The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Biden's Continuing Misstatements About Guns
J.D. Tuccille here at Reason has a run-down (including links to where mainstream media sources have called the President on the errors, which he nonetheless repeats). An excerpt of one of Tuccille's observations:
"There's no justification for a weapon of war. None. The speed of that bullet is five times that that comes out of the muzzle of most weapons. It can penetrate your vests," President Biden huffed last week. "What in God's name do you need an assault weapon for?" he added.
This wasn't the first time the president insisted on the supposed superpowers of so-called "assault weapons" and especially of AR-15s, which are popular among gun owners.
"Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun, five times—is lighter—and can pierce Kevlar?" he insisted on August 30 while touting his administration's "Safer America Plan," which includes tighter firearms restrictions.
Really? Well, no.
"President Biden's statement that a bullet shot from an AR-15 travels 5x faster than a bullet shot out of 'any other gun' is false," Greg Wallace, a Campbell University law professor who focuses on Second Amendment issues, told The Washington Post early in September. As for bullets fired from AR-15s piercing Kevlar, "that is true of almost all centerfire rifle bullets. Body armor protection against rifle bullets require steel, ceramic, or composite plates."
"Biden was clearly wrong in his statement this week," the Post's Glenn Kessler concluded.
In fact, the 5.56x45mm round most commonly fired by an AR-15 (which can be chambered in multiple calibers) is faster than many rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity of roughly 3,100 feet per second, but slower than others (a few exceed 4,000 fps)….
(Note that Biden's revised statement at least said it was five times faster than for "most weapons," but that's still not true for rifles, which are the obvious comparator for the AR-15. And even for the shotguns, which the President has advocated, their muzzle velocity tends to be a bit over a third that of the AR-15; the only modern weapons that have a muzzle velocity that's one-fifth of AR-15s appear to be a handful of handguns. Handguns are a minority of all guns, and even among handguns, many have muzzle velocities of a third or more of the AR-15.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Biden would not know the truth if it bit him on his diaper clad ass.
Well sure, the diaper would absorb the bite.
It's amazing to watch Biden speeches from 10 or 20 years ago. He spouted just as many political lies as all politicians do, although he's windier than most; but he was at least able to string words together in the right order and his sentences were at least understandable, grammar-wise.
I first saw him speak in person in 1985. He loves to tell stories and he really does not care about telling the truth. He will adjust the details to fit whatever point he wants to make...truth be damned.
Biden had the good fortune to run against a bigoted, delusional, lying jerk who chose as his political base a fading, disgusting group of bigoted, poorly educated, gullible (evangelical), backwater culture war casualties.
Clarification, please: You're obviously talking about Trump, right?
Biden was probably including bows, crossbows, sling shots, BB and pellet guns, and rubber band guns in his database.
I'd say lies, not misstatements, except for the possibility that he's so far gone at this point he simply can't process/remember the falsity of the statements. Anyone who has dealt with the gun control movement, (And Biden has been a significant player in that movement for decades.) would be aware that they simply don't CARE if what they say about guns is true. Being honest isn't regarded as remotely as important as advancing the cause.
Dems think lying to people is a virtue. And if if works and Dems successfully trick people into believing the lies, they consider it clever and a true sign that the liar is one of their fellow elites.
Pointers on truth from the birther-stolen election-creationism-QAnon-Italygate-Seth Rich-InfoWars side of the aisle are always a treat.
Here's another from Willie . . .
(This year's Farm Aid recording is available on Youtube.)
Ah yes, whataboutism for me, but not for thee.
Personally I'm against all lying, regardless of where it comes from. Which is why I judge the integrity of others in large part by whether they are willing to call out their own side for doing it.
I won't hold my breath...
Ad hominem arguments are always a sign of someone incapable of addressing the issue.
And when one attempts to lump everyone in a single "side," it is even more pathetic.
So we can take your post as an admission that you have nothing substantive to say.
I could’ve told you that years ago.
Don’t feed the troll
" Ad hominem arguments are always a sign of someone incapable of addressing the issue. And when one attempts to lump everyone in a single “side,” it is even more pathetic. "
I was responding to this, you bigoted, worthless, right-wing rube:
"Dems think lying to people is a virtue. "
You didn't respond to that one. Because the author was a fellow obsolete bigot. This is part of the reason guys like you will comply with the preferences of better Americans -- who shape modern America's progress against your wishes -- for the rest of your lives.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
" Lather, rinse, repeat. "
What is: a three-word description of a white, male, bigot-friendly, ankle-nipping, right-wing blog with a vanishingly thin academic veneer?
AK has been boring the past few years but he has begun to be fascinating as we watch his mental breakdown
I just can't get half-educated racists, superstitious gay-bashers, backwater immigrant-haters, and conservative misogynists to like me.
Oh, well. I don't want clingers' approval or respect. But better Americans will continue to have the clingers' compliance!
A lie is not a lie when the truth is not expected.
Right. He has been a bragging, false statement machine, blowhard all of his life. So, people just have a, “Oh, it’s Biden” attitude about his often bizarre false statements.
In the case of most gun control advocates, I do not label them as lies due to the sheer ignorance about guns in the first place.
Hillary thinks abortions should be as easy to get as an AR-15. I will whole-heartedly support her move for that.
In the case of most gun control advocates, I do not label them as lies due to the sheer ignorance about guns in the first place.
Except when the bullshit they're spewing has been repeatedly exposed as bullshit, and they keep spewing it anyway. For instance, Obama's claim that, "studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement [background checks]". In spite of that claim being repeatedly debunked by multiple "fact checkers" (including those normally friendly to leftist politicians) he kept repeating it in public.
Yeah, President Biden sure says a lot of crazy things. So does former President Trump. I wonder why Prof. Volokh never remarks on El Donaldo's howlers. Sad!
Tu quoque fallacy.
That would be if this were used to defend President Biden. To OP does not do that. Therefore, no fallacy.
No WHATABOUTISM, eh? Got it. Super consistent.
That would also be if this were used to defend President Biden.
Are you suggesting that AV is not attempting to attack EV's credibility by claiming bias?
Trump is no longer President?
EV didn't care about Trump's "alternative facts" when he was president either.
Or it could be that he did care about and call out Trump's "alternative facts" but that you selectively choose not to remember those cases.
Since I remember a lot of those articles (and Reason retains the history so you can look them up yourself), I'm gonna go with that theory.
If you think Prof. Volokh was tough on Trump, you are a particularly uninformed wingnut.
Or a partisan liar.
Either way, you are the audience this white, male blog craves.
Because EV is a wannabe fascist who wants to be part of Trump’s one world fascist kingdom. I mean, I bet that’s prolly it.
Or maybe it’s simply that Trump isn’t president anymore. And Biden is. That could be it too.
Nah. The first one fits your victimhood better, so let’s let that be it.
Crazy things flat-out, bald faced lies
It's a good thing Biden never served in the military and learned about the "atomic" bullet.
On the first day at the range during basic training, the DI held up a round and told us trainees that this was the secret atomic bullet. An ammo box was in place down range which he then proceeded to fire at. I don't know how they did it (and I doubt they could pull a stunt like that today) but the box exploded like it was hit with an artillery round.
An unreasonable amount of Tannerite?
I have no clue as to how they did it. Funny thing is that there were a few guys who thought it was real; maybe future Biden supporters.
An unreasonable amount of Tannerite?
That's a trick question. There is no unreasonable amount of Tannerite.
You should probably make sure the effects don't exceed the distance you are shooting from.
Why are you trying to ruin my fun?
Watch this tannerite video and say that again, I dare you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p2ueLCX5d7Q
Seems to me that the problem wasn't too much tannerite, rather it was that the fridge door was facing the shooter, creating a focused shockwave headed back at him. He unwittingly created a shaped charge.
I've seen that video before.
There is no unreasonable amount of Tannerite.
Hard to tell whether he knows it's a lie, or he's repeating something he misunderstood when he heard it, or he's just plain ignorant, but what a maroon. And it does his side no good.
But it doesn’t hurt them either, since no one in mainstream media is going to correct his errors.
I'm not sure...there are always people who are undecided and who you need to persuade. And I don't think that every undecided person will take Biden's word for it or won't otherwise know.
Biden has been spewing easly-debunked bullshit his entire political career. Anyone who is "undecided" about him at this point isn't going to suddenly decide he's not fundamentally honest based on yet another in a long, long history of lies.
I wasn't thinking about Biden himself, but of arguments about gun control.
I wasn’t thinking about Biden himself, but of arguments about gun control.
I don't know that that substantially changes the result. The vast majority of popular/highly visible gun control activism has relied on similarly dishonest/ignorance-based rhetoric for decades. Anyone who hasn't already seen through it...whether due to incurable bias, willful stupidity or some combination of the two...is either not intelligent enough to do so, or simply doesn't care that it's bullshit.
