Just found this article. Thought I’d hack up one really egregious paragraph.

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.

Well many hunters would disagree. Even then, it takes a pretty ignorant person to think that .223 Rem is the ONLY caliber AR-15s come in.

Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo’d up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR’s. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”

First let’s ignore the slander, strawman, and appeal to authority that claims that because this person served in the military they can’t POSSIBLY be ignorant. First up nobody NEEDS to hunt. Sorry you won’t starve if you don’t get your deer. Hunters don’t die when they have an unsuccessful hunt, so that argument is invalid. Further many places impose a magazine limit. So how can somebody with a 5-shot AR-15 be able to waste ammo any LESS than somebody with a Remington 700 Bolt action?

Of course also, what makes an auto-loading gun any less able to take game with a well-placed shot?

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters.

Hold out a pistol in a modern stance…then hold out a 16″ AR. Which sticks out further? Chances are the size is irrelevant.

When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

Again IGNORANCE! Reality begs to differ. The long rifle bullet quickly yaws when it hits an object so it technically penetrates LESS than buckshot or pistol rounds. It also has more muzzle energy, and is easier to shoot. We call that a “Win Win”.

Another great example of how IGNORANCE is the driving force behind the anti-gun movement.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Debunk

  1. Bleddyn says:

    “Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.”

    How does this sentence even make sense? It’s not a hunting rifle because it can only be used to hunt small game? What exactly is their definition of “a hunting rifle”; mine must be wrong since I thought it was a rifle you could hunt with. The last time I checked “hunting” didn’t have a size requirement to become legitimate. If you’re hunting for sport it doesn’t really matter if you have more fun hunting squirrels or rabbits or prarie dogs instead of deer or moose.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I have to load up my NAA mini-revolver and go hunt some palmetto bugs.

  2. Bubblehead Les says:

    Well, since the 5.56 Nato round was derived from the .222 Remington in the 50’s, I’m guessing that the Varmint/Hunting Legacy of the round is a FACT.

    And lest we forget, just how many Military Cartridges went on to become Hunting Rounds? Let’s see, 30-06, 45-70, .308 Winchester, 6.5 Swede, 7mm Mauser……

  3. Rob Crawford says:

    It’s not ignorance — it’s the lust for control. There is something seriously wrong with people who so desire power over the innocent that they’ll render them defenseless.

  4. Stuart the Viking says:

    I forgot, what does hunting have to do with the 2A issue again?

    And I agree, they are COMPLETELY WRONG saying that a handgun is a better choice for home defense than an AR. The AR, especially in carbine form which is what most of them sold for home defense are, is an incredibly handy weapon even in the somewhat restricted spaces of the insides of your average house. On top of that, I have seen a number of tests that show that the MUCH lighter bullet of the 5.56/.223 (as opposed to a normal handgun bullet) doesn’t penetrate walls more readily than a handgun bullet does.

    Innocent ignorance is bliss, willful ignorance is a LIE.


  5. MAJMike says:

    None of it matters.

    I own “eeeeevil black rifles” because I can and I like them. My bolt-action Russia-capture Kar98 has killed more people than any of my black rifles. Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my black rifles.

    I’m keeping them and the critics can kiss my straight-leg ass.

  6. Eck! says:

    The best piece of stupidity I’ve read. the best comment was..

    “The AR-15 has an overall dismal history. Anybody in the military who has any choice (i.e., Special Forces) doesn’t use it. ”

    Duh, there is _no_ military history for the AR15, no branch ever used it! They use
    the very similar (to the uninformed) looking M16 and later variant M4.

    The dumb its growing.


  7. Eck! says:

    Bubblehead Les,

    Right on. I did run a bolt action .223 remmy back in the 70s and it was a great chuck gun and varminter. It was a gun I got to borrow when my Marlin 25 (.22WMR) wasn’t quite enough and the 06 was just a bit much and the 30/30 saddle gun was not long legged enough. The intermediate rounds like .223, .243, and .270 are oldies and well known for longer range hunting of larger than squirrel and smaller than deer game.

    My Marlin was purchased back then because it was a mag fed and easier to empty at the edge of the field and not because it holds 7 rounds. I hated dumping the tube
    on the 30/30 (or levering them out) especially in the snow. So to me a removable magazine fed rifle of any kind is a safety improvement. Pop the mag, clear the
    chamber and its safe, no fuss, less chance for bad things.


Leave a Reply

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