 gun-control activist (Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann) invented the term " Assault Weapon", to include civilian semi-automatic weapons (one squeeze of the trigger fires one bullet), because it had a few cosmetic features in common with assault rifles, and because the public might not be able to understand the difference. The media and AP immediately went along with the ruse to dupe the public.
So an assault weapon is just a low-powered (smaller cartridge) hunting rifle with some wooden parts replaced by plastic parts (to lighten it), and some cosmetic accessories thrown in; like a pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, accessory rails, or collapsable/foldable stock. Most guns have removable magazines, and the biggest difference coastal progressives point to is a pistol grip or magazine size. But all these features are easily swappable after-the-fact, none of which changes the lethality at all, and people can convert most rifles back and forth in about 10 minutes. Which is why gun enthusiasts think gun controllers (and their voters) are completely uninformed about guns
Asking "who needs an AR15?" is like asking "who needs free speech?". Why do you need your 1st, 4th or 14th amendment rights? If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't need a right to privacy, and if you aren't saying anything wrong, then guaranteeing free speech is redundant.
Of course the reality is the opposite. You don't need to justify why you get to keep your rights/liberties, others have to justify why they should get to take them away. So the proper answer to that question is, "Because, fuck you, that’s why!” If you can take someone's AR15, then what moral ground to you have to prevent them from taking your cell phone, car, Internet access, alcohol, pets, or anything else that isn’t an absolute necessity.
|