There's also the backlash when people learn they've been systematically lied to over the years.
It's one reason I don't worry about religious fundies bringing up kids who think the earth is flat and 6000 years old. The other reason is that those (mis)beliefs have almost no practical effects on daily life unless you're a pilot or surveyor or evolutionary biologist.
It’s one reason I don’t worry about religious fundies bringing up kids who think the earth is flat and 6000 years old. The other reason is that those (mis)beliefs have almost no practical effects on daily life unless you’re a pilot or surveyor or evolutionary biologist.
The problem with those cases isn't the specific beliefs, it's the screwed-up thought processes that are required in order to believe them, the use of which generally doesn't stay confined to just those beliefs.
Like I said, there is tremendous backlash when they find out they were lied to so much.
If they find out and accept the fact. I think there's substantial resistance to such acceptance - and indeed, hostility towards people who try to get them to accept it. Recall the origin of the term "cognitive dissonance", for example.
I wonder how atheists arose then, or religions split. Do Democrat parents have no Republican children, or vice versa?
People react differently. Open-minded v closed-minded, basically.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good talking point.
There are a whole bunch of dummies, bordering on illiterates, whom the Democrats are running. Number 1 is Fetterman in PA. He actually may be more out of it than Biden.
For your consideration: Dr. Oz. Sadly, he's only the second stupidest idiot running for office in Pennsylvania. Mastriano, of course, being No. 1 on everyone's charts.
And yet, despite his egregious failures as a gun pedant, Biden is closer to correct on AR-style weapons than the commenters who mock him. The mockers love to pretend the AR-style weapon is no more deadly, and no better suited to mass killing, than any average hunting rifle. Which is not true.
I have explained previously why it is not true. I do not need to reiterate, because I know that privately most pro-gun advocates agree with me. They show their agreement by their near-desperate defense of AR-style weapons. They want them so much because they know those guns do feature a deadly combination of features which enable ordinary, poorly trained and even inept shooters to achieve deadlier results than they could get with any other semi-automatic rifle or handgun.
The reason AR-style weapons are popular is inextricably entangled with the reasons they are inordinately deadly, and ideally suited for killing a large number of humans in a short time—which is the task they were designed to accomplish. That design has proved successful. The gun pedants ought at least be forthright enough to concede Biden his more-general point.
Fake but accurate! Actual veracity doesn't matter if the untruths illuminate a greater one!
Breaking: the deadly aspect of a particular gun is a feature, not a bug.
(The problem here is the misrepresentation of that deadliness, which is alarming to some, compared to other firearms. If AR's, or whatever other gun is problematic at a given moment, are beyond the pale, then so are any others that actually share its particular characteristics, like bullet velocity, caliber, etc...)
As soon as you ban any gun as beyond the pale, the pale moves a bit, to put new guns beyond the pale. So I refuse to even start down that road in the first place.
Do you extend your resistance to the slippery slope to include suitcase nukes and weaponised anthrax, on the one hand, and felons KBA on the other?
Are any nukes or anthrax ever legal? Because that's the analogy here. There's a hard line, mostly undisputed, between most commonly used firearms and automatic weapons, which are heavily licensed/restricted (but not banned).
Gun control advocates' fundamental theory, occasionally articulated, is that no gun is "safe", there are too many of them, and the solution is prohibition/confiscation. I think we need them to say the quiet part out loud more often.
"There’s a hard line, mostly undisputed, between most commonly used firearms and automatic weapons, which are heavily licensed/restricted (but not banned)."
You lost me right there. Automatic weapons basically stand now where the gun controllers want to put semi-automatic weapons. They're just further along that same road to a total ban the gun banners are trying to drive all firearms down, because the gun banners started with them.
Constitutionally, the case for a right to own them is actually stronger than for semi-automatic weapons, because it is, as the Miller Court recognized, a right to military arms. To, "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier," as Tenche Coxe put it.
The 2nd amendment is a right to be armed and equipped the same as our country's soldiers. That is the Constitutional right Scalia was happy to reduce to a right to own such guns as the government wasn't frightened by civilians owning.
MaddogEngineer — If what you say is accurate, we would not see such narrowly focused enthusiasm for AR-style weapons among gun advocates. Similarly effective rivals would attract more attention. But similarly effective rivals are few, and tend to use quite similar combinations of features.
As I have mentioned previously, what makes the AR-style weapon characteristically more deadly than others is not any single functional feature, nor meaningless cosmetic features. It is instead a particular combination of individually significant features, each of which serves as a force multiplier for the others:
1. Semi-automatic operation;
2. Interchangeable magazines of any size;
3. Capacity to shoot cartridges featuring sufficient muzzle energy and ballistic characteristics to kill humans reliably at most foreseeably practical ranges;
4. Capacity to achieve high muzzle velocity, to enable a flat trajectory, to enhance long range ease of targeting;
5. Use of inexpensive, low-recoil ammunition, particularly the .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges, but not confined to those.
It is that combination specifically—with narrowly specified similar alternate cartridge characteristics—which makes the AR-style weapon especially useful for killing large numbers of humans quickly, and thus attracts the attention of those whom that subject interests.
Featuring any or all of those characteristics in different weapons is not similarly objectionable, as long as they are not combined in the same weapon, as they are in the AR-style rifle. For instance, semi-automatic operation becomes far less imposing without interchangeable magazines. Interchangeable magazines on a bolt action rifle likewise. A bolt action rifle firing .223 Remington is not comparably dangerous to an AR-style weapon. And so on.
"Interchangeable magazines on a bolt action rifle likewise. A bolt action rifle firing .223 Remington is not comparably dangerous to an AR-style weapon."
Ever put that to the test?
I have a .223 Ruger American. It is the current Toyota Corolla of rifles ... boringly reliable, and it cost $350 or so. I can fire an aimed shot every 2 seconds or so, and I'm far from a bolt action wizard; anyone can spend an hour with one and do the same.
Coincidentally, the most shots per minute I can find for a mass shooting is the Sandy Hook atrocity. The timelines vary a little, from a shot every 1.75 sec to 2.25 sec depending on the source (numbers approx from memory). Of note is that that monster was firing up to several rounds per victim; he stood over the bodies and kept shooting; a slower rate of fire would not have changed the number of victims.
This seems to me to be problematic for the 'only semiautos are evil' argument you seem to be making today (I realize that a couple of years ago you were making a different argument, that anything that could fire more than 2 rounds was equally evil).
Absaroka, it's puzzling that you say, "This seems to me to be problematic for the ‘only semiautos are evil’ argument you seem to be making today." My comment you replied to said, "For instance, semi-automatic operation becomes far less imposing without interchangeable magazines." So how does your reply follow from that?
You behave like a politician answering the question he prefers, instead of the question actually asked. I say, you can keep using the features of AR-style weapons if you do not combine them in a single weapon. You say (not literally, but by choosing an example), I can get similar performance if I combine the .223 cartridge, and an interchangeable magazine.
And even that is only true if you compare your optimal rate of bolt-action fire against a figure you made up, which notably understates the optimal rate of fire you could achieve yourself with an AR-style semi-automatic. Nobody on this gun-pedant-infested blog thinks an AR-style rifle can only achieve one shot every two seconds.
More generally, what proves my case, and disproves yours is that so many pro-gun advocates are so evidently not indifferent to the fate of AR-style weapons. They are keen to have them, above every other kind, and many of them say so. The reason for that is because AR-style weapons combine the features I mentioned, and most other weapons do not, or do so with less-effectual variations. Self-evidently, many pro-gun commenters on this blog are interested in capacity to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible. Many of them are explicit about it, making up for justification outlandish defensive scenarios involving hypothetical gangs of attackers.
I try to be forthright and factual on these gun threads, and all I get back from pro-gun advocates, including you, are evasions.
If you are trying to be forthright, you wouldn't say things like 'and most other weapons do not'.
Or perhaps you are trying to be forthright, but just don't know what you are talking about. You have posted before on the guns you are familiar with, and I don't recall that you have any AR experience. Perhaps that is why you view them as you do.
When I compare ARs and other guns, I own both types and have put thousands of rounds through both. I'm not repeating something I read somewhere; it is first hand knowledge. To the extent that conflicts with the way you wish things are, I'm sorry, but I can't change my experiences to match your preferences.
Absaroka — What is the maximum rate of fire you can achieve with an AR-style weapon, without a bump stock?
"Self-evidently, many pro-gun commenters on this blog are interested in capacity to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible."
You're dumber than the inanimate targets I practice with.
Nothing you have *ever* concluded regarding firearms has been true, Stephen. You have no business even discussing the topic, because all that comes out is partisan bullshit and ignorance.
