Instigator / Pro
21
1532
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1549
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
SirAnonymous
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
11
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
Description
Gun control and gun rights are a hot topic today. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates support an assault weapons ban and single out the AR-15, which they label an assault rifle, as the main target of the ban. However, in my opinion, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. My opponent is free to prove otherwise.
Rules:
1. No insults
2. No profanity
Notes:
The burden of proof will be shared by both debaters.
This debate is about whether or not the AR-15 is an assault rifle, not about whether or not it should be regulated or banned.
I am looking forward to a respectful and productive debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Definitions
AR-15: The Armalite Rifle 15. There are two types of rifles that have gone by the AR-15 designation, so I want to clarify which one I am talking about. The first rifle called the AR-15 was a selective fire rifle that fired a .556x45 mm round. This rifle was adopted by the military as the M16. It is most definitely an assault rifle and is not the subject of this debate. The second type of rifle, which is the AR-15 as we know it today, is a civilian variant of the M16 that has been modified so it is only semiautomatic rather than selective fire. This rifle became extremely popular, inspiring several other companies to produce their own versions. Thus, the AR-15 is not a single rifle but rather a style of rifle. However, they are sufficiently similar that I will refer to them as the AR-15, even though that is not technically accurate for many versions.
Semiautomatic: A term describing firearms that, when fired, eject the empty casing and load the next round. Every time the trigger is pulled, the gun fires once.
Automatic: A term describing firearms that, when the trigger is pulled, automatically eject the empty casing, reload, and fire the next shot. Every time the trigger is pulled, the gun will fire until the trigger is released or the gun is out of ammunition.
Burstfire: A term describing firearms that fire a certain number of bullets, frequently 3 or 5, when the trigger is pulled.
Selective fire: A term describing firearms that can switch between multiple modes of fire, usually semiautomatic and automatic or burstfire.
Opening Arguments
Before determining whether or not the AR-15 is an assault rifle, we must first determine what an assault rifle is. I will use two definitions, both of which are rooted in empirical facts from reliable sources, to explain what an assault rifle is.
The first definition I will present is the historical definition. I will begin by referencing the book Small Arms from the 17th Century to the Present Day by Martin Dougherty. Since my opponent likely does not own the book and I will not make him or the voters buy the book in order to understand my source, I will quote the relevant passage.
Experience in the early years of World War II demonstrated that modern combat was likely to take place at relatively short ranges, often in urban terrain, and that concentrated firepower was at least as desirable as long-range accuracy in a service rifle. One solution might have been to issue submachine guns more widely, but this would create a situation where a proportion of infantry would be powerless at ranges over 100m (328 ft). A single weapon, capable of accurate fire at reasonable range yet handy enough to be effective in close-quarters urban fighting, was desirable. The result was the weapon originally designated MP (machine-pistol)-44 but quickly renamed a 'storm rifle' - i.e. what would become known as an assault rifle.
If my opponent desires the entire context of the quote to ensure that I am not misquoting it, I am quite willing to provide the entire passage (which is only a paragraph) it in the comments section. For a freely available source with similar information, see https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-sturmgewehr-44-stg44-2361247.
The rifle that resulted from these considerations was the Sturmgewehr-44 ("Storm rifle" or "Assault rifle" in English). It was an intermediate ranged, selective fire rifle
with a detachable box magazine. The term "assault rifle" refers to rifles that follow that basic pattern. It is important to note that, because of this, "assault rifle" does not mean "rifles used in an assault." It refers to rifles that follow the pattern of a weapon called "Assault rifle." By this definition, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it lacks the most important part of that pattern. It is purely semiautomatic and not selective fire.
The second definition I will present is from the organization that is indisputably one of the most authoritative sources on the matter: the U.S. Army. Wikipedia summarizes their definition as follows:
The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
- It must be capable of selective fire.
- It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
- Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
- It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
Since the AR-15 is not selective fire, it is not an assault rifle by the U.S. Army's definition.
My opponent copy-pasted the definition of an "appeal to definition" fallacy and the definition of colloquial in the comments sections, so I am presuming that he thinks I am using that fallacy because there is also a colloquial definition. However, it does not apply in this situation, and it is easy to see why. Simply put, if my opponent chooses to use this argument, he will be arguing the logical equivalent of "A tomato is a vegetable." Observe:
Person A: A tomato (AR-15) is a vegetable (assault rifle).
Person B: There is a scientific (historical, military) definition of a vegetable that shows that a tomato is not a vegetable.
Person A: That's an appeal to definition because there is also a colloquial definition of a vegetable that would classify a tomato as a vegetable.
This logic is obviously flawed. A tomato does not have all the characteristics of a vegetable, so, regardless of what the colloquial definition says, a tomato is not a vegetable. It may taste like a vegetable, so it satisfies the colloquial definition, but it isn't one. That is because the colloquial definition of a vegetable as something that tastes like a vegetable or is traditionally put on vegetable trays is wrong.
In the same way, an AR-15 does not have all the characteristics of an assault rifle, so, regardless of what the colloquial definition says, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It may look like an assault rifle, so it satisfies the colloquial definition, but it isn't one. That is because the colloquial definition of an assault rifle as a rifle that looks like an assault rifle or is called an assault rifle by the media is wrong.
Of course, if my opponent, does not use this argument, the last few paragraphs are quite irrelevant. Even so, I would recommend to my opponent that he not provide previews of a possible argument before actually making his argument. Obviously, it allows his opponent to prepare for what he's going to argue.
Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. The floor is yours.
Con
#2
I want to state why I accepted this debate, not so much to win it but to make an important point
Who cares what you call an AR 15 ? death machine? sporting rifle? it is what it is
this whole idea that its even important to quibble about what to call this deadly instrument makes me angry and a bit sick
"Fallacies of definition are the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an analogy with an informal fallacy.[citation needed] Definitions may fail to have merit, because they: are overly broad, use obscure or ambiguous language, or contain circular reasoning; those are called fallacies of definition.[1] Three major fallacies are: overly broad, overly narrow, and mutually exclusive definitions,[2] a fourth is: incomprehensible definitions,[3] and one of the most common[4] is circular definitions.[5
A definition intended to describe a given set of individuals fails if its description of matching individuals is incongruous: too broad (excessively loose with parameters) or too narrow (excessively strict with parameters). For example, "a shape with four sides of equal length" is not a sufficient definition for "square", because squares are not the only shapes that can have four sides of equal length; rhombi do as well. Likewise, defining a "rectangle" as "a shape with four perpendicular sides of equal length" is inappropriate because it is too narrow, as it describes only squares while excluding all other kinds of rectangles, thus being a plainly incorrect definition.
If a cow were defined as an animal with horns, this would be overly broad (including goats, for example), while if a cow were defined as a black-and-white quadruped, this would be both overly narrow (excluding: all-black, all-white, all-brown and white-brown cows, for example)[2] and overly broad (including Dalmatians, for example)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
"Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. More broadly speaking it can refer to any argument about definitions, semantics, or what label to apply to a person or idea — an actual dictionary may not be involved, sometimes the definition is purely personal, sometimes it can be a case of picking and choosing definitions raised by other sources,[2] but the end use is the same. For the most part, "dictionary" is used as a short-cut to refer to any source of these definitions, including statement such as "well, if I define X like this…", which is possibly the most asinine form of the fallacy. See, we've had to head off one use of this fallacy already in case someone says, "It's not this fallacy because I'm not using a dictionary!"
It is a form of argument from authority combining attributes of a red herring argument and, frequently, special pleading. It's very closely related to equivocation and doublespeak. About 91.3% of arguments on the internet tend to boil down to this"I mean why are we wasting so much time arguing about what to call this thing its killing CHIlDREN AS WE SPEAK! https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html
"
Colloquialism or colloquial language is the linguistic style used for casual communication. It is the most common functional style of speech, the idiom normally employed in conversation and other informal contexts.[1] Colloquialism is characterized by wide usage of interjections and other expressive devices; it makes use of non-specialist terminology, and has a rapidly changing lexicon. It can also be distinguished by its usage of formulations with incomplete logical and syntactic ordering.[2][3][4][5]A specific instance of such language is termed a colloquialism. The most common term used in dictionaries to label such an expression is colloquial."
