11 ms·

> Why would normal, law-abiding Americans want to own > a deadly weapon that was clearly designed for military use? riiiiight. because all the other firearms a

by gcb0 14y ago

> Why would normal, law-abiding Americans want to own > a deadly weapon that was clearly designed for military use? riiiiight. because all the other firearms are designed to open cans and turn off TVs.

dmix 14y ago
Also an AR-15 is an assault weapon as opposed to what the military uses, which is called assault rifles. Those are fully automatic and much more powerful. Assault rifles are already banned and the AR-15's you can buy in gun stores don't fit into that category, unless legislators invent things to be considered military... like "military grips" which is basically a pistol grip. Which often doesn't make the gun any more lethal.
- RyJones 14y ago
  In the US, the AR15 used to be (for ten years) an assault weapon. It still is in some states. If you ask combat veterans of OIF/OEF how often they use anything other than semi auto on issued M4/M16 rifles, you'll find the frequency is almost zero.
  - rdl 14y ago
    3-round burst was fairly commonly used (less than semi, though). Most issued rifles only had safe/semi/burst, not safe/semi/auto. Mainly from vehicles or in room clearing. SAWs have largely replaced the full auto rifle, though. (actually, I think something like 95% of troops never fired a weapon at all. There were 1% of troops responsible for most of the combat, and then a few more percent who got engaged by IEDs, etc.)
    - sarvinc 14y ago
      I can think of only two situations where I ever used full-auto on an M4; clearing a trench and clearing bunkers; i.e. suppressive fire. I would absolutely not use full-auto to clear a room. Room clearing requires highly disciplined and discrete fire; hostages, non-combatents, POWs etc. My friends and I would rather take a bullet than wound or kill a non-com.
      - rdl 14y ago
        Yes, I meant a structure like a bunker/culvert/etc., not a house. i.e. something they would hit with a mk19/at4/grenade/etc. first. Most use was with people who didn't have SAW or heavier, from vehicles, though, which was the only time I saw it actually used myself.
    - dfc 14y ago
      I was under the impression that 3 round burst was a waste and rarely used. The increased fire rate dramatically reduces accuracy compared to firing three rounds quickly. The army's recent RFP got rid of the 3 round burst requirement: http://www.defensereview.com/u-s-army-issues-new-individual-carbine-rfp-request-for-proposal-how-will-the-next-carbine-improve-on-the-colt-m4m4a1-carbine-we-have-some-ideas/ http://www.defensereview.com/u-s-army-issues-new-individual-...
      - rdl 14y ago
        The big problem with it in the M4 IMO is that it degrades the semi-auto trigger pull. Firing from vehicles was basically suppression, or very close at a large target from a supported firing position. Contractors were limited to rifles under most contracts, generally (although .30 cal machine guns were allowed in some cases, so the RPK was quite popular), so that's the main reason they used rifles that way rather than what the US Army would do (an M249, M240, or better, M2 or mk19). The greater argument here that semi auto is adequate for almost all rifle/carbine use, I fully agree with, but there were both US military people and contractors (and most of the indigenous security forces) who used full auto or 3 round burst.
        hga 14y ago
        Ah ha! I've heard that, but never gotten confirmation. What I've heard is that on semi-auto mode, the weight of the trigger increases with each pull in a three round cycle. If true, it again tells us how little the Army cares about individual rifle marksmanship ... which I suppose is another causality of the McNamara DoD regime.
        rdl 14y ago
        Yeah, I just stuck to my Browning Hi Power, CZ-97B, M14, and various disposable AKMs when possible; M9 when forced. Also, let's just say Brownell's catalogs were pretty popular :)
- hga 14y ago
  Unless you define "power" as rate of fire, in this case as noted elsewhere an option for 3 round bursts, there's absolutely no difference in power. You shouldn't put 5.56 NATO rounds in a .223 chamber, that's likely to result in excessive pressure, but besides that the details matter only to those wanting the most in accuracy. In fact, not being limited by the Hague convention, we civilians and stateside police can use rounds that are loaded with much more effective expanding bullets.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > In fact, not being limited by the Hague convention, we civilians and stateside police can use rounds that are loaded with much more effective expanding bullets. That has always really bothered me. I get the point for hunting, having the animal die as fast as possible is good, but I don't buy the argument that they are important for police because they have less penetration power. If we want to reduce the number of people accidentally shot by police, I think we would be better served by training police to actually hit what they shoot at, not giving them bullets that hopefully won't go through as many walls or people.
    - hga 14y ago
