Count the Errors in Joe Scarborough’s Tweet About the AR-15 Rifle

Joe scarborough ar-15 M16 M14

(AP Photo/Steven Senne)

You’d think that media types would do the most basic research — or at least call someone who knows — before revealing their astounding ignorance whenever they write about guns. But pulling misinformation from their posteriors and spouting this kind of nonsense seems to be a prerequisite for the job.

Anyway, go ahead and break this one down. Just for fun. It’s kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

comments

  1. avatar CC says:

    More accurately it is “disinformation” (systematic and intentional) not “misinformation.”

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Being “deliberately obtuse”…???

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Its all in this government handbook. Which we have thanks to Ed Snowden spilling the beans.
        https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/

    2. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Joe Scarborough is a liberal made to seem like an ordinary conservative so that MSNBC can claim to be completely unbiased in their reporting and staffing. They have never, ever been unbiased in their reporting. Or their staffing. Joe is a fraud through and through.

  2. avatar 11c 20 says:

    When I was in the RVN we only had the M16. If I would have known I could have used an
    M15 I could have help end the war sooner maybe. This should be put under the sarcasm
    heading.

  3. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Here’s my surprised face…..🤯.

    That is a wholotta dumbass.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Eugene Stoner designed [AR-15] to be lighter and more lethal than the M-14.

    Oh, goody! Let’s compare:

    AR-15
    — bullet diameter 0.223 inches
    — bullet weight 55 grains
    — muzzle energy 1,200 foot-pounds

    M-14
    — bullet diameter 0.300 inches
    — bullet weight 150 grains
    — muzzle energy 2,700 foot-pounds

    I am going with the M-14 being more lethal since its bullets are larger and have almost three times more mass, and the M-14 has well over twice the muzzle energy.

    1. avatar Richard Turyn says:

      In fact the black guns were created to be less lethal on purpose. The purpose having been to wound as many enemy troops as possible, to divert still more combat and support personnel to their evacuation and care.

      1. avatar K2 says:

        I think that is a myth. The 5.56x45mm round was compromise round. The M-16 was adopted due to several factors:

        – In WWII most engagements take place at that 300 meters or less due to not to being able to see or positively identifying targets., despite having an effective 600m+ 30-06.

        -Weight of both the weapon and the ammo made it attractive. Reducing the Soldier’s load is still a priority in equipping the armed forces. Shooting more ammo has been a US Military hallmark we would rather sent bullets than men.

        -The light recoil also makes the AR-15 more effective for the average serviceman to successfully engage targets.

        -The Cost, Ease of Manufacture, and Performance made it an attractive weapon.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Exactly. Many who think ARs and the like should be banned believe that it is some super-weapon when, in fact, the military has decided that it is a “good-enough” weapon.

        2. avatar ai338 says:

          It’s a myth.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          he’s thinking of that tumbling commie round. it turns the other soldiers into unarmed medics and gurney trotters.

      2. avatar john says:

        Yes, this round was invented to remove more soldiers from battle by WOUNDING them instead of killing them as it takes more bodies out of action to remove the wounded vs collecting the dead after.

        I just cant resist……but, but, but the 223/556 is such an effective round i killed the elephants and rhinoceros with it. It KILLS ALL!!!!! varmint round…pfffffft.

        Still the dipstick defenders come out of the wall because…BUT THE ARMED FORCES USE IT SO MUST BE DA BESTEST!!!!!! While failing to figure in one of its primary designs at inception.

      3. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Myth or not, it’s not completely unsound as a strategic approach to tactical warfare. Okay, fine, wounding a combatant consumes logistical resources as well as additional enemy personnel.

        The major flaw in the thinking is assuming our enemies would always place the same value on the lives of their colleagues as we do.

        Either way, it a lot of over-thinking. Just give the rifleman the best tool for the job.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      U_S, you are failing to compute the magic influence, here, which is how a rifle with far less capability ends up being far more deadlier.

    3. avatar Seans says:

      Terminal ballisitcs aren’t that simple. The M16 inside typical combat engagement ranges. Is more lethal than a M14. This is due to when shooting a FMJ round like M193 vs a 7.62 FMJ like the M80. The smaller lighter round. Witb a thinner jacket would break apart and fragment where the larger round wouldn’t. This is supported by live tissue testing. Gel testing. And AARs.

      Which is something that militaries actually found out in the 20s with the old Pig Boards. They found that smallest caliber actually did the most damage in testing.

      Now with modern rounds like M80A1 vs M855A1. Yeah the 7.62 is superior terminally. But it still lags behind in accuracy, recoil, and rounds carried.

      1. avatar jarret says:

        Typical combat distances in our most recent conflicts have not been 150yds or less. Which is understood to be where effectiveness of this round drops off, in military configurations. 223/556 in FMJ form is totally dependent on fragmentation which fails to occur in the 2600-2800 fps range. That comes up quickly when using a 14.5 barreled AR.