in conversational language an asualt rifle means soething a bit diiferent than the official defintion the offical defintion is a select fire military rifle that fires a militart cartrige
in coloqual use the term refers to the civlian semi automatic versions of the weapons
iN NEW ZELAND THEY HAVe FOUND a solution to this problem a brand new legal term Military-style semi-automatic firearms in New Zealand are those semi-automatic firearms known in the United States as "assault weapons". The phrase is often abbreviated as military-style semi-automatic (MSSA). A New Zealand firearms licence-holder requires an E Category endorsement on their licence before they can possess this type of firearm, and a police-issued permit to procure each firearm is required. Arriving at a clear definition and common understanding of which semi-automatic firearms have a military-style configuration has dominated debate about gun-control legislation in New Zealand since 1992.
whatever you want to cal these thing they kill they killed so many people in new zealand they finally banned them
it doesnt matter what you cal them what matters is they kill people and no one should have one who isnt police or militaryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms#2019_ban
Round 2
Pro
#3
I apologize for taking so long to post my argument. I have had an unusually busy week.
Several of my opponents' response is irrelevant to the topic. Even so, I will address his irrelevant arguments, although I will clearly distinguish them from his relevant arguments.
Rebutting Relevant Arguments
Fallacy of Definition and Argumentum ad Dictionarium
Firstly, you don't make the slightest effort to prove that I'm using these fallacies. You don't even say I am using them. Instead, by merely quoting definitions without commentary, you require your readers to figure out your argument for you. This is both extremely lazy and completely invalid. If you want to say I'm using a fallacy, you must at show how I'm using it.
Secondly, this debate is largely about the definition of an assault rifle, since the definition of an AR-15 is undisputed. It is not a fallacy to establish a definition in a debate that centers around establishing a definition.
Thirdly, I refer you and the voters to my analogy of "A tomato is a vegetable," which my opponent has not addressed.
in conversational language an asualt rifle means soething a bit diiferent than the official defintion the offical defintion is a select fire military rifle that fires a militart cartrige
This is the entire point of the debate. Just as the colloquial definition that would make a tomato into a vegetable is wrong, so the colloquial definition that would call an AR-15 an assault rifle is wrong. I am aware that they are different, and I am using this debate to prove why the colloquial definition of assault rifle as a gun that looks scary and military-ish is wrong.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a military cartridge. While the military does use standard cartridges, they are not exclusively for the military.
in coloqual use the term refers to the civlian semi automatic versions of the weapons
Semiautomatic variants of military rifles are no different in function than any other civilian weapon and are very different in function that the military weapon they're based off. Simply because a design is based off a military rifle does not mean it is different from other civilian weapons. In fact, a civilian firearm based off an assault rifle has been specifically redesigned so it isn't an assault rifle. That's why it is a civilian rifle and not a military rifle. In order to argue that an AR-15 is an assault rifle, you are forced to argue that a gun specifically designed not to be an assault rifle is an assault rifle.
iN NEW ZELAND THEY HAVe FOUND a solution to this problem a brand new legal term Military-style semi-automatic firearms
Introducing a workaround term like this reads very much like an implicit concession that it isn't an assault rifle. If it is an assault rifle, then why bring up this other term?
Rebutting Irrelevant Arguments
Who cares what you call an AR 15 ? death machine? sporting rifle? it is what it is
Yes, it is what it is regardless of what we call it. However, it does matter what we call it. If the media sells the misconception that it is an assault rifle, that will influence people against the AR-15 over something that is not true.
this whole idea that its even important to quibble about what to call this deadly instrument makes me angry and a bit sick
Why would it make you sick? Do you think that I am somehow okay with mass shootings so long as I have my 2nd Amendment rights, or is that reading too much in to your statement? If not, then why does it make you sick?
I mean why are we wasting so much time arguing about what to call this thing its killing CHIlDREN AS WE SPEAK! https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html
This is refuted by your own source. According to the Axios article, there were 941 deaths in mass shootings. This article links to a study that shows an Excel sheet of the mass shootings in America from 1982-2019. I added up the number of deaths in which AR-15s were involved and got 139. That is 3.76 deaths per year, or one death every 97 days. Furthermore, that number is high because many of the shootings involved other weapons and the shooting responsible for the most deaths (Las Vegas concert shooting at 58 deaths) involved an AR-15 modified with a bump stock, changing how the weapon functioned, so it arguably would not count. Eliminating the Vegas shooting alone brings it to only 2.2 deaths per year or one death every 167 days. That is anything but "killing children as we speak." Of course, this relates only to mass shootings, not to gun homicides in general, but that is what you linked to. Also, whether or not the gun kills people is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is an assault rifle.
iN NEW ZELAND THEY HAVe FOUND a solution to this problem a brand new legal term Military-style semi-automatic firearms in New Zealand are those semi-automatic firearms known in the United States as "assault weapons".
