Frog-Brawler

“General population” is typically in reference to prison populations; but the term can be used when referencing a full sample size, E.G. 70% of the general population associates red caps with MAGA.

You provided several links (many of which were not relevant) that support the idea that a portion of the population (not the whole of a population) believes something. I am having a hard time figuring out why you are unable to differentiate a % of something from the whole of something.

Am I making an assumption when I think the general public associates red baseball caps with MAGA Trumpers? No, because that’s one of their symbols.

Again, you are doing the same thing, so I guess you're consistent. I associate "MAGA" hats with Trumpers, sure... but my initial inclination when I see a red hat from afar is that it's a baseball cap (maybe Angles, Cards, Reds...). Once again, I am a portion of the "general public" that you're completely ignoring; and in doing such, you make a logical fallacy.

Yes, what you are doing is making an assumption. Again, you do not speak on behalf of "the general public." You speak on behalf of a portion of the general public and your entire premise is based on a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You need to stop assuming what the general public perceives. You are misapplying your personal perception. Who is the general public, am I excluded from that?

Making incorrect assumptions and speaking on behalf of the "general public" is incredibly rude. Take some of your own advice.

Yea, I see your point - no magazine at all has a capacity of 1.

Yikes

Fine. I’ll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren’t is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?

I despise games, but I despise ignorant bullshit more. I don't want to play games with you. The AR-15 is a popular choice among rifle owners in the US typically because of the availability of parts and ammo... that's the main reason. It can accommodate both 5.56 and .223, so again, if you're actually keeping one around to protect yourself against ______ (fill in the blank) you'll have a better chance at acquiring ammo.

I'm the polar opposite of a right-wing asshole (the asshole part may still hold), but if more ARs and AR parts are being produced, it's simply a matter of practicality in the long-term.

Whether you think it’s a fair association or not is irrelevant. That’s what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.

Fair association? What the fuck are you talking about? I could give a fuck about perceptions, but assuming that everyone that owns an AR is a right-winger is dumb. I don't think YOU get to speak for a large segment of the population; you simply speak for yourself.

Do you go out to watch deer hunters often, or just when it's on TV?

So now you're going to defend your own ignorant statement with, "I should know better?" You should not make blanket assumptions about who owns what. I think you are living under a rock.

Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.

Who's that?

You don’t get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.

Are you saying that a study with a self-selection bias of participants that specifically use MTurk, that has 3 comparative subjects (no gun, pistol, AR) is indicative of societal perspective?

Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.

The magazine isn't in the second picture but it has one. Looks like a Ruger 5816 to me, so if you want to see what it looks like with the magazine in it, check out their webpage. Funny enough, it looks like a 10 round mag in the AR, and the 5816 comes with a 20.

How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?

You're talking about personal preferences here. I tend to find them both pretty comfortable, but you really want to keep the stock at your shoulder.

How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?

One of them is black metal, the other one is wood. Either could be painted if you wanted to I suppose, but if we're talking about night-time scenarios, using a light would make either relatively visible.

Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?

You could probably answer these questions in less time than it took you to write them out by looking them up. The 5816 has a pull of 13.50" the base model ruger AR (8500) is 10.25" - 13.50".

These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.

Clearly this is bullshit.

That’s my birthday. Strange day for a birthday.