AR stands for Assault Rifle

Every minute, over fifty-nine entire seconds go by and some brainless gungrabber posts uninformed rubbish on Twitter, aimed at banning guns:

"AR 15s can vaporize deer!" (that's a real one)

"Background checks don't exist!"

"Ghost guns” are only possible because of regulatory loopholes!"

"An AR can kill hundreds in minutes!"

Or. . .

Yes, USA Today actually tweeted this. No, a chainsaw bayonet is not a real accessory.

Or. . .

And so on. . .

Whenever this happens, hundreds of well-meaning people come out to correct them on their errors. They'll try to explain, again and again, the difference between a real, select-fire AR 15 assault rifle and the semi-automatic carbine version currently available on the civilian market. They'll mention that background checks are a thing. Or that the vast majority of gun violence involves pistols, NOT rifles or carbines (which are involved in about 1% of gun related injuries in the US).

How does it help? Their positions extend well into banning things that are currently legal. Yours (should) extend well into making legal the things that are currently banned or restricted. So how does educating those who don't want to learn about the current state of affairs or the technicalities of modern weapons help? Don't they want it all banned anyway? Don't you want it all legalized anyway? When they say they want something that is currently restricted to be restricted why would you say “actually it is restricted so it's fine” rather than “no, it shouldn't and current restrictions aren't fine either.” This really makes it a moot point about whether they are willing to accept the current state of things. Now, I'm not talking about educating someone who is willing to learn about either the motivations for complete deregulation or the technicalities of modern weapons. I'm talking about arguing about these things with people who don't actually care and are just grasping at anything in order to try and justify their position of ensuring a government monopoly on force. They don't want to understand that most of the regulations they argue for already exist because they really just want all guns to be banned. You likely want the opposite. So civilians can have select-fire ARs? Not at the moment, but maybe they should! ARs can shoot 2000 rounds in a minute? It sure can't but it sounds cool (something like the AM180 for a .22LR comes close, though - look it up)! There are no background checks or registries? Sounds pretty based! Stop wasting your willpower on these people. Just block them and focus on important things instead.

Any time you see a comment like that, fight the urge to argue by putting a coin in a jar. And then, when the jar gets full, take it and mail it to the Firearms Policy Coalition.