Sigh.  I can't believe I am about to do this.

A video came across my facebook feed, someone being interviewed on CNN who didn't understand the difference between the terms "semi automatic" and "automatic."  Fair enough, grounds for criticism, terminology matters.  But his point, that an easily-obtainable weapon can be used to harm many people in a short period of time, is not invalid.  Rather than acknowledge the point, conservatives use the lack of proper terminology as a ground to attack the man on an ad hominem level.

This is the type of gun nut bias that sickens me. 

So many of you love to say "the similarities between military and civilian models are cosmetic only."  Do you believe what you are shoveling?  Because I do not.

Those "cosmetic only" differences include things like rapid target acquisition, easy of deployment, speed of magazine replacement, magazine capacity.  These "cosmetic only" differences spring from something that was designed, from the ground up, as a tool to kill enemy soldiers.  Yes, ABSOLUTELY, I agree that the differences between semi-auto, select fire, burst fire, and full-auto are ASTOUNDINGLY important, but the mere fact that a civilian rifle has been restricted to semi-automatic only does not obviate the other design features that make it an effective mankiller.

To those of you who say "It's just a hunting rifle dressed in black," I say bullshit.  No one, and I daresay that you yourselves are included in that list, no one believes what you are selling.

Pissed?  Good.  Now read juuuust a little further before flaming me, please.  I beg that indulgence.

Guns styled after military arms are designed as weapons.  Weapons, by definition, are intended to hurt people.  Take a minute and look it up, I'll wait.  Done?  Did you find a definition from a respected authority on the English language that disagreed?  I sure didn't. 

May I suggest that you stop with the bullshit?  The antis say "but those assault weapons are designed to kill lots of people quickly!"  Instead of lying "no, no, they aren't they're just modern sporting rifles,"  might I suggest we try being truthful?  "Yes, yes, they are.  And, God willing, I will never have to use that ability.  But if the need arises, if I find myself standing alone against a sea of looters, or rioters, or home invaders, I will be ready."  Someone more eloquent than me can come up with a catchphrase.

Seriously, people.  You know how ridiculous the rabid antis look to you?  That is exactly how ridiculous you look to them.  Which matters not at all.  But it is also exactly how ridiculous you look to those in the middle, and that is the battle you're helping to lose for us.

Yep.  I posted it on the internet.  Problem fixed!   

You could use the same argument about a Colt Cap and Ball.  It was designed to kill a lot of people without reloading.  I believe it was conceived during the Civil war for just that purpose. 

Personally, the US military trained me with military grade firearms, not $$ bolt action rifles.

I use what I am trained with, for whatever purpose that may come along.  Would not want me using something not trained with, now.

I also drive  a 4WD SUV, though I have yet to really need that capability. 

Whoops, that might give some Priaps driver ideas on what to try and ban next....................

I don't care who agrees or disagrees.  When you, Lemon or anyone else tries to persuade others to accept your opinions, and when you propose laws that affect everyone of us, then you need to demonstrate you understand the topic at hand. 

Watching movies, playing COD, and talking to anti-gun supporters is normally the extent of these anti's knowledge.  That in no way makes them qualified to decide for everyone what gun laws we must obey in an attempt to fix some general, ambiguous problem.

We have too many laws already passed by representatives who understood one thing about the bill:  that their party told them which way to vote.

I completely disagree that calling someone out for being ignorant DURING A LIVE TV DEBATE is inappropriate.  Perhaps in a less public and less important setting, both sides could put semantics (facts) aside and discuss their true thoughts on the subject with open minds.

Maybe you, Tom, don't see the need to confront misinformed and ignorant people's "facts" when they decide to hold a public discussion with you.  But, remember, the people watching in the audience may NOT be so ignorant, and they may wonder if YOU know what you're talking about when you don't correct someone's obvious lack of basic knowledge.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people

I see your point Tom but letting someone control the argument buy falsely defining things to their benefit puts those defending their second amendment rights at a disadvantage. It's no longer an honest discussion.

I do believe the premise one should be arguing from is not the gun itself (as one can legally acquire fully automatic weapons which only makes them illegal in few states) but like what korupt pointed out guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Lots of anti gunners like to argue that civilians aren't trained like police or military so shouldn't have those kinds of weapons. I would argue that training is important but it doesn't equal to a respect for life or morality. Take Christopher Dorner for example. An LAPD officer well trained but no morals or respect for life. He used his knowledge and training for evil purposes.

I think what he's saying is rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, you stick to the point and beat the other guy by showing your knowledge on the topic.  No one is going to listen when they feel like they're being attacked, you're better off agreeing with the valid part of their argument while instructing them on the erroneous part. 

