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
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.

Well, that was predictable.

-->
@Walrus

Ah! It's a retired 30-year-old! And he's making the exact same argument. Somehow, I'm not buying it.

Oh, the birthday is different. Even so, I'm still suspicious.

-->
@Walrus

The bad grammar, the failure to capitalize letters at the beginning of a sentence, the use of copy-pasted articles rather than making a real argument-all this from an agnostic French-speaking socialist. Boy, does this sound familiar...

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
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

I must protest the petty nature and tyrranny of wasting time with an arbitrary and pointless defintion of a very dangerus instrumentality. it looks like an asiult rifle, it fires the same bullets and almostt the same speed, the only diffrence is the lack of a select fire switch big deal not enough differenc to make such a fuss over

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the vote. I don't blame you for not reading all of it. After R1, it was mainly just Paul bringing up irrelevant points and me tediously refuting them. It didn't make for interesting reading.

-->
@DebateArt.com
@David

Is there a way to make banned users auto-forfeit so we don't have to wait several days for the time to run out? I think this would be very useful, especially in cases where there were several rounds left and a large time-per-round.

My opponent just got banned, so I guess I win. If you're reading this, PaulVerlaine, thanks at least for posting debate rounds promptly. I learned a lot about how to debate from this.

-->
@PaulVerliane

Honestly there is really no point arguing with you anymore. Your R3 response is proof of that. Good luck posting the same argument time and time again because you are continuously met with failure.

-->
@DroneYoinker

vietnam had mig 21s and rpg 12s and lots of soviet hardware dude

-->
@DroneYoinker

we werent just fighting the vietcomng we were fighting the soviet union and china both sent weapons and aid to vietnam and the national liberation front with had mig 21 and t 44 tanks okay?

-->
@PaulVerliane

Not sure what a militia had to do with this.

Paul, we had: helicopters, APC's, chemical warfare, napalm, jets, the likes.

The Vietcong had homemade traps, and Soviet Weaponry.

Vietcong Won, US Lost. Superior Technology was beaten.

-->
@DroneYoinker

soviet aid helped and also the fact we fough the war with one arm tied behind our back and we didnt face a citizen militia wwe faced an roganized government army too

-->
@PaulVerliane

Who won the Vietnam war? The US Military with superior technology or the Vietcong with inferior technology? The Vietnamese because they had better knowledge of the land, and possibly better tactics.

Technology does not dictate a war ENTIRELY, so saying a side lost solely based on the weapons they use is ignorant.

-->
@DroneYoinker

question who won the fawklands war the side with semi automatic rifles or the side with full automatic fnfal rifles one side had full auto the other only semi l1a1's the side with the semi automatic rifles? slaughtered the argentines with ful auto? why? the brits were trained the brits could hit a target, the argentine prayed a sprayed and died

-->
@PaulVerliane

I'd be really interested to meet this salesman who would think SOLDIERS don't need automatic weapons.

-->
@SirAnonymous

British soldiers did fine without it till 1983 in fact the fought the falklands war with semi automatic l1a1, vs argintines with the same weapon in select fire fnfal from belgium if i recall the argintine was slaughtered. the beter training of the uk soldier made the big differnce but many noted that the 308 round makes full auto uncontrolable meaing the brits could actualy hit what they aimed at as the argintine just sprayed like a cat in heat, they payed the ysprayed, they died in mass , you ont need full auto you simply dont and civilians dont need semi auto with some exceptions they are allowed for dangerous game in australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8zvdWF-9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD8dO00c_U4

-->
@PaulVerliane

The salesman wasn't lying about full auto being a waste of ammo in Vietnam. In fact, shooting in general was a waste of ammo. The Viet Cong was so well hidden that soldiers frequently couldn't see what they were shooting at. That's just the nature of guerrilla warfare. In conventional wars, however, automatic weapons are essential, so he was wrong that soldiers shouldn't have it.