Both of these terms are totally disconnected from how dangerous the firearms actually are. Such rifles are military-style in appearance only. Their function is very different from an actual military rifle. Also, I have a simple question for you: if these guns are military-style, then why doesn't the military use them? The answer is clear: these guns are labeled as military-style purely due to cosmetics and not due to their effectiveness.
it doesnt matter what you cal them what matters is they kill people and no one should have one who isnt police or military
I explicitly stated in the description "This debate is about whether or not the AR-15 is an assault rifle, not about whether or not it should be regulated or banned." What about that was not clear?
Conclusion
My opponent spent much of his post on irrelevant points. His only attempt to refute my arguments was quoting the definitions of two logical fallacies. I must point out that, not only did he fail to explain how I used them, he did not even bother to say that I used them; instead, he requires his readers to do his arguing for him. His only positive argument that the AR-15 is an assault rifle was a brief mention of the colloquial definition. However, he provided no reason to believe that that definition is correct, whereas I have provided several reasons to believe that it is incorrect and that the historical definition is.
I wish to thank PaulVerlaine for his prompt response and to apologize once again for my tardiness. Over to you.
Con
#4
My compelling feeling about this is who cares/ it is what it is, why get all worked up about what to call it ? you know why? its a red herring
Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters, or to induce them to make false conclusions.
Red Herring - Examples and Definition of Red Herring
https://literarydevices.net › red-herring
the real issue you wish to divert frm is how dangerous and destructive this device is admit it, you deliberately divert from the real issue because thats one argument you cant win!!!
It is a form of argument from authority combining attributes of a red herring argument and, frequently, special pleading. It's very closely related to equivocation and doublespeak. About 91.3% of arguments on the internet tend to boil down to this."
"Semi-automatic rifles kill twice as many as other guns, study finds
Researchers who examined FBI data on nearly 250 "active shooter" assaults also found that the chances of dying, if shot, were the same no matter the weapon." theres the real issue, and I dont care if I win or lose the debate, thats not why I do this I do this to make people think study where i get my data think about the fact i might just be right open your mind
This isnt about what to call this thing it is what it is What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By Any Other Name would smell as sweet, that what we call an assualt weapon will kill twice as many people as a normal hunting rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(firearms)
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you for your prompt response.
Rebuttals
Once again, my opponent has presented some irrelevant arguments, so I will divide my rebuttals into two sections.
--Rebutting Relevant Arguments.
My compelling feeling about this is who cares/ it is what it is, why get all worked up about what to call it ? you know why? its a red herring
It isn't a red herring. Many media companies and politicians are pushing the narrative that the AR-15 is an assault rifle and are trying to get it banned. It is in no way a red herring to make a debate refuting a lie that is used to support proposed legislation.
the real issue you wish to divert frm is how dangerous and destructive this device is admit it, you deliberately divert from the real issue
No. The real issue here is whether or not the AR-15 is an assault rifle. That is the topic of the debate. You are trying to Kritik that topic by saying that it doesn't matter because of how dangerous the rifle is. However, it does matter. There are politicians trying to ban this gun based on this lie. It matters, and it is a real issue.
Here is an example of a politician trying to ban the AR-15.
Argumentum ad Dictatorium
Once again, you have copy-pasted the definition of this fallacy into your debate argument. Once again, you have not even bothered to say that I'm using it, let alone explaining how I'm using it. This is incredibly lazy and completely invalid. This is a debate. You need to make your own arguments. It is unacceptable to try to make your readers figure out your arguments for you.
theres the real issue...This isnt about what to call this thing it is what it is
As I demonstrated above, that is not the real issue, and this is about what to call it. The words we use to describe this weapon influence how people think about it. If we call it an assault rifle, we would be lying and influencing people against it based on that lie. If we call it a hunting or sporting rifle, which is what it is, then people will not be influenced against it based on a lie. You don't get to derail a debate on a topic that is both relevant and important simply because you don't think that it's the "real issue."