You're a joke, which is just one of the many reasons why your allegations, complaints, and suggested remedies to a problem which does not exist will never come to pass.
"I'm right because I think everyone agrees with me." Pathetic.
Instead of commenting on firearms, perhaps you should just imagine that you've done so and spare everyone the potential eye strain.
Cavanaugh — Go ahead. Refute substantively any point I made about the defining characteristics which in combination impart a killing advantage to AR-style weapons. We can talk about specifics if you are not afraid to engage with them.
If you did not basically agree with my points, I doubt you would have replied with nothing but ad hominems.
Now you want to pretend that you’re interested in an objective discussion of features?
How long until you start declaring your conclusions about everyone around here just wanting to kill a bunch of people again?
Not a single thread you make about firearms discusses the topic without attributing the desire for mass murder to anyone who disagrees and rightfully calls you an ignorant fool.
Then you “support” your claim by saying that you’re right because everyone privately agrees with you.
I’ve already quoted examples of those behaviors twice just on this article - you do it every single time you start complaining about the mythical AR boogeyman.
Even when you pretend to talk about features “objectively,” you blatantly attribute their attractiveness to potential purchasers as being a desire to murder others. I own firearms, and have no desire to murder anyone. I could talk about the features I found desirable, but all you’re going to do - because it’s all you EVER do, is link those features to a secret desire to murder.
You don’t deserve respect (and you won’t get it from me) until you knock that bullshit off, which effectively means never because you can’t help yourself.
Silly because the US military moved from the .30-06 cartridge to the 5.56 >60 years ago because they were smaller bullets, lighter cartridges, and better for automatic fire at shorter distances. A number of states ban 5.56/.223 for hunting specifically because they aren’t deadly enough at hunting ranges. The .30-08 cartridge, used in our main battle rifles through WW I, WW II, and Korea, is still considered a premier hunting caliber, hitting hard enough at long distances to consistently take down deer and elk. The problem with the caliber, solved by the 5.56/.223, is the stiffer recoil makes full auto fire inaccurate, and the weight makes carrying enough cartridges for fully automatic fire impractical. On a per cartridge basis, the .30-06 cartridge is more lethal at a significantly longer distance than the 5.56 NATO currently in use by our military. We just didn’t need a cartridge accurate at .30-06 distances in the jungles of Vietnam. And, indeed, this turned out to be a problem for our military in Afghanistan.
"They want them so much because they know those guns do feature a deadly combination of features which enable ordinary, poorly trained and even inept shooters to achieve deadlier results than they could get with any other semi-automatic rifle or handgun."
Time to empty your colostomy bag, Stephen. Your shit is leaking all over the internet.
I have explained previously why it is not true.
Transparently ignorance-based bullshit does not constitute an "explanation".
I have explained previously why your proof is not true. I do not need to reiterate, because I know that privately most anti-gun advocates agree with me. They show their agreement by their near-desperate defense of anti-gun comments. They want them so much because they know those comments do feature a deadly combination of lies which enable ordinary, poorly trained and even inept commenters to achieve falser results than they could get with any other article or comment.
I see what you did there...
It kinda hurt my brain doing so, with the base material being so illogical.
"I have explained previously why it is not true. "
Super-dupper historian and a ballistic expert! What a Renaissance man!
"because I know that privately most pro-gun advocates agree with me"
Secret knowledge of private thoughts. Very convincing.
Many police agencies use AR-15s as patrol rifles.
I know that privately most (insert opposing party here) agree with me
Does this position fare well in legal arguments? Does it ever convince juries? It is not even an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to the speaker's personal bias.
Personally, I inevitably get offended when someone condescends to tell me what I "really" think.
Lathrop is not a lawyer. He's a former reporter and current photographer.
Chuck P — Pixels are free. If you disagree with me on any of the specifics I mentioned, it won't cost you a penny to say so.
As for convincing juries, yeah, if someone says, "What about these specifics?," and what the jury gets in response are evasions, that can be convincing evidence.
So far, from the gun advocates I'm getting back nothing but evasions of specifics, and ad hominems. I think that is evidence.
I missed your specifics, and some of those you gave were wrong.
I’m getting back nothing but evasions of specifics, and ad hominems. I think that is evidence.
No. You said, "I do not need to reiterate, because I know that privately most pro-gun advocates agree with me." The responses can't be evasions of specifics when you didn't include any. And you have to make a logical argument for there to be an ad hominem.
You are deliberately conflating accuracy and reload speed with deadliness. But all guns are designed to deliver bullets as efficiently as possible and just as many bullets can be delivered using any semi-auto firearm as with an AR. As I pointed out elsewhere, the deadliest school shooting in the US was committed with 2 pistols, a Glock 19 and a Walther P22.
Banning the AR is not going to put the slightest statistical dent in the number of murders involving firearms. The only time an AR provides any 'deadly' advantage is against an armed opponent, which is the point of owning one.
You have previously explained it. You were wrong then and you're still wrong. Thank you for not reiterating it because I hate having to waste all the time wading through all the people again trying to explain why you are wrong.
Rossami — On this thread, nobody has tried to explain why I am wrong, although Absaroka, following his usual style, wandered off to create a parallel topic he preferred to discuss. That was as close as it got. Everyone else has come back with pure ad hominem.
That is not a good look for your side. Can you do better? I was specific. Care to address the specifics? Try to confine your remarks to critiquing my specifics. That will make you look more convincing than evasive discussions of some loosely-related topic you might prefer to discuss.
SL,
Let's analyze your statement. The concatenation of 5 characteristics is NOT what you know, it is NOT what you have empirical evidence for, it is what you believe.
Don't expect anyone to disprove a 5 part conjecture, when you cannot prove it despite it being your claim as factual.
That is just a dishonest debating trick.
As for the actual claims, I have no substantive opinion except that the ensemble is asserted without evidence.
So if I understand this right the argument is this. Because Biden had not cited the technologically correct specification on the muzzle velocity of a specific weapon class he is a monumental liar who is totally incorrect on everything related to this or any other subject. 2A fetishists must see this as a gift like mana from heaven.
I fail to see what practical difference there is with regard to policy. The AR-15 class weapon is routinely used my mentally disturbed white men to mow down whomever they want in huge numbers. I pretty certain that the victims don't care what the muzzle velocity of the weapon shooting at them was. Regardless of whether they didn't survive, did survive, didn't get hit at all, or were gun owners themselves.
What you appear to be doing is engaging in a desperate ploy to distract, misdirect and confuse people from the very real need for new policy changes. Biden may not have specific details right, but one thing he does have right is the overwhelming majority of people polled in the US what the ongoing carnage that happens here routinely and in no other country on earth.
" Because Biden had not cited the technologically correct specification on the muzzle velocity of a specific weapon class he is a monumental liar "
Nice spin. In fact, he affirmatively and repeatedly miscited that fact in support of his argument. When you rely on falsity, your arguments lose credibility.
"When you rely on falsity, your arguments lose credibility."
Who won the election, Bored Lawyer?
How much credibility do Republicans have with you?
Do you believe Democrats are satanic pedophiles?
How much credibility do Trump and his lying, bigoted, delusional, gullible supporters have with you?
Still pounding the proverbial table and cannot make a coherent argument. Keep it up.
Bored Lawyer — That was a nicely coherent argument by implication. Nice and compact, too. It suggested effectively that you may have too much respect for actually incredible assertions. Kirkland is beating you with that argument.
Trump.
None.
Yes.
More than you.
It mostly shows that gun controllers are motivated by fear and distrust of the unknown. And they’re determined to remain ignorant because that ignorance is a display of tribal solidarity.
And it follows from that that gun control policies aren’t based on facts or knowledge, but rather emotions and prejudice.
Ben_ — Is it an emotion or a prejudice that an AR-style rifle firing a .223 Remington cartridge delivers notably more muzzle energy than a .44 Magnum pistol? How about the fact that over a time interval amounting to tens of seconds, the AR can put multiples more destructive energy on nearby targets than the .44 magnum pistol can? Is that an emotion or a prejudice?
Try a M1 Garand shooting the .30-06 cartridge, instead of your .44 Magnum. By comparing .44 Magnum to .223/5.56, you are comparing pistol caliber to rifle caliber. Try comparing apples to apples, comparing, say, .30-06 to 5.56, or .44 Mag to 9 mm.
You seem to be prejudiced against muzzle energy and effectiveness. It’s strange. It’s like being mad at a truck because it can haul a lot. Or being mad at a marathon runner because he doesn’t get tired fast. Or at a battery because it lasts longer on a charge.
It’s called misdirection, or moving the goalposts. It won’t surprise you to learn that it happens all the time. (Including in just about every comments thread on VC.)