-->
@DroneYoinker

when i first went to by a rifle 35 years ago the salemen handed my the chinese ak, and i asked'now this is only semi automatic right? ful auto isnt legal right?" i dont know if it was a sale pitchbut this is what he said' budy i was a slodier for ten years, i fought in nam, you know what full auto is 99% of the time? a waste of ammo thats what , no one needs full auto in civilian life, hell soldiers shouldnt even have it, if you in close quarter just pul the trigger fast" i found out later thats not true often in a fire fight, soldiers are under terrible stress and they often panic not to blame tham war is unbeleivably stressfull i'm sure i'd shit my pants and cry like a little bitch hats of y to our brave men and women in uniform often soldier will freeze and stop puling the trigger that why you have ful auto for suprersing fire in cloase quarters, but a well trained soldier can use a semi automatic rifle up against select fire it isnt that big a disadvantege

col·lo·qui·al·ism
/kəˈlōkwēəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a word or phrase that is not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation.
"the colloquialisms of the streets"
the use of ordinary or familiar words or phrases.
"speech allows for colloquialism and slang"

-->
@PaulVerliane

Thanks for accepting the debate! I had expected that no one would take the debate. I should have my argument up today or tomorrow.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition your whole point is based on a logical fallacy that the definition of this word even matters

-->
@SirAnonymous

short controled bursts can be just as effective or more so in semi automatic if you know hwta you are doing up until 1980 in fact the british main line batle rifle was only in semi automatic because 308 ca;iber was fpond to be just too uncontrollable on ful auto

-->
@PaulVerliane

Continued
When it comes to short range situations involving large numbers of people, an automatic rifle is much more dangerous than a semiautomatic or bolt action, whereas a sniper rifle is borderline useless. That is why the military issues assault rifles like the M4 that can switch to fully automatic.

Tl;dr
Semi-automatics are not as dangerous in mass shooting-type scenarios as automatics.

-->
@PaulVerliane

"a mean looking military looking semi automatic rifle with those bad thngs attached flash suppressor bayont lug pistol grip, assualt rifle usually refers to the civilian semi automatic version of any military rifle that uses an intermediate cartrige"
Actually, that's a decent description of the colloquial definition. However, its complete disconnect from the gun's lethality is why I made this debate.
"only look ive owned semi automatic rifles like that a colt sporter to be exact you can do as much damage with a semi automatic as a select fire weapon all you have to do is keep pulling the trigger,"
Owning one type of gun doesn't mean you are qualified to compare it to another type of gun. You would need knowledge and/or experience with both types of guns in order to compare them. Also, you are incorrect that you can do as much damage with a semi-automatic. A fully automatic gun can shoot much faster than you can pull the trigger.
" in some situations its more deadly because in semi automatic you can actually be accurate, if your in a sitaution where you can just spray full auto is more deadly, but not by much"
It is situational. However, mass shootings tend to happen in areas with large numbers of people, which is a circumstance in which an auto would be more deadly. Also, it is possible to be accurate with an auto. While it's true that it is hard to be as accurate, mass shootings hardly require precision.
"name one full auto ever used for sniper purposes.. many are still bolt action arent they? see"
Irrelevant. The whole point of an automatic gun is to fire quickly, frequently at multiple targets. The point of a sniper rifle is to fire with extreme accuracy at extreme range, frequently over a kilometer. Modern sniper rifles are extremely specialized and expensive. If you compare any other type of rifle with them, the other rifle will look inaccurate and short ranged. Automatics may not be the most accurate weapon. That does not make them inaccurate.

-->
@DroneYoinker

name one full auto ever used for sniper purposes.. many are still bolt action arent they? see

-->
@PaulVerliane

Well... Things like the M4 Carbine aren't hard to control recoil with, it's 5.56 so I mean it's not that powerful.

