Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

[Blue_Adept]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15's creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47," the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

[Marengo]

1. Any comments on record from Stoner himself?

[JonathanRackham]

2. Apparently they're putting words in his mouth.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Probably. But, it was designed as a military weapon to use NATO's 7.62mm round.

As the AR-10, it was intended for military (because they buy in large quantities). It lost the competition, and the U.S. Army adopted Springfield's M-14 as the standard battle rifle.

[scscholar]

29. So are you saying his own family doesn't represent him?

OK. What a stretch.

Also, we all know that they are 22 caliber, and that's just too powerful for civilians.

[Marengo]

30. They can say whatever they please, but it carries little authority if unsubstantiated...

By the source.

[ileus]

3. The gas system isn't an advantage over the piston driven AK.

[linuxman]

10. Less moving parts. Just sayin'.

[Dem2]

15. Oblivious?

Really?

[malthaussen]

4. Dude invented more weapons than Kalashnikov.

Apparently, Mikhail felt bad about his legacy on his deathbed. But the AK-47 became weapon of choice for terrorists long before the AR-15.

-- Mal

[Javaman]

6. do worry, the gun nuts will accuse Stoners family of "selling out"

or being liberals and unable to "think" like their father.

it's become so predictable now.

[Bonx]

8. Even more predictable are the irrational emotional responses from the gun grabbers.

[Javaman]

9. gun grabbers? nt

[Bonx]

12. gun nuts? nt

[Javaman]

14. oh I see.

oh you got me there! you scamp.

say hello to my little friend; ignore.

ta!

[Bonx]

19. You're welcome.

[okieinpain]

26. +1 n/t.

[Dem2]

16. And that will earn you an ignore

Gun nuts are rude as f***.

[Bonx]

20. Gun grabbers are rude and ignorant.

[phazed0]

24. +1

[ileus]

25. I have no grabbers or nuts on ignore.

But then again I'm from the non safe space 80's.....LOL

[Bonx]

35. Me either.

I'm mostly from the even less safe space 70's, lol.

[Darb]

28. Red hands club.

Gross.

[Marengo]

31. Of which you are a member as I recall.

[Darb]

32. Uh, no.

Sorry you do not get it.

[Marengo]

33. By your own admission you are part of the problem...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7796561

[Darb]

34. I think you misunderstood. Allow me to explain.

Anyone who delays, and obfuscates, and publicly obstructs the sensible implementation of more gun control in the US, has bloody hands. My having hunting guns from a distant past does not make my hands bloody. I would give them up if the law said to, straight away without a fuss.

I don't even advocate for an end to hunting, or sporting, or self defense. Some weapons have got to go and all guns should be harder to get a hold of. But that is not what this is about. As I said before. when I was a hunter, or a trap shooter, things were different. None of us had weapons like ARs. Didn't want them. they weren't even really in our mindset as to something that we needed. We didn't need them. A deer rifle was bolt action, or pump. Rarely semi-auto, they jammed. That was all back when I was a kid or a young man, No longer, not even sporting activities.

It is today's attitudes that I push back against. All the "right to keep and bear arms" balderdash, it doesn't just say that. Those that defend the right to have an AR or an AK with a banana have blood on their hands and there is more to come. If I were advocating against the restriction of the one common denominator of all these shootings, the semi-auto rifle or pistol with high capacity mag, then my hands would be bloody as hell. They are not.

Apples and oranges.

[Marengo]

36. It seems I did misunderstand. I interpreted what you wrote as an agreement...

With the authors assertion that all gun owners have blood on their hands and that you were a contributor to the problem as discussed. A position which, coming from a gun owner, would not seem logical.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. That didn't work out so well, did it?

[Crepuscular]

11. The rifle

that Stoner designed that was labeled the "AR15" was a selective fire rifle, not the semi-automatic version subsequently called the AR15 and sold to civilians. The OP neglected to mention that fact.

[Major Nikon]

17. It's not a clip, it's a magazine!

[Crepuscular]

18. Predictably

vacuous response.

[Major Nikon]

21. You stole my line!

[Straw Man]

37. Correction.

It's not a clip, it's a magazine!

It's not a military weapons, it's the watered-down civilian equivalent.

No military in the world has ever issued the semi-auto AR15 to its combat troops. Not one. I would call that a significant distinction. Wouldn't you?

[Major Nikon]

38. I'm pretty sure I called it stupid gunnut nonsense, you can call it whatever you like

But for those who lack the capability of reading between the lines, let me explain it.