A lot of anti-gun stuff is based on fear and ignorance.  The "assault weapon" ban, for instance.  How does a pistol grip or a flash hider make a weapon more deadly?  It doesn't.  That's where the education needs to come in but making fun of a guy because he calls a magazine a clip isn't furthering the argument, its just making you look petty. 

you're better off agreeing with the valid part of their argument while instructing them on the erroneous part. 

A lot of anti-gun stuff is based on fear and ignorance.  The "assault weapon" ban, for instance.  How does a pistol grip or a flash hider make a weapon more deadly?  It doesn't.  That's where the education needs to come in but making fun of a guy because he calls a magazine a clip isn't furthering the argument, its just making you look petty. 

+1
I think that is a big part of Tom's point.

Also, that yes, they are designed for what their designed for and that's why we have them and why the 2nd amendment gave us the RIGHT to own them.
Semper Paratus.

So many of you love to say "the similarities between military and civilian models are cosmetic only."  Do you believe what you are shoveling?  Because I do not.

Those "cosmetic only" differences include things like rapid target acquisition, easy of deployment, speed of magazine replacement, magazine capacity.  These "cosmetic only" differences spring from something that was designed, from the ground up, as a tool to kill enemy soldiers.  Yes, ABSOLUTELY, I agree that the differences between semi-auto, select fire, burst fire, and full-auto are ASTOUNDINGLY important, but the mere fact that a civilian rifle has been restricted to semi-automatic only does not obviate the other design features that make it an effective mankiller.

To those of you who say "It's just a hunting rifle dressed in black," I say bullshit.  No one, and I daresay that you yourselves are included in that list, no one believes what you are selling.

May I suggest that you stop with the bullshit?  The antis say "but those assault weapons are designed to kill lots of people quickly!"  Instead of lying "no, no, they aren't they're just modern sporting rifles,"  might I suggest we try being truthful?  "Yes, yes, they are.  And, God willing, I will never have to use that ability.  But if the need arises, if I find myself standing alone against a sea of looters, or rioters, or home invaders, I will be ready."  Someone more eloquent than me can come up with a catchphrase.

I agree that if the antis have their facts correct, arguing with them and getting defensive is wrong. If they are mature adults, reason with them as mature adults. I own AR-15 variants and AK-47 variants for shooting recreationally (which may include defensive training) and also because YES they are capable of incapacitating the enemy or many enemies if the unfortunate occasion arises.

Tomg,

         The features you are referencing in the semi-auto version of the automatic version rifle are additions that are largely effective and designed exclusively for automatic weapon efficiency but when utilized in a semiautomatic provide little to no additional effectiveness in operational function relative to that of any modern day semi automatic rifle. Each of the additions on automatic rifles are there for automatic select and each has a purpose and extremely beneficial when used in automatic mode but they lend very little additional support or effectiveness when in semi auto mode.
You may as well be buying a formula 1 race car with a stock 4 cylinder yugo engine.

Tomg,

         The features you are referencing in the semi-auto version of the automatic version rifle are additions that are largely effective and designed exclusively for automatic weapon efficiency but when utilized in a semiautomatic provide little to no additional effectiveness in operational function relative to that of any modern day semi automatic rifle. Each of the additions on automatic rifles are there for automatic select and each has a purpose and extremely beneficial when used in automatic mode but they lend very little additional support or effectiveness when in semi auto mode.
You may as well be buying a formula 1 race car with a stock 4 cylinder yugo engine.

See, that's exactly the sort of erroneous claim I'm talking about.

I don't have to go any farther than the HDF shoots to show you otherwise.  I regularly see people who, by using compensators, vertical grips, and trigger modifications, place 10 rounds on target in under two seconds.  And lots of practice, I don't want to diminish the part of the rifleman.  A full-auto machine gun would be, at best, marginally more effective at the same task. 

Tom_g,
         Dumping 10 rounds on a target in under 2 seconds is a proof? A proof that a mentally disturbed individual could possibly execute some sort additional killing ability with an ar15 over a 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun or an average semi auto rifle? Bullshit.

I think you are missing Tom's point. The tool doesn't matter it's the person that makes it deadly in terms of if it used for good or evil. We shouldn't be arguing over the tool and what separates them from semi or full auto as it doesn't really matter.

A couple of catch phrases that come to mind:

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

And... an old interview of Jeff Cooper:

Reporter: "Mr Cooper, don't you think that violence only begets violence?"
Cooper: "I certainly hope so."