        Now if you want a yaw king that isn’t reliant due to velocity by design…545…dont believe me, ask some afghanis…..

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          It really depends on which conflict you mean. In Iraq, the conflicts were/are still fairly shorter range, under the 150 yards you list. The M4 is ideal for these engagements. In Afghanistan, it’s an entirely different matter. The Army School of Advanced Military Studies finally published a paper of what many of us in-country were saying, that the average initial engagement distance was often 400 to 500 meters, and that our M4s didn’t do the job there at all.

        2. avatar jarret says:

          Mr. Taylor,

          It would be better to have and not need, rather than need and not have. Our men and ladies deserve the best medicine to deal with our adversaries. That is all I would like. However, due to the shenanigans behind the scenes that is never what the procurement/purchase/design process is ever about. It is quite detestable.

        3. avatar Seans says:

          Afghanistan isn’t some weird reality. Look at any engagement where two or more soldiers are killed by small arms fire. The vast majority of them are still killed inside 200 meters.

          The Afghans aren’t stupid. They realize they are completely outgunned in the rifle department. So stand outside effective rifle range and use harrassing fire for the majority of their engagements with machines guns. Then bounce. The vast majority of which don’t result in casualties. Equipping our forces with bigger calibers makes the close range fights worse.

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          SeanS, you’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy there. We have a rifle that does not kill well at longer ranges but kills well at close ranges. The same is true of the AK47. Then the claim is that we don’t need the longer range capability because kills are usually made at close ranges.
          Shoot and scoot may the tactic of Iraq, but has not been as often used in Afghanistan. Prolonged engagements in that theater are common, as is the use of mortars, PKMs, and RPGs.

  5. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Well, it’s no 6.5 Grendel. 8>)

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      My favorite firearm/cartridge of all time!

    2. avatar Mantitude says:

      I really do like the Grendel, and as far as a compromise round can be, it seems pretty ideal.
      I do want to play around with the idea of a 6mm variant of one, just for the velocity increase.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I do want to play around with the idea of a 6mm variant of one, just for the velocity increase.”

        I did read somewhere that a bullet in the 4mm-5mm range, at 4500fps is the cat’s meow.

  6. avatar MikeJH121 says:

    Sooooo the caliber wars are over. ‘Cause Joe said so. No use buying anymore 45 or such cause a 22 size is deadlier than a 30 size. So toss away all those Barrets, cause when you have the M16 / M4 you don’t need nuffin else.

    I actually don’t think it IS misinformation I think he and the media fools ARE just that DUMB. He and white boy Beto should start their own band. The Hand Motion Bad Hair Band.

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      No! The caliber wars aren’t over. Just because .45 ACP is superior to 9mm and .556 NATO is inferior to .762 NATO is no need for the debate to end. Whatever would we argue about?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Ok, you made this possible….

        Do you have photos of those tiny little guns that shoot those tiny little bullets?

        1. avatar Caleb M. Savant says:

          HAHA!

        2. avatar DaniS in WA says:

          Ah, yes, the RRND cartidges I’ve heard about… (Really Really Necked Down)

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Ah, yes, the RRND cartidges I’ve heard about… (Really Really Necked Down)

          Indeed !

      2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        Thank you Gadsden Flag for the chuckle.

        Darn those misplaced decimal points all to Heck…I’m still opting for the .762 NATO (in the immortal words…”There just ain’t no replacement for displacement.”)

        Thinkin’ the recoil is pretty stout on a beltfed MG with a (better than) 3/4″ bore (what?…mm instead of inches…WTH?) I guess that you could carry LOTS of ammo in .762 mm.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          But if you needed it, could you find it?

        2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Reply is for LarryinTX:

          That size of bullet is closely analogous to the size 70 NM sewing needle. Brings to mind the old SciFi stories of “Needler” weapons. They typically had a high rate of fire, a magazine capacity around 1,000 rnds, no recoil and a shorter range. I wonder what the BC is of a long, skinny, super-lightweight needle projectile. The .762 NATO appears to be a specialty round for very close-in fighting…suppressed they should be a backstitch to shoot.

        3. avatar Bullwinkle says:

          Agree. Wandering around smoking a cigar for me means Rem 700/.308 in scabbard and Smith .500 on my hip. With the Gallatin National on my West & Absaroka Beartooth wilderness on my East and 3 miles of trout spawning stream running through my property doesn’t allow for a discussion of what guns are most powerful. My neighbors and I just seem to know what works. Now, if the dusky grouse starts bothering me I’ll certainly change weapons.

        4. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Speaking of trout fishing…drew a Smith River Permit this year….got the Aire ready to go, flies and rod packed, lots of “comfort” beverages, spare oar and a new-fangled Electric Bear Fence thingamagimmy to go with my Mammoth coolers….Montana Life is Good!

          Depending on the time of year…a Sako Finnlight in 30-06 and / or a Ruger Alaskan in .454 Casull.

      3. avatar Rad Man says:

        Can’t get into a caliber argument without mentioning the super-lethal .9mm.