The fully automatic and burst fire modes of the M16, M4, and pretty much every other standard assault rifle issued to every military in the world is the least used and has been stressed as such by military training pretty much since the very first ones were issued by the German military in WWII. So calling the capability of those modes a "significant distinction" is just more gunnut nonsense. The reason those weapons have the capability of those modes is because there's no restriction against it and it has very limited application in real world combat. All repeating this stupid talking point does is identify one as someone who simply repeats stupid talking points without the least clue as to what they really mean (or don't mean). So meanwhile in the world most call reality, all those militaries you mentioned are very effectively killing the shit out of people wholesale almost exclusively in semi-automatic operation.

[Straw Man]

39. You can blather all you want.

I know exactly what the difference between full-auto and semi-auto is. The fact remains that the contemporary AR15 is not a military weapon. You and your ilk just keep calling it that to mislead the uninformed. It makes a nice sound-byte.

Many types of guns are capable of "killing the shit out of people wholesale."

Cute gif. Is that your idea of effective rhetoric?

[Major Nikon]

40. You stole my line!

[Straw Man]

41. Do you make those graphics?

If you did, you might have a little something to be proud of. Otherwise they're just an admission of failure.

[Major Nikon]

42. Did you make up your own talking points?

[Straw Man]

45. Look! A pasted graphic!

I guess that means you win.

[Major Nikon]

46. ...

[Straw Man]

47. GIFs -- the Internet's alternative to thinking.

Use your words, Major. Use your words.

[Major Nikon]

48. OK

[Straw Man]

49. I rest my case.

[Major Nikon]

50. It wasn't yours to begin with

[Straw Man]

51. The topic was your childish GIFs and graphics.

Somehow I don't think they're on the NRA's radar.

[Major Nikon]

53. True, the part that made the least sense was yours, which was a pretty good trick

And now for something far more interesting...

[Straw Man]

55. The Major enters the thread with nothing to say ...

... and ultimately dribbles off into utter irrelevance.

[Major Nikon]

56. ...and you rested your case and here you still are

I can only guess that deep down you really like it. Regardless it just gives me one more opportunity to pull your chain.

[Straw Man]

58. Ah, finally, the real reason you're here.

Regardless it just gives me one more opportunity to pull your chain.

[Major Nikon]

59. Nothing gets by you, does it?

[uponit7771]

13. This device was DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently, this guy knows it

[Amimnoch]

22. Really. If it's designed for military combat use,

It's not designed for hunting. It's not designed for home, or personal defense. It's not designed for security. It's designed to kill the most possible in a battle situation.

If it was designed for military combat use, it shouldn't be on the market for civilian purchase.

[oneshooter]

44. You mean that these firearms should be banned?

K98 Mauser


1903 Springfield


Remington M700


Winchester M70


All of these are either military rifles, of based on the design of military rifles.

[Just reading posts]

54. Careful, you'll be accused of posting "gun porn"!

[George Eliot]

23. Beyond me that we can't outlaw military weapons. Makes no sense at all.

We are a far cry from the "militia' referred to in the Constitution. Reason vacated the country in so many ways.

[Rex]

27. Oh dear! Look at all the hurt fee fees!

Wow, I see the gun nuts are buzzing mad over his family having an opinion about their father. There is no hope for them at all.

[cpwm17]

43. I see the selfish MF'ers are out in force.

Their fascination with mass-murder machines endangers the public. It's not fair that those that want nothing to do with weapons design to murder many people quickly have to experience the danger associated with such weapons. We have to experience the threat without experiencing the thrill of owning such weapons.

It's engaging in risky behavior, but in this case, it's the general public that has to experience the risk. I could never be that selfish.

[deathrind]

57. It is amazing...

How common sense goes right out the window on this issue.

The AR-15 in and of itself maybe should, maybe should not be banned.

What should definitely be banned is the high capacity mags or drums that hold on the order of 100-200+ rounds. 10 shot mags should be the limit, just like shotguns have a limit of 3+1 (at least where I live, if Game and Fish catch you with the plug removed they will take the shotgun). Even mag cap limits will not stop gun violence but it will reduce the number of injured/dead.

The Tucson shooter had gun clips/magazines that held 33 shots (he was tackled by others when he had to reload). We will never know how many may not have been injured/killed had he had to reload after 10 shots but it is clear the total would have been less.

[HuckleB]

60. K & R!