https://youtu.be/HMAJuZav5SY

Joe Scarborough often touts his deep roots in the gun culture, growing up in the South. But either he never knew as much about guns as he’s claimed, or his passion for gun control has made him forget or ignore what he once knew.

On today’s Morning Joe, Scarborough repeatedly claimed that the AR-15, used in Parkland and in other mass shootings, is “more lethal” than the M16. H/t SnuffaBolshevik.

I’m just a born-in-the-Bronx Finkelstein who grew up entirely outside the gun culture. I’m counting on my readers to make the case better than I can.

But even I know the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16. The AR as available for sale in the US is a semi-automatic weapon. To fire, the trigger must be pulled each time. It is no different in that regard from the average deer rifle. In contrast, the M-16 can be placed in fully-automatic mode, in which it will continue to fire so long as the trigger is depressed. In that mode, it can fire 700–950 rounds per minute.

It’s true that a bump stock can give a semi-automatic some of the characteristics of an automatic. But for Scarborough to claim that the AR-15 is “more lethal” than a military M-16 is journalistic malpractice. Was Joe trying to mislead his audience in order to make the case for more gun control?




Scarborough: AR-15 “More Lethal than M16”
Tagged on:                 

4 thoughts on “Scarborough: AR-15 “More Lethal than M16”

  • Pingback: Active shooter situation at school in Parkland, FL; reports of victims - Page 105

  • Pingback: Scarborough: AR-15 "More Lethal than M16" | WorldOfGuns

  • February 20, 2018 at 2:44 pm
    Permalink

    Joe usually does his homework, but this time seems to have completely blown this one up, the assertion that the AR-15 was “more lethal” than the M-16 caught my eye. Wait? What? He absolutely missed the essential difference between military Assault Rifles and civilian AR-15 variants – Auto/Burst vs Semi-automatic. Perhaps he was referring to the issues the M-16 had when originally deployed in Vietnam, and underwent a lot of development problems? [ see Gun Digest , technical, but understandable – https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be ] The currently issued weapons, along with the M-4 are very capable, and very lethal. Perhaps he was referring to issues with the ammunition?

    But as presented on today’s Morning Joe, none of that was made clear, and only added misrepresentation and confusion to an already muddy debate.

    • February 22, 2018 at 5:26 pm
      Permalink

      Once they changed the barrel lining and issued cleaning kits the M-16 was very reliable.

      Sadly too many people will listen to this rant and actually believe it.

Leave a Reply