Are AR-15s a big problem in this country? Is the AR an assault rifle or is it completely different from the M16? Is the 223 something that explodes on impact or is it no more deadly than a 22? Welcome to the Defenders and Disciples community. In this video, I'm going to be discussing these lies that are perpetuated by both the anti-gun community as well as the pro-gun community about the AR fifteens. Anything I say in this video should not be taken as a call to violence or an attempt to incite violence. Anti-gun Lie one AR stands for assault rifle or automatic rifle. Contrary to popular belief, AR does not stand for assault rifle or automatic rifle. AR stands for ArmaLite. ArmaLite was the original manufacturer of the AR 15. The term assault rifle comes from the German vir, which was the S TG 44.
So the next time someone tells you that AR stands for Assault rifle, this should be a response Nine, Nine, Nine (German for no).. Anti-gun lie number two, AR-15s are a serious threat to public safety and they must be banned false. This lie is based on the ignorant, though popular belief that AR are used in most mass shootings and that mass shootings represent the significant number of gun deaths in America. Take a moment and consider what you think of when you think of a mass shooting. My imagination goes to some guy who goes into an area with an AR 15 with the intent to kill indiscriminately and ends up injuring and or killing dozens of people. And I'd imagine that you probably think of the same thing because lies perpetuated by both politicians as well as media have inculcated that stereotype into our national psyche. You probably also think of event that receives media coverage across all networks for days on end.
While keeping those stereotypes in mind, I want you to consider the following tally of year to year mass shooting incidents that were collected by the Gun Violence Archive or GVA. The GVA is often cited by both politicians as well as media, and year by year they are 2014, 272 mass shootings, 2015 334, mass shootings, 2016 382, mass shootings 2017, 348, mass shootings 2018, 336 mass shootings, and then 2019 417 mass shootings. Now, if you're like me, you probably hear these numbers and think they have to be wrong or you've been living under a rock. Well, the truth is yes, the numbers are correct and no, you probably haven't been living under a rock unless you won season seven of loan live at Rock House. However, when I say these numbers are correct, that hinges on the criteria you use to define a mass shooting. And the criteria that the GVA uses is that four or more people have to be injured or killed. I don't know if you've paid attention to the news recently, but that's a slow Friday night in Chicago.
Not only that, but the truth is only a very small portion of those hundreds of mass shootings that are reported by the GVA are actually perpetrated with a gun like this. According to the status of research department since 1985, only 49 of these mass shootings have been perpetrated with a rifle. Even if these numbers were reported in a way that wasn't disingenuous, they still would represent such a small portion of the overall picture of gun violence, but they're not being genuine. It's just a trick that the anti-gun community plays to rile up the public to support legislation that attempts to ban guns like these. And here's how the trick is played. One, they use Hollywood mainstream media and politicians who sensationalize mass shootings in order to create fear in the public
Speaker 2:
30 magazine clip in half a second.
Two, they train people to associate mass shootings with some crazy guy running around with a weapon that looks sort of like these killing indiscriminately. And then three, they secretly redefine the criteria for what a mass shooting is and define it as something that most people would not consider to be a mass shooting. And there you have it. That's how you got a bunch of people that believe that hundreds of times a year you have a bunch of people running around with guns that look like these kill 'em indiscriminately anti-gun. Lie number three, the 2, 2 3 or 5 5 6 explodes whenever it hits the human body,
Speaker 3:
Hollowpoint bullet explode inside that body. No, I don't think so.
No, neither the 2, 2 3 nor the 5 5 6 explode when they hit the hum body. They may fragment when they hit bone material, but they do not explode, and the fragmenting is common amongst a lot of rounds. Now that I've gone through those three lies from the anti-gun community, let's talk about three lies from the pro-gun community. And in doing so, I'm probably going to tick some of you off, but as you hear these keep this quote in mind.