--Refuting Irrelevant Arguments
because thats one argument you cant win!!!
Firstly, that is not the reason I am diverting the debate, because I am not diverting the debate in the first place.
Secondly, not only can I win that argument, but you gave me the information needed to do just that.
This is refuted by your own source. According to the Axios article, there were 941 deaths in mass shootings. This article links to a study that shows an Excel sheet of the mass shootings in America from 1982-2019. I added up the number of deaths in which AR-15s were involved and got 139. That is 3.76 deaths per year, or one death every 97 days. Furthermore, that number is high because many of the shootings involved other weapons and the shooting responsible for the most deaths (Las Vegas concert shooting at 58 deaths) involved an AR-15 modified with a bump stock, changing how the weapon functioned, so it arguably would not count. Eliminating the Vegas shooting alone brings it to only 2.2 deaths per year or one death every 167 days. That is anything but "killing children as we speak." Of course, this relates only to mass shootings, not to gun homicides in general, but that is what you linked to.
This is the study that the Axios article you posted linked to.
Clearly, 2.2 deaths in mass shootings perpetrated with unmodified AR-15s each year is not the result of an unusually dangerous gun (which is not to say that these deaths are acceptable, but only that that isn't enough to say it is as dangerous as you claim).
what we call an assualt weapon will kill twice as many people as a normal hunting rifle
Actually, the AR-15 is a normal hunting rifle.
It is a 0.223 caliber, which is a very common small caliber. The kinetic energy of its bullet when it leaves the barrel is less than half of a 30-06 rifle, which is one of the most common calibers for hunting deer. Because of its small mass, it loses energy faster than other bullets. While you could argue that the fact that a standard AR-15 magazine can hold a lot of cartridges makes it more deadly, more cartridges are needed because of its low stopping power (which refers to the gun's ability to stop or incapacitate a person).
Also, the sources you link do not support your claim that an "assault weapon will kill twice as many people as a normal hunting rifle," so there is no reason to accept that claim as true until you provide a source.
Arguments
You have made no attempt to refute my arguments that the AR-15 is not assault rifle, so they all still stand. The resolution is affirmed.
The floor is yours.
Con
#6
This whole argument is irrelevant i'm not here to win some silly argument i'm here to make you listen
who cares what you call this thing? it kills and it kills twice as many people as a normal gun no civilian needs one https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/semi-automatic-rifles-kill-twice-many-other-guns-study-finds-n908536 i am on a mission from god
god knows i am winning this debate
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thank you for the response and the debate.
Retractions
Also, the sources you link do not support your claim that an "assault weapon will kill twice as many people as a normal hunting rifle," so there is no reason to accept that claim as true until you provide a source.
When I made this statement, I failed to notice that he had sourced his claim above his statement rather than below it as I had expected. I retract my statement and apologize for my negligence.
Rebuttals
--Rebutting Relevant Arguments
This whole argument is irrelevant
I have demonstrated its relevance multiple times, and you have dropped all of my arguments. I have established its relevance, and you have not even attempted to refute my arguments.
who cares what you call this thing?
I have also established that it does matter what we call it. You have attempted to refute it by claiming that the AR-15 is dangerous, so it doesn't matter. Interestingly, the NBC article you linked refutes your refutation. It says that no one semiautomatic rifle is more dangerous than another, so the AR-15 is not more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles.
--Rebutting Irrelevant Arguments
it kills and it kills twice as many people as a normal gun
You misinterpreted the study. It was not specific to the AR-15, but rather to semiautomatic rifles in general. Also, this study has an inherent flaw in it. It only looks at semiautomatic rifles vs non-automatic guns. This ignores semiautomatic handguns, which are one of, if not the, most common weapon in homicides. Relatively few murders are committed with rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise.
(Note: a large proportion of handguns aren't semiautomatic. However, most of those that aren't are revolvers, which usually have the same rate of fire)
In other words, they are comparing an outlier to an outlier. You can't use that study to reach results about "normal guns" or how semiautomatic compare to them. Also, roughly 20% of all guns in America and 50% of all new guns purchased are semiautomatic, so semiautomatics are "normal guns."