Case in point: David Bernstein has spent years writing about how crazy US racial classifications are (which is true) because he prefers talking about that than about racism in the US.
^ changes the subject to "racism" in a post claiming others are engaged in "misdirection"
Forgive me for spotting the very next post on the main page.
Doesn't occur to you that, in talking about how crazy US racial classifications are, he IS talking about racism in the US? That we only have any use for the classifications in the first place to implement racist policies, because you don't need to classify people according to race to NOT discriminate on the basis of race?
Exactly! That’s the “E” of DIE…equity, which to its adherents is a desire to broadly discriminate on account of race, to make up for past discrimination as shown by any disparate impact statistics than can be gathered. Except the law on this subject has been clear, and may soon be getting clearer: affirmative action must be narrowly tailored to specific past/ongoing discrimination.
It’s like the chief justice once said: the best way not to discriminate on account of race, is not to discriminate on account of race. Obviously that doesn’t satisfy the racialists who think it perpetuates discrimination. But that’s only because we have fundamentally different working definitions of discrimination and equity.
But misrepresenting statistics about racial classifications is much like misrepresenting the operational characteristics of firearms: an appeal to emotion designed to frighten and shame.
It’s called misdirection, or moving the goalposts.
No, it's called "Pointing out that your argument is predicated on ridiculous bullshit." I can see why you're not a fan of that though.
You don't think the racial classifications are racist? If he's talking about racial classification he is talking about racism.
No, it's only racism when you discuss white imperialism and privilege.
Martinned being from The Netherlands, I wonder what his white privilege quotient is. Is my curiosity racist? Is his accusation of my racism just white privilege?
Dutch went to the East Indies to practice their racism.
He should discuss Santa's assistant. Now that is some nice racism.
Because Biden had not cited the technologically correct specification on the muzzle velocity of a specific weapon class he is a monumental liar who is totally incorrect on everything related to this or any other subject.
He attempted to argue that the MV of rounds fired from the weapon in question is somehow something that makes it an extraordinarily dangerous weapon (compared with "most weapons") and therefor a "weapon of war" (let's ignore the stupidity of that phrase for now), and he did so by exaggerating the MV by about 2,600%. The MV of a typical .223 Rem. loaded with a 55 gr projectile fired from a common AR-15 is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 19% higher than that of the average centerfire rifle round, and that differential drops to something like 5% at 200 yds. More interestingly, the kinetic energy at the muzzle for that same .223 round is about 56% LESS than that of the average CF rifle round, and about 67% LESS than the average at 200 yds.
That it needs to be explained to you that basing your argument on a laughably ridiculous lie renders your argument invalid would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Not helping the case that gun rights absolutists aren't huge dorks.
Your mother is so fat, when she sits around the house....she sits AROUND the house.
So you’re trying to prove you’re not a dork…but you do a lame “your mom” joke that wouldn’t even be funny in 1995. Not helping your case there, buddy
The "WHOOSH" of the point flying over your empty head must have been deafening.
No whoosh. You're just not very funny.
JFC...the depth of your stupidity knows no bounds.
Again, I'm not stupid. You're just not funny.
Interesting the way you completely deflected from the validity of his post. If you appreciate his position, you are not behaving intelligently. If you don't, you are being dishonest.
Not deflecting from anything, just pointing out an unappreciated truth. People who care about the specifics of metal flying out of holes to this level are dorks with an incredibly lame and uninteresting hobby.
Not deflecting from anything,
And yet, you did. Your comment did not advance the conversation or demonstrate a corollary. Quite the opposite, it was immaterial and asinine. What you represent as "unappreciated truth", while certainly unappreciated, is not provably true.
Would you rather people attribute this to your level of intelligence, or your motives?
"LawTalkingGuy: Not helping the case that gun rights absolutists aren’t huge dorks."
The gun control talking point I've heard since the 1960s was that Sigmund Freud said guns were phallic symbols and gun advocates were compensating for having tiny dorks.
You might not understand the point he was making. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Most people with a high-school education will understand why energy is a better number to compare than speed is.
Most people who passed Physics I can do the math to realize that the relationships described above mean that momentum (which is arguably more important for capacity to damage than either energy or speed) must be even more unbalanced than the energy relationship.
I think you have a unique definition of "routinely".
Thus proving the point that Biden's fear-mongering was propaganda whose sole purpose was fear-mongering. Which is it -- does the muzzle velocity matter, or does it not? And why do you focus on muzzle velocity when muzzle energy is the real distinction?
"The AR-15 class weapon is routinely"
Do you have a number for "routinely"?
He doesn’t, because it isn’t.
He is also failing to note that the deadliest school shooting in the U.S. was committed with a Glock 19 (9mm, $571) and a Walther P22 (.22, $267) by a South Korean immigrant. 33 dead, 17 injured using just two common pistols without any enhancements purchased 5 weeks before the shootings.
15 out of 30 men murdered by people using guns are Black.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/
Are the majority of their murderers White men?
Brazil, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa have higher criminal homicide rates.
Stick the U.S. on that list of contenders, and see if it makes an argument look convincing that widespread gun prevalence leads to a better society.
So, your solution to the gun violence problem, where almost all fatalities are caused by handguns, is to ban a specific rifle shooting a less than average lethal rifle caliber cartridge, that causes very deaths every year.
Yes, AR-15s have been used in a small number of high profile, esp school, shootings. But, despite their popularity, they kill very few people every year. I would suggest that the reason for that is that, being rifles, they aren’t very concealable, and are thus typically ill suited for offensive use, but effective for defensive use in the home.
The actual argument (I believe that our host knows this but is too nice to say it) is that there are two types of gun grabbers with some overlap between the two groups. Those two groups are idiots and liars. The bullshit they spew can’t be explained any other way. And when they do get their way and pass more anti-freedom laws that don’t work they just say that we need more laws (that won’t work). If guns were the problem New Hampshire would have some of the worst gun crime in the nation and Chicago would have the least. Since the reverse is true the problem isn’t the guns or the gun laws.
Gun nuts -- mostly obsolete, poorly educated, economically inadequate, bigoted, backwater Republicans -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
By tying their political cause to the losing and deplorable side of the culture war (like the anti-abortion team), gun absolutists have positioned themselves for a painful backlash to be imposed by the liberal-libertarian mainstream as America continues to become less hospitable to conservatives' stale, unpopular, ugly thinking.
You will comply with the preferences of your betters until the day your are replaced, clingers. You get to whine about it as much as you like, though, and the Volokh Conspiracy will be here to provide a forum for your whimpering.
re: "So if I understand this right..."
Stop right there because you don't.
Biden cited a muzzle velocity specification that was not merely technically incorrect but wildly inaccurate. On it's own, so what? The argument is that he then used this erroneous information as a major justification for his policy argument. He did so having already been corrected on the error so it can no longer be dismissed as an innocent mistake.
"Because Biden had not cited the technologically correct specification on the muzzle velocity of a specific weapon"
He's so far off its pathetic.
A .22 short has a muzzle velocity of 1,167 fps, an AR-15 about 3300 fps, a .30-06 about 2900.
1/5 of 3000 ft/sec is subsonic (assuming STP, the barrier is at roughly 1100 ft/sec). Who shoots subsonic rifle ammunition unless you’re shooting with a suppressor?
I do. I have a .300 Blackout AR-15 pistol. I shoot subsonic for short distances, and supersonic for longer distances, where the added speed reduces bullet drop.
Is the use of subsonic .300blk unsurpressed basically to control the terminal characteristics of the round, or some other reason? I’ve considered building a .300blk upper, in particular when a certain country of origins’ imported ammunition was banned.
Biden has no clue. See here:
Biden appears to ask if dead congresswoman is at White House speech
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/biden-where-jackie
Note that he previously released a statement that he was shocked and saddened by her death (through a tragic car accident).
So he is too far gone into dementia to lie. Not that he ever had more than a passing familiarity with telling the truth, but still.
He was just talking with her a minute ago. Where did she go?
Hang on a bit and Steven Lathrop will explain it to you.
Mr. Bumble gets it.
Is it dementia, or did he just forget?
I eagerly await the next time you forget something so I can alert the authorities that you belong in hospice care for dementia yourself.
It was so weird that even the tame WH press corp is asking pointed questions about it.
It isn’t that he forgot, for whatever reason, that’s scary to me; it’s that his team didn’t make sure he was aware of the fact at the time. We have had old men in that office, but they are usually surrounded by professionals.
He IS surrounded by professionals. But their influence over him is limited by how long he can retain what they've said.
Is it dementia, or did he just forget?
I eagerly await the next time you forget something so I can alert the authorities that you belong in hospice care for dementia yourself.
Yes, because forgetting the fact that someone you know is dead is totally like forgetting where you left your car keys.
