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.
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]
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.
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.