        1. avatar Bobsuruncle says:

          I like my 45-70 hard cast 450 grain morters.

        2. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

          Creedmore!! FTW!!

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Well, I don’t think the AR-15 was developed to replace the M-14, and it certainly isn’t more deadly, though it eventually did replace it. We’ll leave the AR-10 alone for now. The earliest AR I’ve fired was marked Armalite and Colt AR-15. It was full auto and an interesting rifle in an academic sort of way. It too, was certainly no more deadly than that equally piece of shit M16A1 the army gave me. Nor any M-4 today. The Mag-Pull Magazines are an improvement though, but that’s about it.

    1. avatar possum says:

      They gave you an M16A1 ? How’d you score that.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        I was young. Now I’m old. I was even issued one made by the Hydro-Matic Division of General Motors. Even that one raised my eyes. It was only issued for training it was so worn.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          I too carried an M16A1, B-8-2, Harmony Church, Ft. Benning, GA, 1/82-4/82…And yrs beyond…

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          I went through basic at Harmony Church. airborne school and beyond. Those old WWII barracks were cold as hell the winter of ’79-’80. Then we had a real freeze during airborne school, but at least the barracks had real heat.

        3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          @WI Patriot

          Harmony Church here as well. Echo-9-2….many, many moons ago.

          Sand Hilton was very new then, glad we were both fortunate to land in Harmony Church.

          I was at C 2/29th when they started tearing the old barracks down, sorta full circle for me. I heard that the 29th moved into the old quad buildings on main post after I left.

        4. avatar B says:

          Ah, yes. My Alma Mater as well. 11Bang Bang at Harmony Church (D-2-2 /83). Benning was just transitioning to woodlands. It was funny seeing guys that were mix-matched with some slant pocket ODs. Those old WWII barracks heaters would always freeze and konk out in winter. Sand Hill was Club Med.

          Only thing that would keep me awake during fire watch was hunting the big ass cockroaches along the base of the walls, or eating Lord Munchies pizza, pulling CQ.

          Was introduced to an A1 with triangular handguard along with Alice gear (Y suspenders). Rickety 1911s were still around too. Also was the first time I got introduced to those electric floor waxer/buffer thingamajiggers, lol. Powerful SoBs if you didn’t balance them just right😂.

  8. avatar California Richard says:

    The only thing that would make an ar15 more lethal would be to mandate longer barrel lengths and force the public to purchase non steel core ammo. The liberals are the ones who want to ban short barrel rifles and public purchase of M855 ammo. “Green bullets” (non-lead) also seem to be very devastating as well when we look at terminal ballistics. I think this whole “AR15’s are super deadly” thing is their fault.

    I would much rather have my 18″ AR with Winchester silver tips or Hornady BTHP match rounds than a military 10″ MK18 or 14.5″ M4 with M855 ammo.

  9. avatar Zeke says:

    Expecting reliable information about guns from leftist media hacks is like asking a Catholic priest for advice on reliable birth control.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      how do you get an altar boy pregnant?

  10. avatar James T Matters says:

    The one thing we have learned from the FAKE NEWS media is that they are a lazy bunch of liberals. If it fits their ideology, no need to see if its true.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Because they never fact-check each other. If you ever run for office, run as a democrat.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    [AR-15] was far deadlier than the M-16 used in Vietnam.

    Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!

    Let me get this straight. The M-16 rifle, which is an AR-15 rifle with the additional option of 3-round burst or full-auto fire (depending on which exact M-16 model), is far less deadly? The only way I can see that is if some idiot shoots his/her M-16 from the hip in full auto “spray and pray” fashion as opposed to shooting an AR-15 rifle from the shoulder in aimed fire.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      There were indeed full-auto (select fire) AR-15s issued to our troops.
      Whether they were more deadly than M-16s is still a good question.

  12. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    Literally everything in that tweet is factually incorrect.

  13. avatar StLPro2A says:

    Facts don’t matter in the least because they are communicating to stupid sheeple that can’t tell fact from propaganda…….and really don’t care about freedoms, rights. They only care about Santa Claus free shit. Tell a big enough lie often enough and most people will believe it.

  14. avatar Nanashi says:

    I think “The AR-15 was developed as a military weapon to replace the M-14.” is the only thing that’s RIGHT in that tweet, and only because it doesn’t say what part of development (all the modifications made after the initial Air Force trial and before mass adoption make it correct).

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Nanashi, I could be wrong, but I believe the AR platform was developed, in conjunction with Fairchild Aircraft, without any U.S. military contract. It was later adopted after a bunch of Air Force generals shot some watermelons. Or, so goes the story. If I’m wrong correct me,

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Very true. But it didn’t appeal to the Army, which is why Stoner eventually sold the patent to Colt. colt had the connections to make a deal.

      2. avatar Patrick says:

        That’s correct, at least that’s what is published in “The Worlds Great Small Arms”. It was adopted by the AF because troops on base didnt really need their rifles and they wanted a lighter replacement.