Speaker 4:
You could tell much about a man's character by how much truth he could tolerate
Pro-gun lie one, the AR 15 and M 16 are completely different. I believe this lie is in response to the assertion that the AR 15 is a weapon of war. Now, before responding to this assertion, we must first dissect the phrase weapon of war. What does that mean? When I think of this phrase, I think of something that has or could be used by our military in warfare. And with that interpretation in mind, there are basically two ways to respond to the assertion that the AR 15 is a weapon of war. The first way is a literal response, and the second is a serious response. The literal response is no, the AR 15 is not a weapon of war because they use the M 16. However, I really hate this response because I believe it's intended to deceive you are
Speaker 5:
Decepted that yes,
Because practically speaking, the AR 15 and the M 16 are basically the same thing. Notice I said practically speaking, not functionally speaking. Yes, functionally the M 16 has the capability to go fully automatic, whereas the AR 15 only does semi-automatic. However, the M 16 is rarely if ever used in fully automatic mode in the military unless you're doing like an ammo dump. So that basically means that the M 16 is only used in semi-automatic mode, and if the automatic or semi-automatic is the only difference between the two, then they're practically speaking the same thing. Therefore, the serious response to whether or not the AR 15 is a weapon of war is yes, it is a weapon of war. And while it may also be true that the AR 15 is also great for hunting and other sporting activities, understand that its first design intent was for warfare.
But with that in mind, there are many, many other weapons that would also be classified as a weapon of war. Take this Glock for example, this along with many other guns just like this, are now becoming standard issue to our military. So does that mean that the Glock is a weapon of war? Well, according to the logic we just used, yes, it does both literally and seriously speaking, for those of you who always claim that the AR 15 and M 16 are completely different, I ask that you'll stop doing that. You're also creating a cognitive dissonance because on one hand you say that the second amendment is there to suppress tyranny, and I need guns like these to help suppress tyranny. But then also you'll be like, well, no, it's a sporting rifle. It's really not that dangerous. It's nothing like the M 16. While it may work on some people, it's not going to work on the people who can actually think for themselves.
And at the end of the day, all that you're going to sound like is a liar. Pro gun lie. Number two, the AR bullets are tiny, really not that dangerous, and basically a 22 geometrically. Yes, the cross section of a 2, 2 3 is roughly that of a 22 ballistically. No, the external and terminal ballistics of a 2, 2 3 are not the same as a 22. Stop trying to win the argument by tricking people into believing that these guns in the ammunition that runs these guns is not as dangerous as it is, and also stop comparing the two three to something like a 45 or a nine millimeter and telling people that, oh, look how tiny this bullet is, and look how much bigger and scarier these bullets are. The terminal ballistics of a 2, 2 3 are much more devastating than the terminal ballistics of a 45 and a nine millimeter start telling people that yes, it is a lethal round, and that's one of the reasons that private ownership of it should be protected.
There's a reason the 2, 2, 3 and 5 5 6 is used by the military and law enforcement because it strikes a good balance between being light so that you can carry a lot of it while also being lethal. And then last but not least, pro gun line number three, machine guns are already illegal. No, they're not. Machine guns are not illegal generally speaking. However, yes, the process to own a machine gun is much more invasive and infringing than the process to own a non NFA item. Not only is the statement that machine guns are illegal a lie, but it also implies some support for these infringements on our second amendment. These last three lies are prime examples of the pro-gun community, enabling the anti-gun community to set the terms for the argument. Here's how it goes. One side says, X should be banned because X is dangerous, and then the other side says, no, X really isn't that dangerous.
I wouldn't worry about that little guy. Instead, what we should be saying is, yes, X is dangerous and X is lethal, and that's why it should be protected under the Second Amendment. Because the second amendment wasn't intended to protect your sporting rights, it was intended to suppress tyranny. Once again, this is in no way a to violence or an attempt to incite violence. The paradox of private gun ownership is that it actually prevents a government from becoming tyrannical because disarming the people is one of the first steps in a government going tyrannical. So as long as we keep our right to bear arms, we likely won't need to use them to fight tyranny. I hope you've enjoyed the video. If you have, please like and subscribe below. Also, don't forget to comment on what you thought of the video and let me know what videos you'd like to see in the future. Thanks again for watching, and until next time, train to a higher standard.
Credit: Defenders and Disciples