One thing that doesn't get enough attention regrading many gun rights enthusiasts is how they are insufferable pedantic dorks about the lamest stuff imaginable.
Yeah, because pointing out that your argument is predicated on a childishly simple-minded lie is "pedantry".
Truth over facts...amirite?
They might be facts...but it doesn't make you any less of an insufferable pedantic dork.
Says someone without the slightest bit of self awareness.
Lol. I have self-awareness. I'm a dork, I have dorky hobbies. I like Euro-games and fantasy and Sci-Fi and thinking a bibliography can be the most interesting part of a book.
I can also be pedantic about them. And I know you guys think I'm insufferable (but most other people find me delightful).
So from one dork to another: y'all are huge dorks.
"(but most other people find me delightful)"
Only the ones you pay.
A prostitute/escort joke. Very original. Although it doesn't surprise me that you can't grasp the concept of having friendships and good relationships with coworkers.
Although it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t grasp the concept of having friendships and good relationships with coworkers.
The voices in your head aren't "co-workers".
Again, you are not funny.
IDK, I laughed.
Maybe you don't have a sense of humor.
It did seem pretty funny.
"you can’t grasp the concept"
The concept I grasp, its just I don't think someone as insufferable as you can have many friends.
Well you see Bob, you find it insufferable to have someone accurately point out your various character flaws and moral failings. Since I don’t hang out with bad and unethical people who embarrass the legal profession, they like me
Identifying others “moral” failings? Hilarious!
Yes, I understand. There's nothing as frustrating as someone effortlessly exposing your egregious bullshit for what it is.
Cool. Have fun being a frustrated loser.
LOL! "I know you are, but what am I? I'm rubber and you're glue..."
K. Doesn't make you less of a dork-ass loser.
Why do you hate dorks so much? Did the dorks in high school pull down your jock strap? Poor letter man, bullied by dorks snapping his jock strap. I bet they didn't even use their fingers, probably popped it with their slide rules to avoid direct contamination.
No I like dorks.
"Poor letter man, bullied by dorks snapping his jock strap. I bet they didn’t even use their fingers, probably popped it with their slide rules to avoid direct contamination."
Another seldom discussed issue is the amount of right-wingers who are weirdos and freaks who like to type stuff like this out.
What do you call people who quote weirdos?
Weird.
This started as a defense of a really stupid lie presented to an innumerate audience, and I’m really enjoying how well this approach has worked for you.
It's not a defense to Biden, it's making fun of gun people. And it worked really well because you all seem aggrieved by someone pointing out that their hobby is super lame.
No, it was a defense of Biden’s easily disproven policy-driving lie. Peculiarly, “dorkiness” as a quality is worse than “liar” for many.
Why do engineers despise lawyers? It’s a mystery!
If you can't mock gun-fondling gape-jaws, superstitious yokels, and bigoted, half-educated conservatives, where's the fun?
HOW DARE...PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
Want to know what people are pedantic? Lawyers. Climate activists.
I didn't say they couldn't know, just that they're dorks. And more importantly, I should have emphasized the lame part.
Look at this:
"The MV of a typical .223 Rem. loaded with a 55 gr projectile fired from a common AR-15 is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 19% higher than that of the average centerfire rifle round, and that differential drops to something like 5% at 200 yds. More interestingly, the kinetic energy at the muzzle for that same .223 round is about 56% LESS than that of the average CF rifle round, and about 67% LESS than the average at 200 yds."
It's so lame. "Derp tiny piece of metal flies out of hole fast". Wow.
You could be dorky about sports, movies, books, comics, TV, live theater, fantasy, magic, space, plants, birds, woodworking, rocks/minerals, pottery, music, cars...I mean even Vexillology is cooler than this.
When your argument is predicated on grossly exaggerated bullshit, exposing that bullshit (thereby destroying the argument) is just dorky pedantry!!!
No exposing the argument isn't per se. The hobby itself is. If you say stuff like this:
“The MV of a typical .223 Rem. loaded with a 55 gr projectile fired from a common AR-15 is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 19% higher than that of the average centerfire rifle round, and that differential drops to something like 5% at 200 yds. More interestingly, the kinetic energy at the muzzle for that same .223 round is about 56% LESS than that of the average CF rifle round, and about 67% LESS than the average at 200 yds,”
You are a huge dork with an incredibly lame and uninteresting hobby that for some reason you have turned into a core part of your identity.
I looked up the applicable data and used it to destroy the claim being made. How lame!
Look, I'm truly sorry that the guy you voted for and continue to champion has turned out to be such an embarrassment (even as predictable as that was), but you need put on your big girl panties and try growing up a little.
Oh wow calling me a girl and told me to grow up. You are super original and creative.
Did you know engineers despise lawyers? Guess why.
Because engineers tend to be arrogant and have an overinflated sense of their own abilities and correctness on a wide variety of topics they have no training in. In particular, they get very aggrieved when lawyers point out they are wrong about things in the law and are convinced they are right even when they consistently use legal terms incorrectly.
Oh and they tend to have poor social skills whereas lawyers, being in a social profession, do not.
Source: went to a college with a huge engineering program and have and have had several friends in engineering.
I have a friend who used to be a lawyer.
If “arrogant” is equivalent to “knowing what table to look at for actual numbers” then you are completely correct, an arrogance easily obtained or asserted by all (particularly the President) were one to actually look for those numbers.
As for engineers becoming aggrieved when corrected with actual fact, then that reveals the very character flaw you’re illuminating with the rejoinder of “arrogantly dorky”.
However, at its root yours is really a defense of emotive innumeracy as expressed in a policy statement by the President. In a blog that regularly cites actual law to drive drive an argument, blithe dismissal of actual facts as random dorkery shows that this truly is a lame defense.
You sue the bridge and it'll stay up.
"tend to be arrogant and have an overinflated sense of their own abilities and correctness on a wide variety of topics they have no training in."
C'mon, this is in the textbook definition of a lawyer in the dictionary.
Yup, some of my best friends are.....
Did you know engineers despise lawyers? Guess why.
No need to guess. I have known too many engineers. They are narrowly educated, by and large, with a resulting reflexive disdain for folks they do not understand. A tendency to despise anyone unlike yourself is not a constructive trait.
By contrast, however, engineers are about building things. A great many engineers are not only respectful, but actually fearful of skilled tradesman, who can be more practical builders than the engineers themselves. A lot of engineers will concede almost anything to a tradesman, to avoid a conversation which might raise questions the engineer can't answer. A lot of those concessions are now embodied in stainless steel, in the nation's nuclear power plants.
Or, lawyers are typically innumerates that suffer from the Dunning-Krueger Effect*, are too ignorant to be aware that there are things of which they have no knowledge and yet they tend assert an unearned expertise, belied by the stupid premises of their arguments - much like a claim that 3000 ft/sec is “five times faster” than any other rifle round, which is simply false (but useful politically to move the innumerate).
Lawyers seem to relish - in fact carefully cultivate - a loose grasp on fact and truth as flexible lies are useful to that profession and apparently it’s not a lie if you’re too ignorant to know any better; these “professional virtues” are stewed together with a most conditional relationship with ethics, truly the Kohinoor in the crown of the lawyerly professions.
* a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
You're the arbiter now of which hobbies are acceptable and cool, and which are lame and uninteresting?
I think you're full of shit, and I also think that you're projecting your embarrassment that you are incapable of discussing this particular topic with any factual support because you're a fool whose hobbies are lame and uninteresting.
I borrowed that "lame and uninteresting" line from some nerd on the internet who was unhappy with his own ignorance.
Whatever dork
I'm really going to miss your informed discussion.
I mean you can be informed and not care about something so so lame.
I would make a bet with real money that you didn’t know that a lie was being told to you, and that you don’t actually care that you were being lied to, either.
You’re right. I don’t care if someone gets the facts about your dumb hobby intentionally wrong. I’d care about as much if he got something wrong about The Silmarillon.
Why would you think that guns are my hobby? In fact my hobby is now having the most fun by pointing and laughing at a supposedly practicing lawyer who believes truthiness* is more important than truth. You provide utterly unintended hilarity sneering at detail-dorks on a blog that actually cites detailed case law, and for that I thank you!
* truthiness == appealing lies for the proudly ignorant, incurious, or for innumerate lawyers.
Tell Biden to stop using talking points about the speed if you think it’s so lame and irrelevant.
You want Dems to use dramatic falsehoods to sell imprisoning innocent gun owners and you’re complaining that people noticed it’s false and pointed it out.
And if someone pointed it out without the precise details, some asshole like Sarcastr0 or bernard11 would say "citation needed".
I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out a reality: gun rights enthusiasts are huge dorks with a super lame hobby who hyperventilate about how fast a piece of metal shoots out of a hole.
