Argument is ‘disingenuous’

Published 4:02 pm Tuesday, February 16, 2016


Richard Raybold makes a rather disingenuous attempt at splitting hairs to show that “modern hunting rifles” are somehow different from assault weapons (“Defining assault weapons,” Feb. 5).

You don’t have to be a weapons expert to note that the legal AR-15 is merely the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle. The only major difference between the two weapons is the selector switch, which for the M-16 allows fully automatic fire while the AR-15 only fires semiautomatically. However, the AR-15 can be easily converted to full auto. The instructions are available on YouTube.

Email newsletter signup

What is more important than rate of fire is that both weapons are designed to use a 30-round or larger magazine. I’m not a hunter, but it seems to me that if you need a 30-round clip to go hunting, then you stink as a hunter. 

Mass shooters pick the AR-15 or its equivalents because if you want to kill a room full of people in as little time as possible, then you can’t waste time reloading. By the way, criminals who aren’t mass shooters don’t use assault rifles for the simple reason that they don’t want to attract the attention of police and therefore choose more easily concealable guns. 

The only exception to this are criminals like the ones who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

No, both the AR-15 and its big brother, the M-16, along with similar weapons from other manufacturers are designed to kill people. The only difference is the marketing spiel from the arms manufacturers.

James Peca