Reference:

My apologies.  I don't argue with anti gun people, I simply educate them by asking them questions such as "what is an assault weapon?", "What sort of people kill other people?",  "Why don't we have any legislation to keep guns out of "those" peoples hands?" Etc. I play ignorant on the topic and guide them through the educational process with questions. When I ran across the statement here, it pissed me off. Seriously? Lol.

Tom_g,
         Dumping 10 rounds on a target in under 2 seconds is a proof? A proof that a mentally disturbed individual could possibly execute some sort additional killing ability with an ar15 over a 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun or an average semi auto rifle? Bullshit.

Why are you changing the topic?  No, it is proof that a rifle designed to military philosophies but limited to semi-automatic is a more effective tool, despite its semi-auto limitation, than other tools with different design philosophies.  I think you would have a difficult time engaging 5 targets per second with a semi-auto 12 gauge, and that it would be an impossible feat with a BAR (obviously, the civilian BAR, not the military antique, which would do the job nicely).

its like your yelling at the rain you cant do anything just frustrated hey kick up your feet and visit a drinky drinky bar with some bars girls and have some fun, you sound like someone's going postal on somenone. this is Hawaii we live with ALOHA here, people respect each other cause we  NO KA OI  that's why your living in Hawaii. You have a lot of hate in you, everyone is rationalizing but you breed hate just like the KKK breads hate, Do you know where Im going here? You should talk to the people in israel suicide bomber taking out public area like an entire block of civilians wipeout, thats hate you breading hate

The Rem 223 was design to inflict wounds to soldiers as per the Geneva Convention . It was not designed to kill people!

I disagree with saying that ars are designed to kill humans. As suka stated 223 is not the best cartridge. These rifles are designed to be user friendly and intuitive. This makes them ideal for people who don't have the time or drive to learn a clumsier system. They can become proficient with less trigger time, just what the military looks for in a system. I've hunted with and AR and know many people who do. They are popular in hunting, whether it be varmints in 223 or bigger game with 458 socom, 6.8 SPC, etc.

These rifles are designed to be user friendly and intuitive. This makes them ideal for people who don't have the time or drive to learn a clumsier system. They can become proficient with less trigger time, just what the military looks for in a system.

About 25 years ago I was woking in the Command Center of the Pacific, Hickam AFB as a contractor. Because we didn't have top secret clearance it was required we have an armed guard with us at all times. The guards always had a side arm until one day we got a guard with an M-16. I asked him "what's with the machine gun" and he said he didn't pass his pistol qualification.

I disagree with saying that ars are designed to kill humans. As suka stated 223 is not the best cartridge. These rifles are designed to be user friendly and intuitive. This makes them ideal for people who don't have the time or drive to learn a clumsier system. They can become proficient with less trigger time, just what the military looks for in a system. I've hunted with and AR and know many people who do. They are popular in hunting, whether it be varmints in 223 or bigger game with 458 socom, 6.8 SPC, etc.

I can cut drywall with a steak knife. It was still designed to cut steak. Last time I did this I cut my thumb badly (cutting drywall with a steak knife). Seriously just don't.

Anyway you can disagree all you want. Fact is that when Stoner, et al. designed the AR-15 in the 1950s it was for the Army (via the now defunct CONARC ORO)'s concept of generating casualties through large amounts of unaimed fire. They believed that putting large numbers of rounds downrange was the solution, and a smaller cartridge made sense since if you're just going to blast away then you better bring more ammo. Now whether or not that is/was a good concept, and whether or not the 5.56 is the best round is a different discussion - the fact is that the AR-15 was designed for CONARC's requirements - semi auto/full, 20rd mag, 6lbs loaded, penetrate army helmet at 500 yards. What do you think they were trying to do?

Oh right, kill people I mean uh.. it's the Army dude. But...  I don't understand why this is such a big deal?

People don't seem to have this issue with handguns. Most handguns are designed to kill people. Oh noes!

Sure you could take a Glock and modify it to make it better for hunting. Longer barrel. Scope and what-not.
Is a Glock designed to kill people? Yes. So is the AR-15.

And that's OK.

I mean I get the "logic" behind this. Hey let's call them modern sporting rifles! Because you know.. hunting is a safe topic right? That way we get to keep our guns! Because yay hunting!

Fuck that. If you want to hunt with an AR, rock on brother. But I don't need to justify my ownership of an AR or any similar firearm for that reason anymore than an automobile enthusiast who purchases some 500bhp behemoth. My car is governed to 135mph and there's nowhere on this island I can legally drive it that fast.

It's not because I need to; it's because I have the right to.