It is so uninteresting you make magicians look cool.
I’m not complaining
No, you're having a tantrum that would embarrass the average 4 year-old.
I'm not the one having a tantrum, you're the one pissed off that I accurately portrayed your hobby as lame and you as a dork.
An old man says a stupid thing easily disproven with well-known numbers, and this defensive lawyerly response is: “the facts that are revealed by numbers are for dorks! Pay attention to my emotional arguments and react in kind.”
Why do engineers despise lawyers? It’s a mystery.
Why do engineers despise lawyers? It’s a mystery.
Explained above. You are arrogant people with poor social skills.
Apparently your charm and social graces do not extend to graciously accepting that you are quite literally arguing that ignorance is a virtue.
Why do engineers believe that lawyers are innumerate prostitutes? It’s a mystery!
Lesseeee ... one lawyer dork spends all day batting words back and forth with a dozen engineer dorks. Gee, I wonder which are more dorkish.
Dorkishness is positive boon to engineers, as it has to do with obsessive attention to things that lawyers and marketers find unimportant, such as facts as revealed with numbers. Revel in that dorkishness: lives depend on it every time one crosses a bridge or sits in an aircraft.
Harassing those people who play lawyers in comment sections because of the defense of an easily-disproven political statement presented by our countries’ sad political class is just fun, particularly when the rejoinder is “you’re a dork for knowing stuff”. Hilarious!
Lol. The guy arguing with 10 people at once lecturing about social skills. Go buy yourself some self-awareness. We
You know the internet isn’t coextensive with real life right? I can be bored on a boring day and make fun of you and have a rich and fulfilling social life, outside of this right?
You’re making fun of me? Extending your act to people thst don’t own guns as well?
You wanna spend your time bring a jackass, well it’s your time. There’s a way for me to avoid it.
You are an absolute hoot what with the doubling-down on a luv of ignorance.
Why do engineers think that lawyers are risible buffoons? It’s a mystery!
Yeah, they're people who aren’t like you. Hurry and send the cops out to round them up.
Nah. I think just telling manufacturers not to make these things and making fun of them for being dorks is sufficient.
Don’t manufacture cartridge/barrel combinations such that you produce five times the muzzle velocity of the current typical center fire rifle? That’s easy, because that’s the case right now. There is no such barrel/cartridge specification.
Or did you mean something else, but are too innumerate to actually express yourself clearly?
"Don’t manufacture cartridge/barrel combinations such that you produce five times the muzzle velocity of the current typical center fire rifle? That’s easy, because that’s the case right now. There is no such barrel/cartridge specification."
What I meant was caring about this is loser shit. Again, you make magicians look cool.
Numbers, who needs them?
Why do engineers despise lawyers? It’s a mystery.
Magicians are cool. That you think not says more about you than all the words you've wasted today.
Yes magicians are cool. Which is why it is so supremely lame to care about guns at all when magicians exist.
Lawyers are to humor what the Green New Deal is to effective environmental policy: unintentionally hilarious!
Facts are your enemy.
Make the facts go away!!!!!!.
You can say all the facts about guns you want. It just makes you an incredibly lame dork to care that much about something so dumb
So Biden is an incredibly lame dork. OK.
I mean yeah, he's a goofy old man in politics.
.. a goofy old man in politics lying about facts in order to influence an accepting, innumerate audience.
Why do engineers despise lawyers? It’s an mystery.
No, President Biden is an incredibly dishonest jerkwad who can't even read a teleprompter properly, you lying dog-faced pony soldier.
But apparently that's much less important than dorks knowing how to look up facts.
Except it’s not dumb, and no, it’s not dorky. It’s one of the major civil rights issues of our time, if not number one. So when a sitting president says something so utterly, mindlessly stupid about the subject, those of us who care will call him out for it.
Because down deep you think the ends (outlawing guns) justify the means, you say something equally ignorant such as calling people dorks.
Maybe you do this to feel better about everything, but here’s some advice: save your energy. Thai strategy isn’t going to change a single mind.
No I think going to into pedantic detail about pieces of metal flying out of other pieces of metal is a lame hobby for huge dorks who aren’t even creative like a magician or a theatre nerd.
I know, right! Some dork might set government policy on the stupid question about how fast a chunk of metal flies through the air. What kind of an idiotic poltroon would do something as hilariously stupid as that?
Why do engineers respect lawyers less than that of the respect legitimately earned by hagfish? It’s a mystery!
You can just stop replying to people if it makes you this upset.
I'm not upset, I'm making fun of you guys. I'm replying because it's funny to me how you don't realize how lame this is.
I love dork lectures from innumerate lawyers.
Why do engineers have little to no respect for lawyers? It’s a mystery.
We get it you’re an engineer, get over yourself.
What do lawyers say when they’re so easily defeated by mere numbers? “Yeah, so what? Get over yourself.”
Why do most humans despise lawyers so much? Certainly it can’t be because of the gracious social skills as evidenced by one such boastful practitioner… or perhaps they’re representative of an entire class of ethically-challenged intercessionaries who’s profession resembles the casuistry of Catholic cardinals? It’s a mystery!
"you guys"
This was my only post. You're tilting at windmills and telling yourself that it's fun.
Actually .... look at his handle. He thinks he's talking law. I wonder what his clients think, and what judges think.
He is not a lawyer.
I am absolutely an attorney lol. If I wasn’t concerned Jimmy was going to murder me some day I would post my bar number.
You think too highly of yourself along with your other clear delusions that have been exhibited from your posts here. Please get help.
Already on Zoloft, so I’m good thanks.
I luv the “social skills”!
Well that certainly adds a lot of information to the conversation. Just another message board idiot who has nothing to add but just posts for the sole purpose of pissing people off. Not worth the time.
That people even got pissed off adds great value in fact because it exposes how sensitive they are about something so inane and pointless.
^ Facts declared "pointless".
Practicing lawyer calls facts stupid while commenting on a blog that cites actual law from, you know, law books?
Hilarious!
Its really just self defense.
We've seen how misinformation gets out there and colors the debate, so when we see misinformation deployed in the public debate in an effort to ban assault weapons, yeah we are going to point it out aggressively and be insufferable about it.
If we just let it slide then that ridiculous assertion will become part of the standard set of talking points in trying to ban assault weapons as "unusually dangerous".
Maybe if we're insufferable about it the White House will quit making these kinds of mistakes, along with claiming there is zero inflation.
-more than five times faster than for "most weapons"-
Sure! Knives, bats, fists, arrows, bolts, catapult stones, swords, daggers, darts....
"bats" -- do you mean the wooden implement used to hit baseballs, or the flying rodent that some thought was the source of the COVID virus?
Just how slow is the speed of stupid?
Open the link to Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker article above, and read the comments. Democrats don’t care if he’s lying or not.
Same with comments here.
Read the left-leaning comments here and the same fact is apparent.
The most important thing about the gun control debate is this:
The same side that is pushing for stricter gun control laws and assault weapons ban, is also the same side that calls for defunding the police, accuses cops of hunting down and murdering unarmed Black men, claims that our criminal justice system is systemically racist, and complains about mass incarceration.
All cops are racist, so let's make certain only cops have the guns. That is leftist logic for you.
They have to lie because the left is broke. They got nothing. Just make up stuff and then when caught lying just lie some more. Then, after they are done lying turnaround and lie again. Keep lying because once you are in a hole might as well keep digging.
The the lefties live in their "utopia" with defunded police. Just wall off the cities and ban democrats from leaving. We will see how into the whole virtue signaling thing after that. We already know what rich elite northeast liberals do with immigrants....
So why do you need an AR-15? What can it do that a normal handgun can't?
"So why do you need an AR-15?"
Can be used when the time comes to roundup liberals!
(Yes that is sarcasm and yes I'm look right at you Sarc.)
So why do you need to ban AR-15s? What can it do that a normal gun can't?
An AR-15 is a "normal" gun. It shoots bullets of a common caliber. The only functional difference between it and a lot of other rifles is how it looks.
1)Can you clarify whether you are asking
a)why would you use a rifle vs. a handgun or
b)if you wanted a rifle, why would you choose an AR-15 over some other model
2)It 's worth mentioning again, that 'AR-15' paints a pretty wide swath. Things that people call AR-15's range in caliber from rimfire to .458 WinMag. For that matter, lots of people would consider this to be one of the Devils Spawn, and it's not even semi auto.
(IIRC Shannon Watts once tweeted a picture of a 'Ruger American Rimfire' as one of the evil weapons of war that has no place on America's streets ... and it's a bolt action 22)
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15
Why would you want the thing this guy's holding? What are the advantages over a Glock 19? What (if anything) would you use it for?
