J&B Firearm Sales
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Defensive Arts
Southwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
Simply Triggers
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Gun Deals
HighLine Firearms
Low Price Guns
Sporting Systems
Messages
454
Reactions
1,224
I appreciate most of the points in the article; especially the portrait of the mindset of the gun-grabbers. However, (and this is certainly no knock on you for posting it OP), the article has a couple things that I take issue with.

1st is this incorrect statistic here:

(The article states)

"Let’s examine the first issue of statistical probability; how many people are actually killed by AR-15s each year? Not many according to the FBI, which does not track the stats on specific rifles, but does track the stats on all rifles together. And, as it turns out, only around 6% of all gun deaths involve rifles in the US each year."


These are the actual #s...

There are roughly (on average) 35-40K deaths attributed to the use of firearms in the country per year. There are roughly 350-400 deaths attributed to the use of ALL long guns(this includes all types of rifles, carbines and shotguns - whether they be semi-auto or otherwise).

The correct statement would be that around 1%(not 6%) of all gun deaths involve ALL long guns(not just rifles) each year.



The other beef that I have is referring to the semi-auto AR-15 as a "military grade rifle". While similar in many ways to the M16A2 and M4A1, there are some fundamental differences between a semi-auto AR-15 and the afore mentioned rifles. The anti-gunners love to apply the inane reasoning that "military grade rifles don't belong on our streets".

The author writes in the article:

"The AR-15 is indeed a weapon in military use"

While technically correct when referencing its select-fire cousins. I know of no military in the world that employs the semi-auto AR-15, nor have I ever heard anybody apply the moniker 'Battle-Rifle' to the semi-auto AR-15. The semi-auto AR-15 is (and always has been) marketed to civilians.

I understand that it may be merely semantics, and we all know that the NFA is unconstitutional bubblegum, but words matter in the battle of public opinions.

Semi-auto AR-15s ought to be referred to as 'Modern Sporting Rifles'. "Gun Violence' ought to be referred to as 'Gang Violence'. Etc. Etc. Etc.
 

nwslopoke

Messages
3,165
Reactions
8,059
Article wouldn't open for me. But from living there for decades I can say most California Leftist have never seen an AR15 in person or held an actual gun. They believe most entertainment and media sources to represent firearms factually, they believe the AR is the most powerful weapon available and anyone in possession only has a singular purpose in life. Born to kill. They have no facts supporting any of these beliefs.
 
Messages
7,616
Reactions
15,039
I appreciate most of the points in the article; especially the portrait of the mindset of the gun-grabbers. However, (and this is certainly no knock on you for posting it OP), the article has a couple things that I take issue with.

1st is this incorrect statistic here:

(The article states)

"Let’s examine the first issue of statistical probability; how many people are actually killed by AR-15s each year? Not many according to the FBI, which does not track the stats on specific rifles, but does track the stats on all rifles together. And, as it turns out, only around 6% of all gun deaths involve rifles in the US each year."


These are the actual #s...

There are roughly (on average) 35-40K deaths attributed to the use of firearms in the country per year. There are roughly 350-400 deaths attributed to the use of ALL long guns(this includes all types of rifles, carbines and shotguns - whether they be semi-auto or otherwise).

The correct statement would be that around 1%(not 6%) of all gun deaths involve ALL long guns(not just rifles) each year.



The other beef that I have is referring to the semi-auto AR-15 as a "military grade rifle". While similar in many ways to the M16A2 and M4A1, there are some fundamental differences between a semi-auto AR-15 and the afore mentioned rifles. The anti-gunners love to apply the inane reasoning that "military grade rifles don't belong on our streets".

The author writes in the article:

"The AR-15 is indeed a weapon in military use"

While technically correct when referencing its select-fire cousins. I know of no military in the world that employs the semi-auto AR-15, nor have I ever heard anybody apply the moniker 'Battle-Rifle' to the semi-auto AR-15. The semi-auto AR-15 is (and always has been) marketed to civilians.