      3. avatar Nanashi says:

        There were developments there though, most of them of dubious improvement (forward assist) but it was development none the less.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The AR-15 was an off-the-shelf purchase by the Air Force as a lightweight rifle for airfield security units. Special Forces requested the rifle for themselves and allied units as it was more suitable for their operations in the jungle environment.

      The Army looked at the rifle and adopted it, but at that time with initial deployment there was a shortage of cleaning kites combined with a propellant change in the ammunition that caused higher rates of fire with parts breakage and increased carbon fouling. These problems were eventually (mostly) resolved.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “The Army looked at the rifle and adopted it, but at that time with initial deployment there was a shortage of cleaning kites combined with a propellant change in the ammunition that caused higher rates of fire with parts breakage and increased carbon fouling. These problems were eventually (mostly) resolved.”

        AIUI, the Army adopted it only because McNamara adopted it.
        The “shortage” of cleaning kits was because McNamara said the rifle was self-cleaning, and cleaning kits weren’t needed.
        The propellant causes higher chamber pressures which can cause higher rates of fire, but they are easily controlled by design of the gas system, so actual rate of fire is within design parameters, and doesn’t cause undue breakage. The problems that you are probably referring to wasn’t breakage of parts, but a failure of the “self-cleaning” rifle to fire under adverse conditions because of a failure to either feed or extract. The forward assist was an attempt to cure the former.
        The lack of chrome lining was, according to lore, because McNamara said, “If it needed it, Stoner would have included it.”

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          that’s why the clouds are always whiter when there is a light breeze.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Nope, even that was wrong. Read my full comment below.

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Joe Scarborough the RINO that roared and no one gave a crap what he said because he’s proven himself a idiot on more that one occasion.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      But he has a shirt with his name on it, so there’s that…

      1. avatar B says:

        Lol. And on the back of his shirt it says “Ass-clown”.

  16. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    And so what if it was developed as a weapon of war? Civilians being able to own effective weapons that make them competitive with a typical infantryman of the day is exactly the point of the second amendment. It’s to ensure that we are not at the mercy of those who do have such weapons.

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      Yup yup yup! I should be able to keep and bear essentially the same infantry arm (or its equivalent) as our standing army.

  17. avatar Jay W. says:

    “Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump

    Which applies to Joe’s facts in this case, but not to Joe’s expectation that he won’t be held accountable for whatever self-serving facts he makes up.

  18. avatar AlanInFL says:

    He did not read the Sweet 16 comic book.

  19. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Count the Errors in Joe Scarborough’s Tweet About the AR-15 Rifle”

    An inconvenient “truth”…

    How many examples need to be given, there are too many too count…

  20. avatar Kyle says:

    Someone should do up an AR-15 style gun with lots of wood instead of black plastic.

    …less scary

    1. avatar Widdler says:

      And call it a mini-14, can’t be dangerous if it’s named “mini” right?

    2. avatar B says:

      Actually, back in the day, somebody did make a wooden stock and handguard. Kinda weird but cool at the same time.

  21. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Guys, you know I’m not an AR fan. Too much experience with them. Let me ask you something. If you could buy an H&K 93, with mags, for the same price. Let’s say $1000. Mags for $20. Which would you buy? Really?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      You bastard. Are you really sitting there attempting to threaten me with a good time?

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Strych9, sorry. I grew up in the good old days. My first H&K 91 was new in the box. I was standing in first formation why my platoon sergeant called my name during mail call. It was my $50 rebate. Meant I had $350 in it total. I have $600 in a 6″ stainless Python. Got a hundred stories. Wish I still had all the firearms.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Was in Germany for ReForgGer ’84, qualified with an HK93, great rifle…

        2. avatar Widdler says:

          Think that’s the first time I’ve seen $600 and python in the same sentence, we’re far away from that now.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          if it weighs 8.4lbs i want it to fire .308 at minimum.

    2. avatar B says:

      Ah, yes. Those were cool. With retractable stick all steel or all aluminum mags. And its 91 big brother.

      1. avatar B says:

        *Stock….darn edit button

  22. avatar RCC says:

    Kyle
    There are such rifles but very expensive. Can’t adjust the stock etc.

    One example http://blackgunswood.com/ar15compatibility.html

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      It was a kind of rhetorical question. If you could get an H&K 93 for the same money as an AR. They (91, 93) could be had with retractable stocks. Had them both. Didn’t like either. The stocks. H&K? Fixed stock. Most others, for that matter. Want a folding/retractable stock? The best? Buy the FN design. My 16″ Galil ARM is substantially shorter than an M-4 with stocks retracted/folded. Don’t even bring up body armor. I wish I $100 bill for every time I deployed with that rifle and a vest. Wouldn’t be sucking so much wind from my daughter’s recent wedding.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    Since when does anything an antigunner says have to be based on facts and logic?

    This is a purely emotional plea to “get the weapons of war off our street”. He’ll make it, we’ll point out the errors, the antis will call us monsters that don’t care about safety. Board erupts in chaos, we lose.

