Uninformed - I worked at Colt Firearms and less than a dozen parts were the difference between the M-16 and the AR-15. You could buy the parts through the mail until the Feds started shutting that down.

tonygraz wrote:

This is a really good question. Well crafted and presented.

Fact stacking has long been an effective tool in misrepresentation, and when combined with an easy to digest over simplification of an issue is nothing less than compelling.

Now this is the tasty part; It begs one to conclude that there is not corilation between percapita gun ownership and gun violence. Does that sound right to you? I mean, when it comes to gun deaths, Honduras is just like the US right? Same standard of living, drug cartels, law inforcement.......

No, not so much. Bad comparison - not even close.
But a great example to make a case with.....

Brewha wrote:

IIRC the only difference real difference between the two is one part, the trigger sear. The one on the M16 would allow single shot and either full auto or 3 round burst depending on the variant. The AR15 sear allows for single shot only. The other differences are cosmetic relating to the lower receiver and the markings stamped on it for FA, burst, or fire on the AR.


That being said it's really irrelevant.

Abrignac wrote:

And STILL the only ones purchasing it to HARM OTHERS.......would be crazed left leaning liberal minded people who hate everyone who doesn't think " like them "

Pretzel logic.....yes the left likes their " pretzel logic " twist things until it " FITS "

TMCTLT wrote:

The rifle used in the Orlando terrorist attack wasn't even an AR-15. It was a sig sauer mcx.

So the widespread lie that an AR-15 was used in the attack when it wasn't, in and of itself proves that the left wing media and the anti-second amendment politicians that are running with this false pretense of banning the AR-15, a gun that wasn't even used, blatantly shows they have an ignorance of the truth and an agenda to accomplish despite what the facts may be.

It was not an ar-15 and it was a Muslim terrorist but actions are being taken to ban the ar-15?

Insane.

Atleast common sense was more common in the past. If the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor today would we blame the attack on the planes they were flying?

99cobra2881 wrote:

Actually it's a perfect comparison for my purpose which was to point out that the fact that there are many more factors which contribute to gun related deaths and their cause than simply gun ownership.

Abrignac wrote:

Ever wonder why they never came for our pressure cookers. ?? Or outlawed ammonium nitrate..?? 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Ah, yes - subterfuge.

"Guns arn't really dangerious, and most everyone should have access to them - even if they are only to be used as toys."

You really seem to be making the argument that easy access to unreasonably large firepower poses no undue threat. I disagree.

Brewha wrote:

I think you are also supposed to point out that all guns can kill and there is no difference between an assault rifle and a derringer. They you should ask why them krazy liberbulls ain't banning bubble gum - people choke on that stuff - you know?

Brewha wrote:

Ever wonder why they never came for our pressure cookers. ?? Or outlawed ammonium nitrate..?? 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Uninformed - I worked at Colt Firearms and less than a dozen parts were the difference between the M-16 and the AR-15. You could buy the parts through the mail until the Feds started shutting that down.

tonygraz wrote:

Tony designed some secret parts to make it work but the Feds took them... 😟

DrafterX wrote: