From military weapon to cultural symbol: how the AR-15 has defined the US gun debate
From military weapon to cultural symbol: how the AR-15 has defined the US gun debate
Authors of the book American Gun talk about the long history of the country’s most popular firearm and the role it plays in politics
You're viewing a single thread.
pssst. The AR-15 has been
usedofficially adopted by a total of no military anywhere on the planet.*about 1,000 Ar15 was purchased between 1957 and 1961, and tested, by the US military. I now realize this can fit the description of "used" if you wanted to be very liberal with the definition of "used," I suppose. So fine, "this problem was addressed in 1961."
Now, stop pretending that ar15s sold since 1961 are the same as M16s, better?
Pssst…nobody with half a brain cares about your technicality. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic version of the M-16, the rifle obviously used in the military. IOW, in case you didn’t hear it the first time, the AR is a semiauto civilian version of a military rifle, a copy except for the automatic part. Get it? Unless you’d like to just argue semantics instead of substance…
Pssst, the "military grade" part everyone loves to harp on is the "automatic parts," other than that it's just a normal rifle.
Technicality it is, then.
Except those are the exact parts that make it an "m16" instead of an "ar15" which is why there are two different names, the parts that have been illegal for civilians to buy without a class III SOT for two months shy of 38 years now are the "military grade" parts, the rest of the parts are "civilian grade" parts, ergo, the ar15 is not "military grade" since it lacks said "military grade" parts as would be in an "m16" or "m4." With those parts, it becomes those things, without those parts, it is a civilian ar15. If you build am ar15 but include the parts to make it an m16, you have instead built an m16. You can stop pretending you're too incompotent to understand that anytime you'd like.
Haha, yeah…keep skipping past the point. I’m no stranger to firearms. Keep harping on technicality. That’s like saying a track-only McLaren 720S with the emissions removed and an open exhaust isn’t the same car as a street legal version. Sure they are. Just different rules.
Ah whatever with your "gun of thesius" bullshit, you know as well as I do supposedly the important parts aren't legal for civilians without a class III SOT, so why play pretend that the ones on the street actually are "military grade?"
Well…let’s dig into the history of the AR, shall we? Aside from the part where you’re trying to make the argument about Class III bullshit and not the point of the discussion which is that the AR and M-16 are essentially the same rifle.
The AR is “ArmaLite”, of which I am sure you are abundantly aware. How long has ArmaLite been around? Since the ‘50s. Guess what…they’re the ones originally trying to sell the AR-15 to the military. Note that I said AR-15, not M-16. And it did sell, but not too well at the time. But guess what? It was the ArmaLite rifle the military bought…so guess what? That makes the AR-15 a military rifle. Of course, obviously they re-designated it M-16. And when the AR patent expired, other manufacturers jumped in making copies but we still generically call them “AR”.
No? Not good enough? How about a quote right from ArmaLite themselves:
The ensuing rifle was called the AR-15 and was produced with aircraft grade aluminum receivers, weighing less than seven pounds. In 1959, the AR-10 was licensed to the Dutch Arsenal, Artillerie Inrichtingen, for sale on the international market and then to Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, along with the AR-15.
Seeing as you’re so obsessed with technicalities, this should make you happy. But somehow I don’t think it will, even though the AR-15 being a “military rifle” is 100% correct.
AR and M-16 are essentially the same rifle.
Actually yes that is my point exactly, they're not essentially the same rifle. Are a nuke and a grenade "essentially the same" because they both explode? No because despite having similarities there are a few key differences between the two ordanences. Similarly, the AR15 and M16 are different rifles despite cosmetic similarities, because the key differences in the functional parts, namely the auto sear (or burst ratcheting system for the M4). For a civilian to have what you're trying to dress AR15s up as they have to have that class III SOT bullshit.
Yes yes the military got them to add a forward assist and bought like 1,000 of them under the designation of AR-15 between 1957 and 1961, when they changed the designation to M16 for full adoption. Who's the pedant now? They were still select fire, so fine, "there were about 1,000 'military grade' ones in 1959ish," but why pretend that everyone has one in their closet today if we both know it isn't true? The ones owned by people without a class III SOT today are all invariably "not military grade," so why pretend that they are? You and I both know the functional parts are different, yet you pretend they aren't.