That argument always kinda bugged me "Fully Autos are just less accurate, therefore Semi-Auto's are more dangerous." Nah not really. A lot of fully autos are easy to control

-->
@SirAnonymous

a mean looking military looking semi automatic rifle with those bad thngs attached flash suppressor bayont lug pistol grip, assualt rifle usually refers to the civilian semi automatic version of any military rifle that uses an intermediate cartrige an m4 carbine is a bonafide assault rifle , an ar 15 looks exactly like an m4 uses the same ammunition , but only fire in semi automatic, only look ive owned semi automatic rifles like that a colt sporter to be exact you can do as much damage with a semi automatic as a select fire weapon all you have to do is keep pulling the trigger, in some situations its more deadly because in semi automatic you can actually be accurate, if your in a sitaution where you can just spray full auto is more deadly, but not by much

-->
@PaulVerliane

What is the colloquial definition?

depends on which defintion you use the official or the more coloquial

It's an assault weapon, but not an assault rifle. I could make some weak arguments to suggest that it is an assault rifle (although I don't think it is). I wish not to lose this debate, so I will not be taking it. Heh

-->
@charliedarwin

Do you want to accept the debate? It doesn't look like I'll get any other takers.

-->
@charliedarwin

That's easy. It doesn't stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifle (Armalite is the company that invented it).

bro the ar in ar15 MEANS assault rifle, how you gonna argue that its not one

-->
@oromagi

I can use a baked potato in an assault. Should we now call them assault baked potatoes? Why just stop at rifles?

-->
@oromagi

"At what point is something not an assault rifle?
When it could not possibly used in an assault."

"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."

Both of these can't be true. You might say that they can be true in different contexts but
|
|
\/
"But supposing some uninitiated soul might call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle I find little fault with the adjective's usage."

When someone uninitiated calls a rifle an assault rifle, they think that means it is more dangerous than other rifles. So when you say you "find little fault with the adjective's usage" when they "call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle," the uninitiated person doesn't realize the distinction and assumes that an assault rifle is more dangerous when all you mean is that it is used in assault. All this does is confuse. Pick a definition and stick with it. If you insist on using both, then please make the distinction very clear, because, unlike other terms with multiple meanings like "well," it is very difficult to tell which definition you're referring to from the context.

-->
@DroneYoinker

SEE => Comment #8

-->
@oromagi

"At what point is something not an assault rifle?
When it could not possibly used in an assault. A nerf rifle is probably not an assault rifle in the adjective form."

Well the current definition of assault rifle is "a select-fire or mag fed automatic weapon designed for infantry use."

The Colt AR-15 is not select fire, is not automatic, and is specifically designed for civilian use.

"[assualt] can be subjectively applied to any weapon."

That's is my point. "assault rifle" is a compound noun, a term of art among gun owners and the term should be used correctly within that community. But supposing some uninitiated soul might call a rifle used in an assault an "assault" rifle I find little fault with the adjective's usage.
So, saying an AR-15 is no assault rife is only true in some contexts.

At what point is something not an assault rifle?

When it could not possibly used in an assault. A nerf rifle is probably not an assault rifle in the adjective form.

"no weapon is specifically designed with the intent to kill a certain species."

Elephant gun

-->
@DroneYoinker

"No rifle is made to specifically kill humans."
Military rifles like the AK-47 are designed to do just that, although they can be and are used for other purposes.

"With that kind of application, even a bolt action could be considered an "Assault Rifle" as bolt actions were also used in the war.
Is the Springfield M1903 an assault rifle? It was a weapon used in both world wars. What about the M1 Garand? Is that an assault rifle?
At what point is something not an assault rifle? Because the word seems to be selectively applied to things deemed "too dangerous" for civilian."
He wasn't calling the AR-15 an assault rifle. He was calling it an assault weapon. I think he's wrong to call it an assault weapon, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't calling it an assault rifle.

-->
@oromagi

No rifle is made to specifically kill humans. That can be subjectively applied to any weapon at that point as no weapon is specifically designed with the intent to kill a certain species. With that kind of application, even a bolt action could be considered an "Assault Rifle" as bolt actions were also used in the war.

Is the Springfield M1903 an assault rifle? It was a weapon used in both world wars. What about the M1 Garand? Is that an assault rifle?

At what point is something not an assault rifle? Because the word seems to be selectively applied to things deemed "too dangerous" for civilian.

-->
@Nemiroff

Less accurate. Yes.