    It’s called “trolling”. It’s meant to elicit a predictable response from various parts of the target audience so that they can be set against each other.

    Don’t fucking feed the trolls. And for God’s sake, if you’re gonna get them wet make sure they drown.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      The biggest problem being, liberals, who have continually failed to educate themselves will take this and any other info that meets or exceeds their narrative/agenda and run with it because, just because…

      “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”

      Chicken Little

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “…who have continually failed to educate themselves…”

        They’re smart and, generally, pretty well educated actually. They use what they know to further the agenda of which you speak.

        It’s not a smart vs. stupid or educated vs uneducated type of thing. It’s a question of motives and goals. Their goals and the motives behind them are antithetical to ours. The things they claim to despise, namely greed, a lust for power, dominion over others. Those are, in reality, the things that motivate a statist.

        The movers and shakers are very intelligent and well educated, they’re just liars. They’re the shepherd. The ones buying the bullshit the movers and shakers are selling are the sheep. They’re moderately well educated but in just the right way to make them pliable for the shepherd.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          I wasn’t referring to an overall education, I was referring to matter of guns as a whole…they adopt whatever stance happens to advance their agenda, and furthers their agenda…And you should’ve recognized what I was saying, no need to be so pedantic…

        2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Excellent analysis. Hope you don’t mind if I C&P the salient points to use in my discussions with Anti 2A persons.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          I think what Patriot is saying is that they are willfully ignorant.
          They have been told over and over again that they don’t know what they are talking about, but their mindset is one that says, “I use that rhetoric to dis what they are saying, so it’s just them doing the same thing. I really do know what I’m talking about, so I just won’t take what they say seriously.”
          IOW, they know they lie, and, through projection, believe everyone else is, too, so they just don’t hear others when they say they don’t know what they’re talking about.
          Willful ignorance.

          “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.” is broken.
          “Notify me of follow-up comments by email.” is still broken.
          Come on, guys, this isn’t all that difficult. Other blogs that use the same system manage to get it to work.

  24. avatar OldJoeCrow says:

    Read the article in Atlantic from 1981. Full of crap.
    Suggests barrel twist of 1 in 14 was better for “lethality”, and that worries about bullet instability in cold and penetration at long distance didn’t matter.

    Claimed lethality was better in 22 caliber over 30 caliber.
    Complains about the powder used.
    Etc.

    That the Atlantic had journalistic integrity, bah.

  25. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Why are we always playing defense? They say something stupid and we have to defend our stance. They call us racist/somthing-phobe and we have to prove a negative? We should play offence and accuse them of something. Remember when someone called Hillary racist, during the primaries with Obama? She stumbled looking for a response. It was priceless. Now Chelsea is being accused of causing the NZ terror attack, by some leftist students. Funny.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      I think part of it is because they are (generally) dealing in hyperbole and we are (generally) dealing in fact.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “They say something stupid and we have to defend our stance.”

      Because offense always gets the first hit. Because it is the American way…an honorable person will not let a liar get away with a lie, a slander. If someone accuses you of something, a “good” person will defend themselves. To remain quiet is to admit to the charge (which plays wonderfully in jury trials).

      Maybe this whole thing is not an “American thing”, maybe it is a human thing. Point being, society today gives credence to the attacker, regardless of the credibility of the attacker. That’s not going to be changed at the ballot box.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        There’s nothing wrong with counter-attacking provided it’s done smartly.

        One of the things that continually drives me nuts about this is that we are terrible about counter attacking.

        Facts and logic bore people and therefore are not a useful strategy. As I’ve said here a bunch of times: It doesn’t matter how right you are if no one cares or believes you.

        Counter-attacking also has to be done in a way that specifically avoids traps that have been laid out for us. Getting indigent, angry or lobbing bombs back at these people is counter productive. They have spent a fair amount of time selling the narrative that we’re a bunch of things. Angry is one of them. Getting obviously angry simply plays into that meme, convinces people that, at least on that issue, the antis are right and opens the door for them to pull an Appeal to Ignorance. (A logical fallacy that basically consists of saying “If my opponent isn’t correct then I must be”.)

        One of the first things we need to do if we want to counter-attack this kind of thing is look at the charicatures of us which the antis have used the media to create. We then have to tailor our counter attacks to avoid appearing to be what they’ve said we are. We need to avoid long fact and statistic based arguments. Much as we like being technically correct, the best form of correct, it doesn’t sell.

        We’re not a bunch of angry, racist, OFWG’s clinging to Bibles and guns. We’re not a bunch of uneducated buck-toothed sister-fucking red necks. We’re not red-state trailer trash. We’re not a bunch of assholes who just want to keep our “toys” safety be damned. We’re not a one trick pony that believes guns are the answer to everything. The list goes on. This is why “molon labe”, “not one more inch”, “It’s my God given right…” and a bunch of other slogans within the 2A community are not just ineffective but counter productive. They play into a meme that’s been created for us.