Again, you're asking multiple questions. Can you clarify which one you are asking?
My questions can be taken one by one. They’re as clear as can be. It is also clear you can’t answer them.
Take my comment below as to guitar strings. I prefer medium to light because they’re louder, last longer, and stay more in tune. Lighter gauges are better for delicate finger picking but that’s not the type of music I play.
Now can you answer my questions?
1)Can you clarify whether you are asking
a)why would you use a rifle vs. a handgun or
b)if you wanted a rifle, why would you choose an AR-15 over some other model
Those are different questions; which one are you asking. I'm genuinely trying to answer, but need to know which you are asking.
Why would you use an AR-15 over a rifle?
An AR-15 is a rifle.
Why would you choose Rocky Road over ice cream?
Why then over any other model of rifle ?
Being easy to control (aim) is the biggest firearm-qua-firearm reason I know of. That made it popular, which increased the number of manufacturers of similar rifles, which led to lower prices and a wide variety of platforms, components and accessories.
As Ben_ pointed out elsewhere here, the AR-15 isn't vastly superior to a variety of other modern rifles. Banning AR-15-like rifles without having those other rifles could get tricky -- and if you say which of those you also want to ban, it's probably going to be clear when/where/how the banned rifles are "better".
A #2 Phillips head screwdriver is probably the most popular screwdriver, but that doesn't mean it's better than others. Pozidriv and JIS B 1012 heads are arguably better than Phillips in some ways, but hex and Robertson and Torx heads all have their applications as well. It's all about when a given tool is the right choice.
Ah, you answered while I was answering the other possible interpretation of what you were asking below.
The simple answer is that they are a good choice. Some of the reasons are:
1)Wood isn't a good material for stocks - it warps one way and another with every change of the weather, and its grain structure limits the shapes you can make. In days of old, if you wanted an accurate rifle you took it to the gunsmith and paid the price of the rifle or more to have it glass bedded etc., to minimize the effect of the wood stock as the weather changes. You don't need to do that with AR's, or any other wood-less design (which most modern designs are).
If you go to Home Depot and look at drills, you will find they all have pistol grips. That's just the way a human hand best grasps things. The grain of wood doesn't lend itself to that shape; plastic does. If they had plastic in 1776, the Brown Bess would have had a pistol grip.
As an aside, anyone who thinks a pistol grip makes a gun more deadly is full of beans; both a wood stocked Garand or Mini-14 and an AR will serve for crime or self defense. People object to pistol grip bans because they are like mandating an awkward shape of a shift knob in the interest of traffic safety; it just doesn't make sense.
2)It's easy to work on ARs. You can change barrels, for example, with simple hand tools versus taking the rifle to a gunsmith for an expensive rebarrel job. They are common enough it's easy to find parts and expertise; it's like working on an old VW bug vs some exotic car. Want a better trigger ... there are 47 replacements to choose from, etc, etc. Something not running right? The local rod-n-gun probably has someone who can tell you what needs to be fixed, and you can buy the parts and install them yourself, versus a long $$$ trip to the factory or a gunsmith.
3)People in the military have been used to them for 50+ years.
4)They have superb ergonomics.
5)They are modular. You can build your competition rifle with a $300 trigger, then change the upper to a 22LR for practice, etc, etc.
I would almost invert the question - why wouldn't you buy one? It's like if some one asks 'I need a family car, what should I buy', the default answer might be a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. The odd thing would be if you bought the Jaguar, not the Camry. I think a large plurality of rifles sold are ARs; they are the norm, not the exception.
I think the only reason you wouldn't buy one was if you thought they were uniquely dangerous. I realize that is an article of faith among people who aren't familiar with them. People who are familiar with them, IMHE, generally disagree. If you were local, I'd offer to take you to the range and try them along with some other rifles. I'd bet good money you'd be convinced a mass shooter can use a Garand or whatever just as well (and as is pointed out elsewhere in the thread, they frequently do ... Va Tech, Columbine, ...).
"Why would you use an AR-15 over a rifle?"
As Michael P said ... an AR-15 *is* a rifle. Can you explain what you are getting at, i.e. why you think an AR is different from whatever you think a rifle is? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, but you aren't asking well formed questions.
If the question is 'why would you use a rifle, vs a handgun, for self defense[1]', the tl;dr is:
1)Generally speaking, rifle marksmanship is perhaps an order of magnitude easier to teach. Pistol marksmanship is a very difficult thing to learn, and it is a very perishable skill. The person who goes to the range once a year will hit their target with a lot higher fraction of shots fired if they use a rifle than a handgun. In a self defense scenario, where by definition someone is trying to kill you, hits are better than misses at making attackers stop. Misses are also bad because they have the potential to hit innocents, which is a Bad Thing.
2)Secondly, a hit from a rifle tends to be quite a bit more effective at making an attacker stop his attack than handgun bullets. If, for example, someone is shooting at you, you would prefer they stop right now, rather than a few minutes from now. Rifles, or perhaps I should say rifle calibers (you can get rifles in pistol calibers) are a lot better at stopping attackers right now.
The only real advantage of handguns is that it's a lot easier to carry one around. It would be awkward for a police officer, for example, to take a rifle along every time he goes to write a speeding ticket. But you may notice that when the police expect they might be getting into a fight, they routinely take a rifle along. That's not because they think having a rifle is less effective than their handgun, and they want to give the crook an advantage if it comes to a fight. It's because they realize a defender is better off armed with a rifle than a handgun.[2]
[1]for hunting, the answer is similar, but the ranges are longer.
[2]I'm old enough to remember when the gun control objective was to ban handguns. It seems odd that the position has reversed, where they want to ban rifles but not handguns, especially since the vast majority of gun crime involves handguns.
I think it's occurred to them that if they can ban the rifles, they can then go back and point out they have an even stronger case against pistols.
Also, there's always been a good deal of focus on rifles in the gun control movement. Remember, your average person might be worried about criminals with handguns, but the politicians are worried about assassins with rifles. And the modern gun control movement is very much an elite driven reaction to the Kennedy assassination, it's not about street crime.
My questions can be taken one by one. They’re as clear as can be. It is also clear you can’t answer them.
The only thing your answers make clear is that you're a clueless buffoon. This one is a real gem:
Why would you use an AR-15 over a rifle?
That's like asking why someone would use a Ford F-150 instead of a pickup truck.
Why do you think I can only have things I need? That's not how a free country works, you know.
Why are you so defensive?
If someone asked me why I use medium gauge strings on my guitar instead of light gauge, I wouldn't have any problem answering.
What if people wanted to put you in prison for your choice? Think you’d be defensive?
AR-15 is just very well designed and modern. There’s nothing particularly amazing about it compared to other, similarly modern rifles. It’s very popular — by far the most popular in the US.
It’s like an Amish person asking why you need a smartphone when you can just ride a horse to the next farm to chat. Except these particular zealots want you in prison for making different choices than them.
Vague.
What about it is better? What is the purpose you use it for and why is it better for that purpose?
Argh. Stupid comment interface. (I was trying to delete the original version of this comment when I somehow hit the "Post Comment" button.)
Who are you talking to? Ben_ didn't say it was better -- and in fact said almost the opposite.
You can Google “pros and cons of different rifles” or “should I buy an AR-15” and get as much insight as you’re willing to read.
(Unless you think reading that info and understanding it is a sin or something. You can still pretend to be completely ignorant when talking to progressives about it — tell them some people have 100-round clips and the exit wound is 1 foot in diameter for extra ignorance “credibility”. Make sure to let them know AR stands for "assault rifle" if you want to banish all doubt.)
I'm defending because you're attacking.
And whether I *need* an AR-15 is utterly irrelevant. Because it's a right, and that's not how rights work. And I'm not going to play around with your effort to pretend that's how they work.
You DO understand how "rights" work, don't you? Because I get the impression you have them confused with "privileges".
If someone asked me why I use medium gauge strings on my guitar instead of light gauge, I wouldn’t have any problem answering.
You didn't ask why anyone "uses" and AR. You asked why they "need" one.
captcrisis, an AR-style rifle can with each shot put into the hands of almost anyone notably more muzzle energy than delivered by a .44 Magnum pistol, and make it controllable—which for a great many shooters the .44 Magnum would not be. It does that while also vastly increasing the speed and quantity of fire available, by use of interchangeable magazines combined with semi-automatic operation. As an extra sales point, it accomplishes all that with far less punishing recoil than older-style military-style weapons delivered.
As a more general point, if you think of measuring hand-held weapons in terms of foot-pounds of energy deliverable to an assortment of targets over an interval measured in 10s of seconds, probably nothing else available comes close—with the possible exception of a few very high-powered rifles in the hands of exceptionally skilled shooters performing what amounts to a circus act. For that kind of task, performed by ordinary shooters, nothing else can rival the AR-style rifles. That’s why the gun nuts love the ARs. I don’t know why they won’t admit it.