Are we assuming that the shooter has to hold the trigger down indefinitely? Can they not understand that if they wanted, they could tap the trigger and get a burst or single shot? It doesn't take a gun nut to understand the basic functions of a rifle.

-->
@Nemiroff

Semiautomatics don't fill the animals full of lead. It only takes one or two shots to bring down an animal. I've lived in a place where nearly everyone hunts. Regardless of their weapon, whether bow, semiauto, or bolt action, they always eat what they hunt or give it to someone who will. In fact, that's something they teach in hunter safety class. Your assertion that people can only hunt for sport with a semiauto and that they have no civilian purpose could not be farther from the truth.

-->
@bmdrocks21

You ignored the recoil problem completely. Do you think full auto is easy to handle by a noob? The problem isnt that it runs out of ammo, but that the ammo is often completely wasted lowering its lethality.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Yeah, totally confused pro and con. Pro will have an easy job winning this debate based on techical definition.

However the ar should not be a civilian rifle and has no purpose as such. I will agree with you that it isnt any more deadly *then other semis*, but my stance is that semi autos should not be civilian weapons, nothing specifically against the ar.

People hunt for 2 reasons: food and sport.
If your hunting for food, filling your meat full of lead is not smart. If your hunting for sport, and you use a semi auto, your not a sportsman, your a coward.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Kritiking is to make it so the debate takes a dynamic that denies the entire 'fight' is supposed to be happening.

To Kritik this topic initially would be to deny that assault rifles are even a correct category to exist (or as they exist, are wrong) in the first place. This means they agree with you that it may be one by name but disagree on the validity of the semantics of 'assault rifle'. Another Kritik would be to challenge you on the AR-15 existing at all (ridiculous as it sounds, I am trying to highlight 2 fundamental ways to Kritik 'this is not that' type of debate resolutions).

-->
@oromagi

I was seconding the sentiment.

-->
@oromagi

Thanks for the welcome! So far, I've enjoyed the site and it's users. I am honestly and pleasantly surprised by how much you know about the AR-15. Most people who call it an assault weapon don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

If you knew that they're used for hunting, why did you repeat the myth that they're not, or at least not frequently? Also, semiautomatics do have advantages over bolt actions. For instance, if you miss, your eyes don't have to leave the sight to pull back the bolt. I don't see how they are any less safe than bolt actions so far as hunting is concerned.

"None of which keeps the AR-15 from being a rifle originally designed for a military purpose. Any rifle designed for killing humans can be accurately described as made for "assault"- whatever the nice legal and commercial distinctions."
And none of that changes the fact that the AR-15 that was designed for the military became the M16 and the modern AR-15 was designed for civilians and not for assault. That also doesn't change the fact that defining "assault weapons" as weapons designed for assault would include such things as swords and bows, or, if you limit it to firearms, muskets. The net effect of such a definition is to completely dissociate the term from lethality, usage, or statistics, rendering the term completely irrelevant to the gun control debate.

-->
@SirAnonymous

*Welcome to the site (forgot to say it b4)
*You'll find italics available in debates and forum but (unfortunately) not comments
*No need to defend Dougherty although I prefer McNab & Jane's
*No need to lay out arg in detail- pretty well-worn territory
*Familiar w/ history of "assault rifle" terminology - SEE=> Hitler reference in this morning's comment
*Familiar w/ hunting argument. Bolt action increases accuracy and forces the hunter to think more, aim more. Semi-autos in hunting may be increasing in popularity but that doesn't make them smart. Bolt action is much safer and results in cleaner kills.
*We can agree that AR-15 is a less likely suicide weapon than most guns.
*We agree that AR-15s are not more lethal than other weapons (or particularly more prevalent in mass shootings).
*We agree that AR-15s suffer from an irrationally poor reputation in relation to similarly purposed weapons- mostly due to military appearance and the AR initials mistaken for some generic designation.
None of which keeps the AR-15 from being a rifle originally designed for a military purpose. Any rifle designed for killing humans can be accurately described as made for "assault"- whatever the nice legal and commercial distinctions.