I understand that it may be merely semantics, and we all know that the NFA is unconstitutional bubblegum, but words matter in the battle of public opinions.

Semi-auto AR-15s ought to be referred to as 'Modern Sporting Rifles'. "Gun Violence' ought to be referred to as 'Gang Violence'. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Indeed. There are the semiauto SR25 and M110 AR10s but these aren't quitw AR15s due to being chambered in .308/7.62x51 NATO... otherwise, yes, there are no 5.56 AR15s in military use as far as I know.. only the M16 & M4 and their licensed derivatives (C7 and C8 for example, and Daewoo's? Pretty sure FN also makes M16s & M4s? )
 

Jonnyuma

Messages
3,322
Reactions
8,708
The other beef that I have is referring to the semi-auto AR-15 as a "military grade rifle".
That one rankled me too.
Literary style and composition aside, the writer's exposition could have been penned by any member here (or any number of firearms enthusiasts) because it hits on all the points and counter arguments that we've been using in comments sections, barroom conversations, and legislative sessions for years... decades, even. There was no need or advantage in ceding the "weapons of war" angle to those who would disarm us. I was just a dumb ol' jarhead ground-pounder with no background in supply or procurement, but I dont recall the terms "military grade" or "battle ready" being used and l NEVER saw military personnel of any MOS carting around an AR15.

I did like this paragraph... enough to copy it for future reference as it sums up my thoughts on this subject more eloquently and succinctly than I'm able to pull-off:

"When a group of people in power are working hard to remove defensive or even offensive weapons from your hands, it’s best to assume that their intentions are malevolent. They are not trying to help you, they are trying to help themselves."

In other words; If someone tells you that their intention is to bubnlegum you, you'd best take them at their word.
 
Last Edited:

uberguy

Messages
686
Reactions
1,310
(The article states)

"Let’s examine the first issue of statistical probability; how many people are actually killed by AR-15s each year? Not many according to the FBI, which does not track the stats on specific rifles, but does track the stats on all rifles together. And, as it turns out, only around 6% of all gun deaths involve rifles in the US each year."


These are the actual #s...

There are roughly (on average) 35-40K deaths attributed to the use of firearms in the country per year. There are roughly 350-400 deaths attributed to the use of ALL long guns(this includes all types of rifles, carbines and shotguns - whether they be semi-auto or otherwise).

The correct statement would be that around 1%(not 6%) of all gun deaths involve ALL long guns(not just rifles) each year.
I agree with your points, but feel compelled to point out your use of 35-40k gun deaths includes over 25,000 suicides by firearm - which is NOT "gun violence" as the left claims - they intentionally conflate suicides with homicides to make gun deaths appear a larger problem to be solved by more gun control laws.

US non-suicide deaths by firearm are fewer than 20k (in 2020), averaging considerably less over the last 20 years.

The number of rifles (long guns) used for HOMICIDE, when subtracting police, accidental and self-defense shootings is about 2% of US gun homicides.

As pointed out by you and others, no military uses the semi-automatic AR rifle.

Claims of 'weapons of war' historically includes swords, muskets, bolt action rifles, revolvers and spears - it means anything and nothing at the same time.
 
Last Edited:

Jonnyuma

Messages
3,322
Reactions
8,708
... they intentionally conflate suicides with homicides to make gun deaths appear a larger problem to be solved by more gun control laws.
They do it for the reason you stated and because they KNOW that unconnected minions and stooges will do the same thing on social media, ad nauseam, without ever differentiating between suicides, accidental deaths, justified shootings, and murders. It's the same fast and loose statistical gerrymandering that empowers them for the next talking point; states with stricter gun control have less gun deaths (conflated w murders) than states with less restrictions.

It's extremely difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who doesn't even know some basic facts... or care to know.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
2,925
Reactions
5,924
While the sensationalist Marxist, disarming theories may be what the politicians are going for (I don't think so), it's not why the average liberal American wants ar15s banned.