ArcaneSlime said:
pssst. The AR-15 has been used by a total of no military anywhere on the planet.
but wait...
ArcaneSlime also said:
Yes yes the military got them to add a forward assist and bought like 1,000 of them under the designation of AR-15 between 1957 and 1961
Oh, so you agree? Just wanted to memorialize that for you. Keep arguing about the technicalities on your own.
Yes yes, a total of 1,000, whoopty doo, I was under the impression that since it wasn't officially adopted only purchased by the designation of "ar15" in the same configuration as an m16, I could get away with saying "use." I was mistaken, I can admit when I was wrong.
So you agree this problem was already addressed in 1986 then, which is a refreshing change.
That's not really correct either. A rifle can be an AR-15 and be select fire. The M16--and later the M4--are simply military designations for the AR-15 in one particular configuration.
Yes yes except that has been illegal without a class III SOT since 1986 and we all know it.
Hey, if you want to be technical and pedantic--which I think is the correct way to be here--you gotta get them there details.
Also, it's only illegal for civilians. Law enforcement agencies and the military can still get select fire rifles, although most police agencies have realized that they don't serve any real purpose outside of military squad-based tactics.
True, but nobody is talking about banning them for mil, police there are a few though (and I'm one of them, the police should have what we can have and not a drop more, in regards to guns at least. They can have their toys back when they prove they can handle them imo.) But yeah they are less effective then well placed aimed shots in the civilian world by far.
Yes, the other pendants got there before you long ago. Because that totally invalidates the point of gun violence. Good job.
Well maybe take them off your neck then. Pendants.
Sorry to spoil your fear mongering party with actual facts.
Permanently Deleted
Right, of course. Since the AR-15 was only briefly shipped as a military weapon it doesn't count as one. And since the article is talking about how worship of guns is making gun violence worse by elevating the AR-15 as a status symbol, its non-military status completely invalidates the argument. Clearly, people being hurt and killed by non-military weapons is better for the nation.
I've been so blind. Thank you for repeating this fact so I understand. It’s okay because the AR-15 isn't actually military. All those dead and wounded people can feel better now.
Was tested* by the military and adopted the designation m16 when they picked it up, as they do (remember the m14, the m9, the m...), when they added in the auto sear. Glad I could help against the article trying to mislable for fear mongering purposes and I'm glad you've finally opened your eyes.
Yes, thank you for making me realize that all those gun deaths don't matter. What's really important is how the AR-15 is designated.
Well since you specify thr ar15, you mean less than 500 out of 60,000 per year for .2% of gun deaths? It's not that they don't matter (your words btw, not mine), it's that the fear mongering in an attempt to ban ar15s is transparently performative and you're falling for it and perpetuating it.
Why not just stop calling it military grade, if all it brings is pedantry, and it's not intended to fear monger? (Which you doubled down on the fear mongering, Mr "I love dead kids because they let me act self rightous on the internet." But whatever.)
Isn't the straw already gone from that man you're beating? Or would you care to address what the post is actually talking about instead of nitpicking on whether or not the AR-15 is a military grade weapon?
Yes yes, "the truth" is a strawman. Why pretend it is? Even if it once was why pretend people are just walking around with those all the time when we both know it isn't true?
The truth is you're dismissing the death and suffering of countless people because it might inconvenience you in the pursuit of your gun fetish. Which is what the article is attempting to address and that you are desperately trying to deflect from.
So now that we've established this, we can go our separate ways.
I'm not dismissing it, I'm talking about something else (and also I addressed it, the fact that it only accounts for less than 500 out of 60,000 and banning ar15s is pointless, that part. Or would you prefer I mention the fact that more mass shootings are already currently committed with handguns, and even then they only account for .001% of gun deaths per year?) Am I also currently dismissing elephants because the conversation isn't about them?