        Facts and truth are on our side, but as Churchill [supposedly] said: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” In other words, we start out from a disadvantage. If we want to even the playing field we need a far, far better PR strategy than we have.

        There is however a danger in adopting such a strategy, especially now. Such a weapon, like any tool, can be abused. There is a risk that angry people on the 2A/freedom/rights side of things will get overzealous in the use of such a tool. There’s also, now, a new risk in the fact that the kind of thing I’ve been pushing for here on TTAG for months was contained within the NZ shooter’s manifesto. His understanding of age-based cultural differences, general psychology and advertising, the things I’ve been trying to point out, was fairly impressive and he decided to abuse that knowledge in spectacular fashion. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use that knowledge because the Left has and will continue to do so. But it does mean we have to be extra cautious in using those things to avoid being painted with the same brush as that asshole.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          I hear what you are saying but I do find it frustrating. You see, facts and logic don’t bore me – they are core to how I think and make decisions and are, therefore, how I approach arguments surrounding the things I care about. While it may be necessary to do so, I don’t want to carefully craft a sales pitch around things that are demonstrable facts. (i.e., 5.56 NATO is not more powerful than 7.62 NATO – no matter how poorly that “sells”, it is a fact)

          Personally, I hate sales and advertising. I hate doing it and I hate when people (attempt) to do it to me. I recognize that I am not necessarily the norm but, if we are to have a sales force for our side of the “gun debate”, I doubt I’m going to be a very effective member of it. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that there is at least some correlation between people who view the world through a lens like mine and gun-ownership. Given that supposition, (I readily admit it is such, I have no actual data) it seems unlikely that we will have a winning hand in the game for ‘hearts and minds’.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Wanted to take some time responding….

          Responding to emotional twaddle has been vexing for quite some time. In sales training, I got tired of hearing, “People are not persuaded by the height of your logic, but the depth of your emotion.” Unfortunately, the trainers were absolutely correct. As it happens, every persuasion is a sales job. Logic can be a successful tool, but the audience is just to small for logic to be a primary tool (regardless of the product).

          Reading your comments, it reminded of the struggle between left and right, today. The left acknowledges no boundaries on the attack, while the right is all about honor, and the high ground, the morally superior stance of not engaging with pigs. But the result is that the battle mostly goes to the mob. The Republicrats do not fight back, preferring their moral smugness, and one cannot really recommend that course of action. Trump fights back, strongly, but is considered beneath contempt because it is better to lose honorable than to win in a street brawl.

          And no, I do not have a recommendation because I view the number of potential converts so few as to be statistically (vote count) insignificant. When we cannot mobilize the 100 million suspected gun owners to defend the Second Amendment, cannot energize our natural allies, what can we really expect to achieve with “undecideds”, and the mindless mobs of the anti-gun mafia?

        3. avatar MyName says:

          @ Sam

          I guess this is where I am just too far outside the norm to be useful. I am definitely not persuaded by the depth of your emotion.

          I couldn’t give a crap about how a sales person feels. I know, and surely they know that I know, that they are trying to get my money. They don’t particularly care if their product fulfills my wishes as long as I pay for it. Similarly, I care only about what tangible results I can procure by giving them my money – how I feel and how they feel is completely irrelevant. I know what I want and I know what I expect that thing to do for me and I know how much I think it is worth. What I need from a seller is for them to tell me if they have what I want and what price they are willing to accept for it. That is about the end of it.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I couldn’t give a crap about how a sales person feels. ”

          Understand completely. However, the majority of “the market” can be swayed/persuaded without a jot of logic. My sales career was dismal because I would rather educate the buyer, then let them decide based on their own reasons. Plus….I just couldn’t integrate the idea that people, no matter who, were simply “prospects”. Not family, not friends, not co-workers, etc.

          My point, though, stands. We are up against a mob operating on “gut reaction”, period. That mob cannot be converted by pure logic, history and documents. Even the vast majority of gun owners cannot be convinced there is a danger of losing their rights, guns and all. They are like children hiding under a bed, believing they cannot be found, with their feet sticking out from under the bed frame.

        5. avatar Widdler says:

          Ha! I had this arguement with a coworker yesterday, I told her I believe that all these new Bill’s being proposed (red flags, mag caps etc) are just little bites to get to the main goal of complete disarmament. She called me paranoid and closed minded, even after I gave her a quick run down of Venezuela. Which she had no clue about of course, go figure.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “She called me paranoid and closed minded, even after I gave her a quick run down of Venezuela. Which she had no clue about of course, go figure.”

          If your co-worker is a millennial, this link may help you understand what is on their minds: https://www.swnsdigital.com/2019/02/30770

          (note: two things not on the list – guns; climate change)

        7. avatar MyName says:

          @ Sam

          All too true, I’m afraid. I would propose solutions but, sadly, I don’t think I have any.