Conclusion
My opponent has put very little effort into this debate. He quoted definitions of logical fallacies, but required his readers to figure out what he meant by linking them. He dropped nearly all of my arguments that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. He attempted a Kritik on the grounds that it's irrelevant, but he dropped my arguments proving its relevancy.
In contrast, I have provided clear, empirical reasons to believe that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle and that the topic is relevant. Vote Pro.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession means forefeiture of arguments voiding the debate, therefore making PRO the winner
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con did not even attempt to rebut the relevant topic at hand, instead choosing to vaguely point out fallacies without explaining how Pro committed said fallacies.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con dropped pro's whole argument, telling us about how he's on a mission from god [sic]. This is too overwhelming to take the rest seriously. While not an explicit concession, it might as well be.
Plus the whole copy/paste rather than making his own case (plagiarism, that alone would be grounds for this vote).
And finally choosing to forfeit.
Comparatively, pro made a case. Apparently the US Army says the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and they seem to be a good authority on this topic (not going to pretend I read the whole case when I knew no real challenge would come).
Edit: the AR-15's caliber is 5.56 mms, not 0.556.
I beat u 2 it
Continued
(Just look at the picture. I have no idea what the rest of the site is about.)
That rifle is the M1 garand. It looks very unassuming and un-assault-rifle-y. It also has a caliber over 30% larger and is at least twice as powerful as the AR-15. I'm showing this to demonstrate the complete arbitrariness of the term "assault weapon." When the media and politicians use it, they aren't referring to unusually dangerous guns, but just to scary-looking guns.
Continued
I will stop quoting here because it gets into the technicalities of the gun that resulted from this: the Sturmgewehr-44. The point of this is that "assault rifle" doesn't refer to rifles designed for assault but instead to rifles that follow the pattern laid out by the Sturmgewehr-44, which was a rifle that had the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and automatic fire (or burstfire, in the case of some M16 models).
"You are claiming (ridiculously) that an assault weapon that is a rifle must never be mistaken for an assault rifle."
I am claiming no such thing. The M16, M4, and AK-47 are all assault weapons that are rifles that are, in fact, assault rifles.
"Given that the argument has a long history of use by the NRA to distract from the AR-15's relative unworthiness for self-defense, hunting, or other legal purpose, the premise is certainly open to attack."
That isn't even remotely true. The AR-15 is extremely popular for hunting. Its capacity for large magazines, ease of use, and especially its stopping power make it an excellent choice for self-defense, especially against multiple criminals. Finally, nearly any firearm, including machine guns, can be used for entirely legal recreation, such as firing them at shooting ranges. Contrary to popular mythology (I don't mean to be rude, but it really is mythology), the AR-15 is in no way, shape, or form more dangerous than most other semiautomatic rifles. Its caliber is fairly small (0.556 mm), it cannot fire any faster than any other semiautomatic weapon, and it does not have a high muzzle velocity. All told, it is actually very ordinary. For comparison, here is a picture of another rifle that no one would consider an assault rifle (for the excellent reason that it was invented before the concept of assault rifles even existed):
https://www.gunsamerica.com/952754350/Springfield-Armory-M1-Garand-Tanker-30-06.htm
"In the big picture, however, you are arguing that a rifle made for the purposes of assault cannot be accurately termed an assault rifle."
Yes and no. I'll start with no because AR-15s were not made for assault. The original AR-15 design which became the M16 was, but it had the option of automatic or burstfire (I forget which) that made it fundamentally different from the modern AR-15, which is designed for civilian use and not for assault. I say yes because that isn't what the term assault rifle means. It doesn't just refer to any rifle made for assault, but to rifles made for a specific kind of assault. To quote from the book "Small Arms from the 17th Century to the Present Day" (This site needs italics, and no, that book isn't a collection of pro-gun propaganda, but a list of guns, their specifications, and histories),
"Experience in the early years of World War II demonstrated that modern combat was likely to take place at relatively short ranges, often in urban terrain, and that concentrated firepower was at least as desirable as long-range accuracy in a service rifle. One solution might have been to issue submachine guns more widely, but this would create a situation where a proportion of infantry would be powerless at ranges over 100m (328 ft). A single weapon, capable of accurate fire at reasonable range yet handy enough to be effective in close-quarters urban fighting, was desirable. The result was the weapon originally designated MP (machine-pistol)-44 but quickly renamed a 'storm rifle' - i.e. what would become known as an assault rifle."