Their reason is much simpler. Fear. They're unfamiliar, uneducated and only ever see that type of gun after a mass shooting. The media paints it as a super killing machine, shows chops and politicians saying the average person has no need for such weapons and the uneducated masses blindly follow.

Why would city liberals defend guns? They didn't grow up with one, don't have friends or family with guns, don't see a need for a gun and so on. And let's be honest, unless you live in the ghetto, the chances of you needing to defend yourself in an American city is pretty low (and thank goodness for that.)
 

ma96782

Messages
6,863
Reactions
12,036
The AR-15 is indeed a military grade weapon, and maybe this is what frightens leftists the most. Not because they are personally more likely to be shot by one (we’ve already proven that notion false), but because leftists desire control over all else, and with military grade weapons in the hands of the public control becomes much more difficult. ALL totalitarian governments seek to first disarm the people they intend to enslave or destroy. This is a fact.
Taken from the article.

Gun-Control-Works123.jpg


Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Never forget.


Aloha, Mark

PS.....did you notice some of the similarities with modern Amerika?
"...Keep your guns, and buy more guns, and stack up on your ammo. A gun is no good if you don't have any ammo. Dictatorship did not happen overnight..."

"...America is the greatest country in the world, if we can keep it"
 
Last Edited:
Messages
4,202
Reactions
10,750
I appreciate most of the points in the article; especially the portrait of the mindset of the gun-grabbers. However, (and this is certainly no knock on you for posting it OP), the article has a couple things that I take issue with.

1st is this incorrect statistic here:

(The article states)

"Let’s examine the first issue of statistical probability; how many people are actually killed by AR-15s each year? Not many according to the FBI, which does not track the stats on specific rifles, but does track the stats on all rifles together. And, as it turns out, only around 6% of all gun deaths involve rifles in the US each year."


These are the actual #s...

There are roughly (on average) 35-40K deaths attributed to the use of firearms in the country per year. There are roughly 350-400 deaths attributed to the use of ALL long guns(this includes all types of rifles, carbines and shotguns - whether they be semi-auto or otherwise).

The correct statement would be that around 1%(not 6%) of all gun deaths involve ALL long guns(not just rifles) each year.



The other beef that I have is referring to the semi-auto AR-15 as a "military grade rifle". While similar in many ways to the M16A2 and M4A1, there are some fundamental differences between a semi-auto AR-15 and the afore mentioned rifles. The anti-gunners love to apply the inane reasoning that "military grade rifles don't belong on our streets".

The author writes in the article:

"The AR-15 is indeed a weapon in military use"

While technically correct when referencing its select-fire cousins. I know of no military in the world that employs the semi-auto AR-15, nor have I ever heard anybody apply the moniker 'Battle-Rifle' to the semi-auto AR-15. The semi-auto AR-15 is (and always has been) marketed to civilians.

I understand that it may be merely semantics, and we all know that the NFA is unconstitutional bubblegum, but words matter in the battle of public opinions.

Semi-auto AR-15s ought to be referred to as 'Modern Sporting Rifles'. "Gun Violence' ought to be referred to as 'Gang Violence'. Etc. Etc. Etc.
And even if the AR-15 was a military rifle, that would make it even more appropriate for American people to be able to own them, as was the intent of the 2nd amendment. “Arms” not muskets.
 

fishpoem

Messages
106
Reactions
278
the chances of you needing to defend yourself in an American city is pretty low
Take a walk through downtown Portland some night during a "peaceful protest". You might think otherwise. More and more Antifa are carrying pistols, knives, brass knuckles, and AK47s. Contrary to Biden, Antifa is NOT just an "idea."
 
Messages
2,925
Reactions
5,924
Take a walk through downtown Portland some night during a "peaceful protest". You might think otherwise. More and more Antifa are carrying pistols, knives, brass knuckles, and AK47s. Contrary to Biden, Antifa is NOT just an "idea."
I don't think otherwise. I said "unless you live in the ghetto." I'll consider that part of Portland "the ghetto."
 
Southwest Firearms
Cerberus Training Group
Pacwest Defense
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Sporting Systems

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top