  26. avatar MyName says:

    I really don’t know if the people who continually state these demonstrable falsehoods about AR-15s are purposefully lying or just shockingly ignorant. I have had so many arguments with people that start with the premise that the AR-15 is “too deadly” for normal civilians to own that I think it is possible that they are just that ill informed and unwilling to accept correction. I have told more people than I can remember that the military uses the M-16/M4 because it is light, reliable enough, easy enough to maintain and is chambered in a lethal enough but light enough cartridge – it is a compromise gun. Seemingly, many think that extreme lethality is the only criteria that the military considers in selecting an infantry rifle. The notion that they are actually trying to balance weight, utility, maintainability, ease of use, logistics, etc., seems to be completely incomprehensible to many. It is as if they believe that people select cars only based upon horsepower – price, utility, efficiency, size, shape, features – these have no influence at all.

    1. avatar Widdler says:

      Some people are just to brainwashed to listen, I work with a few of them and have had dozens of debates about firearms. No matter the facts, they will not be deterred. On the bright side there were others listening and a few who never shot before or been around firearms started asking me questions, i’ve taken some with me to the range and now their firearms owners. So i’m calling it a win.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Widder, good for you! Even small increments are progress.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Okay, picture a fiction-writer stringing together a bunch of sciencey-sounding jargon to describe how an anti-gravity pump or something would work…and that’s basically what these guys are doing. Or maybe an auto mechanic bullshitting a gullible customer about how his differential is depressed & needs therapy. The Kevin De Leon video is the best example of it I’ve seen; he is just ad-hoc stringing together gun-jargon words he’s heard randomly in a sort of improvised word-salad, that I suppose sounded pretty darn authoritative in his own head, and which is accepted out of hand by his mindless supporters. Combine; magazine, bullet, round, clip, a rate of fire figure, several examples of a letter followed by a two digit number, explosions/implosions/some other violent-sounding word, multiple words for violence (eg “massacre” “war”), a dash of allusions to laughable Hollywood machine-gun-jitsu (“mowing down” “hip firing” “spraying” “bullet hose”), and of course insane hyperbole about ‘thousands’ of rounds per second and their ability to blow bodies into paste.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        What shocks me is people’s apparent inability to recognize the fiction. Sure, a fiction writer can spin a good yarn but most people don’t believe that Matt Damon actually spent a year on Mars or that a giant gorilla actually scaled the Empire State building and swatted at airplanes.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Dude, we have idiots taking literal pride in freaking Wakanda; there’s most definitely a subset of society (I sure hope it’s a subset) that has been so addled or “gas lit” by an overload of manipulative information, that they can no longer properly separate fact from fiction.

        2. avatar MyName says:

          Yes, and as you said, those people are idiots. Why should we have to entertain idiots?

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I really don’t know if the people who continually state these demonstrable falsehoods about AR-15s are purposefully lying or just shockingly ignorant.”

      Far too often, it’s quite deliberate.

      The Leftists are far better organized than we are. One thing they do (like the ‘mad mommies’ do is hold local ‘workshops’ where they train their activists on what to say and do to push their anti-gun agenda. Where do you think phrases like “Weapons of War” came from? It wasn’t out of the blue, it came from their activist training. This is something we *must* do, or live regret it.

      Strych it right, we suck at messaging. We need a (or better, several) nationally-funded resources to organize and train our activists…

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Someone needs to explain to the Left that ‘1984’ was political satire and a warning, not a freaking guidebook.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Someone needs to explain to the Left that ‘1984’ was political satire and a warning, not a freaking guidebook.”

          Leftists are taught that ‘1984’ was a book about right wing white supremacists.

    4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      I carry the little 55 grain bullet ( not cartridge ) in my pocket and show it to people after they repeat the horrendous lethality of the awful weapon of war that is so powerful etc. You should see the look on their faces, guess they expected a cannon ball or grenade. Common reaction after some silence – ” That’s it ? “

      1. avatar MyName says:

        I’ve done similar with cartridges – shown people a variety and asked which they think goes in a typical AR. A surprisingly large percentage have picked 30-06. When I tell them that 30-06 is indeed a standard military round – from WWI, they are a bit shocked. One even asked, “Then how is the little one more powerful?” My response, “it isn’t.”

  27. avatar tdiinva says:

    The original purpose was to replace the M-2 Carbine and the M-2 Grease Gun used by the Air Force Security Police but other than that he is spot on. /sarc

  28. avatar JW says:

    A modern AR-15 is probably more lethal than a malfunctioning atomic weapon that does not explode. Going by Joe’s excuse for logic, this makes it more of a ‘weapon of war’ than an atomic bomb.

  29. avatar possum says:

    Twenty one, I had to take my shoes and socks off and unzip the zipper, but the number I came up with was twenty one.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Your tail makes it 22…

      1. avatar possum says:

        The number 22 is full of spooks, like a hotels 13th floor we skip that number, 22 it’s to lethal

  30. avatar MGD says:

    My AR15 is way more powerful than my M1 Garand. Joe is an idiot!

