Gun expert shoots down biggest AR-15 myths

[jimnyc]

Watch this 3 minute video. Basically what I've been saying for years, but more eloquently. :)

These people need to educate themselves. All we hear on the media is ignorance.

And also as I've stated many times - more murders are committed with a regular handgun - but they don't even make a grab for them. Why? Because they are ignorant and uneducated. :rolleyes:

The problem is neither one of those anyway.

---

Gun expert shoots down biggest AR-15 myths

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qlZnIRLO3U

2020 Democratic presidential candidates are talking a lot about AR-15s, which should come as no surprise, as this rifle has been in the crosshairs of the left and part of the national debate for years.

Variations of the AR-15 have been used in many recent mass shootings, including the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Parkland school shooting and Las Vegas concert shooting.

The Daily Caller caught up with gun expert Chris Mcrae with Magpul Industries at the 2019 National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he debunked some of the biggest AR-15 myths that some of the 2020 candidates are peddling.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/06/biggest-ar-15-myths/

[Elessar]

Well, what the hell have I been saying for years?

So has Gunny.

[Gunny]

Well, what the hell have I been saying for years?

So has @Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30).Wonder what comes after the AR-15?

As usual, the left's argument is a nonsensical joke. A poor one. The "humor" in it to me is this:

I can think of several rifles I would use if planning a mass shooting and the AR-15 is NOT one of them. I am quite efficient with the M16A2 (the real military deal). It is a perfectly functional firearm in performing its designed role. In other words, I don't have any real problem with it.

It is however NOT anywhere near deadliest thing on Earth the left tries to make it out to be. I would use an M-1 Garand if I was planning on the mass killing thingy. Or an M-14. Or a bolt-action hunting rifle.

I would use my "badass" death deal M-16/AR-15/lever-action carbine to evade and escape.

As I always point out ... my weapon is between my ears. My choice of weapons/destructive implements is merely an extension of that. The hands go where the mind tells them, not vice-versa. And I have yet to see ANY weapon kill of its own volition.

[Elessar]

Wonder what comes after the AR-15?

As usual, the left's argument is a nonsensical joke. A poor one. The "humor" in it to me is this:

I can think of several rifles I would use if planning a mass shooting and the AR-15 is NOT one of them. I am quite efficient with the M16A2 (the real military deal). It is a perfectly functional firearm in performing its designed role. In other words, I don't have any real problem with it.

It is however NOT anywhere near deadliest thing on Earth the left tries to make it out to be. I would use an M-1 Garand if I was planning on the mass killing thingy. Or an M-14. Or a bolt-action hunting rifle.

I would use my "badass" death deal M-16/AR-15/lever-action carbine to evade and escape.

As I always point out ... my weapon is between my ears. My choice of weapons/destructive implements is merely an extension of that. The hands go where the mind tells them, not vice-versa. And I have yet to see ANY weapon kill of its own volition.

M-14 is a beast!

2nd quote highlighted is exactly what my Dad as well as two other blackbelts taught me.
I can make a weapon out of any any object if I choose to do so, EXCEPT the Cat's Catnip toys!:laugh:

[Gunny]

M-14 is a beast!

2nd quote highlighted is exactly what my Dad as well as two other blackbelts taught me.
I can make a weapon out of any any object if I choose to do so, EXCEPT the Cat's Catnip toys!:laugh:Perfect example: Two shooters, 1 kill. Yep, those AR-15s sure were dangerous.

[Elessar]

Perfect example: Two shooters, 1 kill. Yep, those AR-15s sure were dangerous.

Too much glorified in modern cinema and TV shows, which ignorant people take as factual.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

M1, M1 Garand, M14, 303 British Enfield Rifle are true battle rifles. A skilled shooter(a rifleman) could inflict far more damage with any of these than with the AR15, IMHO...
And in my book all are better home defense weapons in the rifle category, when added to with the 45 cal Kimber pistol, and a fine high capacity 12 ga, automatic shotgun, Browning, Remington, etc... -Tyr

[darin]

I think the expert didn't really answer the questions; not all the questions.

His comments:

"The AR15 is not an assault rifle" He talks about three round burst or full auto being some of the differences. I call bullshit. I call bullshit because the nounds don't define the verb 'assault'. M1 Garrand - Semi-Auto. Assaulted a shit-ton of shit. He should have spoken to the use defining 'assault', not the features of the weapon.

"Nobody NEEDS an AR15" - he answered that with talking about popularity. He should have said "Why are we talking about need right now? Nobody NEEDS a car that can go more than the speed limit. Nobody NEEDS a car that can carry more passengers than the owner has available. Nobody NEEDS 'the internet'. The AR15 is and has never been about specific need. It's a tool for sporting, hunting, or fun. Speaking to the whole 'machine gun' thing, he could have said "I WISH more people had access to machine guns. They are cool. This weapon is cool, machine gun means 'automatic chambering, firing and extraction repeatedly until the trigger is lifted. Calling the AR15 a machine gun is like calling a ford mustang a F1 Car.

Saying 'so on and so forth' is not evidence, data nor an argument.

"They are meant to tear bodies apart" (Realizing the guy in the vid didn't hear that argument) - That's absolutely why it's great for self-defense. But specifically, the round does the tearing-of-bodies not the weapon.

With regard to hunting, he should have actually cited where they are great for hunting - a headshot to a boar would be awesome.