"Of course some debate types mandate Kritiks; countering truisms for example."
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
A K does that because it challenges the resolution
"unless the premise was something truly unusual or ridiculous."
A tautological argument is ridiculous. You are relying on a well-established definition. If we accept the definition then there is nothing to debate- you simply cite the definition and claim the win- which is not considered real engagement.
In the big picture, however, you are arguing that a rifle made for the purposes of assault cannot be accurately termed an assault rifle. You are claiming (ridiculously) that an assault weapon that is a rifle must never be mistaken for an assault rifle. Given that the argument has a long history of use by the NRA to distract from the AR-15's relative unworthiness for self-defense, hunting, or other legal purpose, the premise is certainly open to attack.
Well, a large reason they don't use full auto is because it is much less ammo efficient, and you never know when you'll get a resupply. I think that is another good reason to only sell full auto. They will run out of ammo faster!
;)
So "to K" would be to bring up an irrelevant topic rather than address the premise? Sounds like that would spoil the point of the debate, unless the premise was something truly unusual or ridiculous.
I would say that having a gun is not even moral and leads to more violence. I have run K's before on Gun Control
Every Darter should read Ragnar's excellent "How to K"
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
How would you run a K on this debate?
"This seems like an easy win for con. No K necessary. It flat out isnt."
Are you saying that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle? If so, that would mean it should be an easy win for pro because the premise is "The AR-15 is not an assault rifle." I'm a little confused.
Semi-Auto is only as fast as you make it. At that, it is only as controlled as you make it. Just because Semi-Auto allows you to fire fast does not mean you can fire accurately. No one can just pick up an AR-15 and have John Wick like accuracy.
Something like an AK-47 is more dangerous than an AR-15 because it fires 7.62mm and has fully auto.
If they have a tripod or incredible arm strength, then yes. Semi auto is incredibly fast on its own, and you are less likely to end up shooting at the ceiling within 2 seconds from the recoil.
Theres a reason why the military doesnt typically use it. Because except for special situations, like a tripod (or whatever its term is), its less lethal.
I would have to disagree. A higher rate of fire would be more dangerous in a crowded area. In the military, they generally use burst fire and single fire anyway.
We'll be alittle extra safe. There would be slightly smaller casualty counts if thats ok. Although if a crazy/angry non amateur gets his hands on one....
So since removing full auto makes it more accurate and deadly, that means we should only sell it in full auto, right? We will be extra safe.
This seems like an easy win for con. No K necessary. It flat out isnt.
It certainly looks like it should be though. "Sporting rifle" my @s. What sport is this for? Its a slightly nerfed military weapon, that doesnt mean civilizans should have it. Removing full auto makes it more accurate and deadly for stupid amateurs.
+1
If I were running vs the argument, I would run a K.
There is a very specific definition for assault rifle which includes the option of automatic fire. Since an AR-15 is not designed for auto it is not an assault rifle according to a well established definition that goes back as far as Hitler. Assault weapons were defined by the 1994 ban on Assault Weapons. AR-15s were specifically designated assault weapons by that ban. Since that legislation expired No solid Fed definition for assault weapon seems to exist although some state and local legislation still calls an AR-15 an assault weapon. This is a popular semantic trap for people who aren’t aware that assault rifle is very narrowly defined.
I know.
I'm a little amused by how the terminology would turn out.
As far as I know, there isn't a definition for these types of things.
He said it wasn't an assault rifle. He didn't say it wasn't a rifle.
It stands for ArmaLite Rifle 15.
So, is it an assault weapon rifle?
Ramshutu, could you provide a link to the doj's definition of an assault weapon? So far as I can tell, they either don't have one or titled the webpage something that doesn't resemble "definition of an assault weapon," because I can't find it. I found their definition of assault and a short list of firearm laws, but nothing about assault weapons.
AR-15s meet the legal definition of an assault weapon as defined by the department of justice.
"AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934."
"If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an “assault weapon,” then they’ve been duped by an agenda. The only real way to define what is an “assault weapon” is politically, as in how any given law chooses to define the term—this is why the states that have banned this category of semiautomatic firearms have done so with very different definitions."
- https://www.nssf.org/msr/
It’s not an assault rifle, it’s an assault weapon.