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      MGD, if I had the misfortune of having an AR-15 in my safe, and the shit hit the fan, I would disassemble the AR. Scatter the parts to the four points of the compass. Grab my M-1 rifle, a couple of bandolers of ammo, 500 en bloc clips, five cases of ammo and other supplies and hit the woods.

      1. avatar MGD says:

        yep, and fortunately, .30 06 ammo is everywhere.

  31. avatar barnbwt says:

    So, is Joe bitching about all the “gunsplaining” (ie “you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about”) he is no doubt being inundated with via Twitter, yet?

    Let’s give him credit; at least he didn’t confuse full & semi automatic (although he appears to think semi is somehow more powerful. More accurate in general, maybe, but deffo not more power involved in that selector setting)

  32. avatar Russel L Davis says:

    All of that and the fact that it shoots 2000 rounds a minute make it the most badass weapon on the planet.

  33. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    Please remember this guy is a dimwit on a tv show, reciting what someone else has written for him to say. For the most part he is reading from a script. Notice the earpiece to his producer? In case he forgets.

    If you listen to him speak on any subject, he reveals his biases on each and every topic. He is a virtue signaler of the highest order. Take what he says with a grain of salt. As the man said after hurricane Katrina; ‘you can’t fix stupid”.

  34. avatar semperfi1981 says:

    Wait a second: isn’t the sword, hatchet, bow, club, slingshot, musket “weapons of war”?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wait a second: isn’t the sword, hatchet, bow, club, slingshot, musket “weapons of war”?”

      Way back when, teeth were weapons of war.

  35. avatar Arizona Free says:

    I thought the first m16’s sent to Viet Nam for the South Vietnamese had a 1 in 14 twist and used 50 grain bullets. The rounds were unstable and tumbled so much is why they had the buzz saw reaction when hitting flesh. When the call came for better accuracy the barrel twist tightened up. So now we have a more accurate rifle with less tumbling and lower velocity. Or am I wrong?

  36. avatar bryan1980 says:

    They don’t call him “The Morning Schmoe” for nothing.

  37. avatar Piller says:

    Yes, the newest is a 1 in 7 twist rate and a heavier bullet. More of a straight through hole in a human.

  38. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Well since no one else is going to say it,

    Stoner developed the AR10, not the AR15. The AR10 existed for a decade before the .223 Remington cartridge was produced. Although Stoner was chief inventor of the AR10, it was Robert Freemont and L. James Sullivan who oversaw development of the AR15, at the request of the US Army. Chief for that project was Freemont, who left Armalite in 1959 to work for Colt.

    The AR10 wasn’t developed to replace the M-14. It was developed to replace the M1 Garand. Ultimately Springfield’s M14 won that contract. The AR15’s developed started as an aside to that and was not created to replace any particular rifle, but to enable an entirely new thought of how wars were to be fought. I say new, but in fact, this was a rehash of doctrine the Army had previously given up on, circa 1865.

    The US Army’s 1948 Operations Research Office found that enemy troops were just as likely to be killed by aimed fire as random fire, so it placed a high priority on sheer volume of fire. Further study after the Korean conflict found that, although there were outliers by specially trained marksmen, most killing occurred at 100 yards or less. We needed a large amount of fire at relatively short distances for the new wars we would be fighting. (Those findings would eventually determine doctrine for the military for the next several decades, and would only recently be challenged by our conflicts in Afghanistan, where engagement distances are often outside 400 meters, and 100 yard conflicts are more rare.)

    At the same time the Army was looking to replace the M1, they were looking at weapons that could deliver that firepower in relatively short distances. In 1956, the year the Army asked Armalite to consider a smaller caliber version of the AR10, the doctrine was still accurate firepower over longer distances. But that was changing, and a few in the Army could see that coming. Under Freemont, now at Colt, the development of a rifle to fit that new doctrine would continue.

    By 1959, Armalite had licensed the AR 10 and 15 to Colt. The first AR15s fielded were not sold to the US. They were sold by Colt to what would become Malaysia. In 1961 the Air Force ordered 8,500 AR15s to test. In 63 the Air Force standardized the AR15, now the M16, and ordered 85,000 of them. So did the US Army.

    Within 2 years, doctrine had changed entirely. The Army ordered another 300,000 M16s, and “firepower” was the word of the day.

    In short, the AR10 was created by Stoner to replace the M1 Garand. The AR15 by Freemont to replace an entire way of fighting.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “In short, the AR10 was created by Stoner to replace the M1 Garand. The AR15 by Freemont to replace an entire way of fighting.”

      I like the way you wrote that.

  39. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Some people get a good feeling from understanding things n solving problems.

    Some people get a good feeling from waves of concern n calling stuff bad.

    They are different feelings, appealing to different people.

  40. avatar Paul says:

    Isn’t the M16 the military name for the AR-15? If so, how can it be deadlier?

  41. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    “Count the errors…”

    I can’t decide which infinity; there are many, infinitely many, actually.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email