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
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.
Round 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Forfeited
Well, that was predictable.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
vietnam had mig 21s and rpg 12s and lots of soviet hardware dude
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?
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.
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
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.
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
I'd be really interested to meet this salesman who would think SOLDIERS don't need automatic weapons.
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
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.
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"
Thanks for accepting the debate! I had expected that no one would take the debate. I should have my argument up today or tomorrow.
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
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
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.
"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.
name one full auto ever used for sniper purposes.. many are still bolt action arent they? see
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
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
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
Do you want to accept the debate? It doesn't look like I'll get any other takers.
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
I can use a baked potato in an assault. Should we now call them assault baked potatoes? Why just stop at rifles?
"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.
SEE => Comment #8
"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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I was seconding the sentiment.
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.
*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.