It would indicate you have done passing research on what you are talking about. If people are messing up basic terminology I would be concerned they have a poor understanding of the subject. The same way Trump spoke about stuff with incorrect language showed his ignorance.
Why do you need to research the name of a specific gun to understand gun safety? How does not knowing what the initials of one single gun stand for show you have a poor understanding of the subject? Do you have to be familiar with every gun out there to understand gun safety? In that case, don’t let anyone buy a gun until they’ve used every model and knows each one intimately. Otherwise it won’t be safe.
It’s one of the most prolific gun platforms ever. It would be like trying to regulate trucks without knowing the F-150 is made by Ford. It shows ignorance of the subject, which isn’t what you want if you’re looking to express an opinion. It’s not that deep.
It’s strange that you demand such precision regarding gun specific terminology but your rigorousness disappears immediately when it comes to using terms like regulate and ban correctly. Perhaps until you can use those terms correctly you should remove yourself from any topics concerning them.
Again, regulation is not the same as banning. I have no idea why you would think it is. And this conversation you butted into was about gun safety. I literally pasted what started the conversation.
Oh, you’re done lying and insulting? You want to have a discussion now? Because if you want me to answer that or any other question, at the very least you could do was own your bullshit lie when you claimed I thought the AR-15 was more dangerous than other guns or your other bullshit lie that I wanted to ban all guns… and failing that, you could apologize for saying I supported the fucking Taliban.
You also seem very confused about what regulation means.
I want all cars regulated. I want every car to be registered and every driver to be licensed after being tested for competence. Does that mean I want to ban cars?
Do you really think ‘regulation’ is a synonym for ‘ban?’
The AR15 was designed to be the most effective general case weapon of war to be carried by soldiers. If it didn’t have measurable advantage over other rifles why did the US military adopt the M-16? Select fire is far from the only characteristic that contributes to the efficient lethality of that design.
If it didn’t have measurable advantage over other rifles why did the US military adopt the M-16? The M-16 was derived from the AR-15. The semi-auto characteristic is just one aspect of the rifle. No one, pro-gun, anti-gun, or anywhere in between takes the opinion “all semi-auto rifles are the same” seriously, because its ridiculously reductive and just not true. Its weight, length, ease of use, magazine capacity, and ammo type all significantly factor into its performance. Are you trying to be honest or are you emotionally blinded on this topic?
Why does knowing what AR stands for mean you understand gun safety? Do they have a corporate model vocabulary lesson in gun safety classes?
It would indicate you have done passing research on what you are talking about. If people are messing up basic terminology I would be concerned they have a poor understanding of the subject. The same way Trump spoke about stuff with incorrect language showed his ignorance.
Why do you need to research the name of a specific gun to understand gun safety? How does not knowing what the initials of one single gun stand for show you have a poor understanding of the subject? Do you have to be familiar with every gun out there to understand gun safety? In that case, don’t let anyone buy a gun until they’ve used every model and knows each one intimately. Otherwise it won’t be safe.
It’s one of the most prolific gun platforms ever. It would be like trying to regulate trucks without knowing the F-150 is made by Ford. It shows ignorance of the subject, which isn’t what you want if you’re looking to express an opinion. It’s not that deep.
You are moving the goalposts. We weren’t talking about regulation. We were talking about gun safety.
The claim you made was this:
Can you please explain to me how gun safety was taught before the AR-15 was invented despite the lack of this necessary component?
Removed by mod
It’s strange that you demand such precision regarding gun specific terminology but your rigorousness disappears immediately when it comes to using terms like regulate and ban correctly. Perhaps until you can use those terms correctly you should remove yourself from any topics concerning them.
Bans are subsets of regulation, no?
That seems like an oddly narrow question given Marios misuse.
Removed by mod
I’ll wait for you to move the goal posts back.
Again, regulation is not the same as banning. I have no idea why you would think it is. And this conversation you butted into was about gun safety. I literally pasted what started the conversation.
Removed by mod
Oh, you’re done lying and insulting? You want to have a discussion now? Because if you want me to answer that or any other question, at the very least you could do was own your bullshit lie when you claimed I thought the AR-15 was more dangerous than other guns or your other bullshit lie that I wanted to ban all guns… and failing that, you could apologize for saying I supported the fucking Taliban.
Removed by mod
What abbreviation is it necessary to know to understand women’s healthcare?
Removed by mod
Please provide evidence that I think that the AR-15 is more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle.
Unless that was a lie, of course. I’m sure if it wasn’t a lie, you can prove that I think that.
Removed by mod
Got it. You lied.
You also seem very confused about what regulation means.
I want all cars regulated. I want every car to be registered and every driver to be licensed after being tested for competence. Does that mean I want to ban cars?
Do you really think ‘regulation’ is a synonym for ‘ban?’
Removed by mod
Sure, I’ll be happy to do that as soon as you own up to your lies and apologize for saying I supported the Taliban.
The AR15 was designed to be the most effective general case weapon of war to be carried by soldiers. If it didn’t have measurable advantage over other rifles why did the US military adopt the M-16? Select fire is far from the only characteristic that contributes to the efficient lethality of that design.
Removed by mod
If it didn’t have measurable advantage over other rifles why did the US military adopt the M-16? The M-16 was derived from the AR-15. The semi-auto characteristic is just one aspect of the rifle. No one, pro-gun, anti-gun, or anywhere in between takes the opinion “all semi-auto rifles are the same” seriously, because its ridiculously reductive and just not true. Its weight, length, ease of use, magazine capacity, and ammo type all significantly factor into its performance. Are you trying to be honest or are you emotionally blinded on this topic?