A 240 grain 44 magnum bullet fired through a rifle-length barrel is quite comparable to a center fire rifle cartridge in terms of energy and velocity at the muzzle. Why are you comparing pistol verses rifle energies in any case?
“When fired from the 20-inch barrel of a lever-action rifle, a 240-grain .44 Magnum bullet can reach velocities of up to 1,760 feet per second, 27.54% faster than when the same bullet is shot from a 6-inch revolver.
The same round generates a kinetic energy of up 1,651 foot-pounds of force at the rifle’s muzzle. This makes it 62.66% more powerful compared to shooting it from a 6-inch revolver.”
A .223 bullet fired from a 16 inch barrel bears significantly less energy (~1300) does the .44 magnum from a similar barrel length.
In other words, your premise is incorrect. Glad to help.
JSinAZ — Of course none of your disjointed pedantry addresses at all my point about a particular combination of features being the key to understanding the especially lethal character of AR-style weapons.
To clarify one point which apparently eluded you: the .44 Magnum pistol is a widely recognized benchmark. Many people understand it is among the most powerful handguns in the world. I chose to address that public understanding, and point out that by comparison an AR-style weapon with a .223 caliber cartridge was notably more powerful.
That was to set the stage for a more important point—which your commentary does nothing to address—that many shooters would not find a hard-recoiling .44 Magnum pistol practical or manageable, and would not choose to use one. So it is striking and important as a matter of policy that many of those same shooters do choose a more-powerful AR-style weapon, and control it with ease. That difference is because the AR-style weapon features mentioned above combine to deliver that ease and controllability. The .44 Magnum pistol does not. Nor, by the way, and in passing, would any presently available rifle chambered for .44 Magnum prove itself as a rival to displace AR-style weapons in the marketplace. Such rifles might be designed to compete better—by adding semi-automatic actions, and interchangeable magazines—but the .44 Magnum cartridge would always count too heavily against any but short-range accuracy to make such weapons competent rivals for AR-style competitors.
The actual statistics say that the overwhelming majority of murderers mass or otherwise don’t use rifles or heavy-caliber (eg. .44 magnum) handguns, because they prefer the ergonomics of an easily concealed and handled handgun chambered in some prosaic caliber like .22, .380, 9mm, .40 or .45. As mentioned to you by others previously, the largest campus mass-murderer in the US used .22 and 9mm handguns, equipped mostly with 10-round limited magazines.
By the way, your comment “ … but the .44 Magnum cartridge would always count too heavily against any but short-range accuracy” is quite incorrect regarding it’s ballistics; these are regularly used in handguns for hunting at ranges past 100 yards, which is not “close”. When used in a rifle-length barrel, it gains quite a bit more reach.
Your assertions are made with confidence, but they are not correct. These talking points are terrible.
"that many shooters would not find a hard-recoiling .44 Magnum pistol practical or manageable, and would not choose to use one. So it is striking and important as a matter of policy that many of those same shooters do choose a more-powerful AR-style weapon, and control it with ease."
OTOH, a 44 Mag *rifle* has mild recoil.
You have discovered an important principle - rifles are generally more powerful and easier to shoot than handguns!
Next up - AR-15s chambered in 223 rifles will pierce Kevlar body armor, while most handguns won't!
Your topical ignorance is exceeded only by your fondness for bullshit and utter inability to feel embarrassment.
Why do you need free speech for what you want to say? Why can’t we restrict your speech to "normal" topics and opinions?
Is this a serious question? I ask because in the gun control arguments it's hard to tell the serious from the sarcastic. This is a question the just flat out flabbergasts me if it's serious.
IOW you can’t answer it.
Of course we can provide an answer, but not one you'll accept. Which is fine because your acceptance or rejection has no bearing on our right to own an AR-15.
The question is stupidly posed. If you were serious about discussing the AR15, you would fire up a couple of brain cells and at least make an attempt to pose a question that is not - on it's face - utter bullshit. Others here have addressed this issue, which you will ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.
You did, however, provide an answer to my question on your seriousness in asking this question. You aren't the least bit serious in your claimed beliefs.
I find it extraordinary that people are arguing that the facts don't matter.
If a traffic safety advocate wanted to ban Corvettes 'because their top speed is six times the speed of a Toyota Corolla', we would all, I hope, roll our eyes and dismiss their opinion out of hand.
If someone was talking about bridge safety and said 'we use steel for bridges because the alloys used have a tensile strength six times stronger than any aluminum alloy', I expect relatively few people would know that was false off the top of their head, but I hope that when it was pointed out that it is wildly off the mark people would use that in evaluating whether that bridge safety advocate was worth listening to.
Opinions should follow facts, not the converse.
Shut up with your racist logic and facts, you....racist.....guns kill people!
You forgot to call him a dork.
Why have an "edit" function if you can't use it after more than 5 minutes?!?!
I think to (mostly) keep the edits to honest typos, rather than second thoughts.
Facts weren’t important to the Covidians either. You were just supposed to stand on the dot stickers on the floor and make sure your 3-year-old was masked up, no matter how asinine it was. And get that booster even though you already had Covid and even though the shots don’t prevent Covid. Why? Because facts don’t matter so shut up.
There are a couple things that counsel against qualifying Biden's speech as "misstatements". First, as Prof. Volokh already noted, his remarks come despite repeated corrections by the news media. Second, his "misstatements" are in the direction of his preferred policy outcomes, i.e., portraying the weapons as more dangerous than they really are.
Two things are predictable: (1) Professor Volokh will continue to pretend that the Founders had AR-15s and similar weapons in mind when they adopted the Second Amendment, and (2) his gun-hugging followers will jump in to profess their undying love for firearms capable of killing many, many people in a matter of seconds.
Your version of what the Founders knew or understand about guns or more generally, "arms" is not supported by history.
3) That cluess dipshits like you will clutter the discussion thread with bullshit-based attempts at misdirection.
Prattling about this trivial issue while thousands die needlessly due to the sick gun culture that infects this blog, both the professors and the commenters, is sick. The blood of those thousands of on all of your hands.
Perhaps speaking lies ought to be avoided if one wishes to convince an audience of the correctness of one’s argument, because lying politicians who misstate facts and thus potentially alienate some of the audience they wish to convince, have the blood of the innocent on their hands as this gun-culture “infection” is unmoved by these kinds of really stupid lies.
I doubt Pres. Biden (or any prominent Democrat) is much focused on trying to persuade Republicans any more. You can't reason with bigotry, belligerent ignorance, or childish superstition. The proper course for Democrats is to continue to defeat the conservatives -- including gun nuts -- in the culture war and to ensure the Republicans' compliance with the rules established by better Americans.
Prattling about this trivial issue
If the bullshit in question so trivial then one has to wonder why Biden and his ilk insist on continuing to peddle it.
Same for the sick culture where criminals get an attorney. Same for the sick culture that excludes cruel and unusual punishment. How many lives could we save if we denied "criminals" all their rights? Thousands.
The problem is that there are no consequences for this. Deem Democrats' politically motivated lies to be sedition, and punish them accordingly, and watch it go away. If you sent these liars to the gas chambers, they'd stop lying.
It's not like he has years of research, writings or debates about the 2A... Oh wait!
Dude knows his audience at least!
Queenie knows nothing, at most.
The president lied through his teeth. Period. Have the stones to admit it, Queenie.
President lies. QA deflects by attacking EV.
Another day, another post.
Here is just one example of his long standing interest in the 2nd Amendment writing about Heller in the Harvard Law Review in 2010:
https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2010/01/Eugene-Volokh_final-1.pdf
He used to write a lot more about the 2nd Amendment, but his scholarship was so successful in that field he had to move on so it didn't look like he was just resting on his laurels.
Eugene Volokh was one of the most quoted firearms history experts in the Supreme Court decision on Heller 2008.l
Ha ha good one
This might surprise you, but after four years of the president constantly spewing "alternative facts", no one cares anymore. Y'all were successful in moving the Overton window.
LOL politicians weren't known to lie before Trump.
I'd rather have a president who lied about how big his inauguration crowd is than a president who lies about keeping your doctor so his signature law gets passed.
Oh, spare me. All politicians tell tall ones here and there. Biden has done 10 times what Trump did in less than 1/3 the time.
Lathering the rubes;
the right-wing law professor,
lathering his rubes.
All he's gotta do is pitch a peanut here or a peanut there and grind his organ you start dancing like a good little monkey.
10 peanuts and he will have you dancing through your entire script library.
Now do Trump's other 12,000+ or so lies.
You might also want to work on obscuring your logical fallacies.