      What if you have to shoot someone and there are "pain-in-the-ass innocent bystanders" behind him? I.e. even if they get injured or killed, fewer will die? Now, that's not likely to happen, i.e. ideally you can follow Rule 4 by changing your angle, but ... well, in the real world your alternative just isn't going to happen. Unless they take personal responsibility (and in anti-gun places like NYC that's very hard since there aren't many places to shoot), most police aren't good shots, don't have to shoot very often, and aren't well trained. At the Connecticut legislative hearing on this, the anti-gun police officer giving testimony had to admit training was on the order of a few hours a year. And then there's fire discipline, you have seen the picture of the pickup truck, wrong model, color and with two Hispanic ladies delivering papers, that was perforated by LAPD cops who were ... concerned that one of the own was hunting them? However, that's not the main reason for using expanding ammo in self-defense. We, civilians and the police, are not allowed to kill per se, nor is that our objective. If in such a situation, we desperately want to stop someone, and for handguns "stopping power" scales with the diameter of the bullet, including expansion if that occurs, lethality with the number of holes you punch in someone. For .223/5.56 NATO, Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds have very iffy stopping power (details on request), so using them in self-defense if you have an alternative is a very bad idea.
- DanBlake 14y ago
  The assault weapon rhetoric is politically defined. A AR-15 is nearly the same weapon as a Mini-14, which just looks like a normal hunting gun. The features that define a 'assault weapon' were just made up from some committee. The stupid thoughts on that are, if you add a bayonet lug to the gun below, it becomes a assault weapon. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCHrsykW3qw/UPh-QOaG7jI/AAAAAAAAAH4/np-Obav_IWI/s1600/Mini14.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCHrsykW3qw/UPh-QOaG7jI/AAAAAAAAAH...
  - dmix 14y ago
    Lawyers love debating language while detaching themselves from reality.
- jff 14y ago
  "Assault weapon" is a term invented by Brady et al. because they wouldn't be taken seriously if they said "scary black gun". Assault rifle, battle rifle, these terms have meaning. Assault weapon is not a real category.
  - MrMember 14y ago
    The term has been attributed to Josh Sugarmann, head of the gun control advocacy group the Violence Policy Center. Going by this quote of his, he likely came up with it to intentionally confuse people who aren't knowledgeable about firearms. "The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
- Zak 14y ago
  [Military M-16s and M-4s] are fully automatic and much more powerful [than civilian AR-15s]. This is slightly misleading. The military weapons fire the same ammunition: the same bullet, at the same velocity. In terms of kinetic energy of the bullet, the weapons have the same power. The fully-automatic capability of the military weapons simply allows many more shots to be fired in a given amount of time.
ceejayoz 14y ago
There's a reason most combat troops aren't using bolt-action rifles or shotguns.
- powertower 14y ago
  I'd hate to defend against an assailant with a bolt-action rifle in my hands. Not only can it take 5-6 shots to take someone down (depending on what drugs they are on, were the shots hit, and the caliber and velocity of the bullet), but I'd imagine that in that specific moment of shock and panic were your life is in danger, it would be kind of difficult to properly operate a weapon that requires more actions over a simple trigger pull. The only thing that makes an AR15 and similar weapons “assault weapons” is that the general public believes that semi-automatic weapons are the same thing as fully automatic weapons, and they look scary.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    That's why shotguns are popular for home defense, not bolt-action rifles.
    - powertower 14y ago
      Assailants, murders, bad guys, and general criminals can take your life away from you outside your home, through a wall, via a car, and from a further distance than a shotgun could defend you from. Aside from that, and as I've stated, in that moment of panic and terror when your life is about to end, operating a weapon that requires a pump or a bolt action is not ideal. You'll jam it up, forget to pump it back, etc. I also don't quite understand how other people can dictate to me that I shouldn't own a one trigger pull / one shot weapon because it looks scary - while being somewhat functionaly identical to a non-scary looking simi rifle or handgun.
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        Let's not go and pretend surprise drive-by shootings and long-range snipings are the standard case for a home invasion.
epmatsw 14y ago
Hunting is a pretty solid and common use for a weapon that wasn't designed for military use.
- jonnycoder 14y ago
  Common bolt-action hunting rifes are based on a design that was created for war.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
speedyrev 14y ago
Flint locks were deadly weapons designed for military use. Why not want the most modern weapons? There is an entire sport shooting class for these modern weapons. It's also the preferred weapon for varmint shooting such as helping cattlemen clear ground hogs from pasture land.

by gcb0 14y ago

dmix 14y ago

Also an AR-15 is an assault weapon as opposed to what the military uses, which is called assault rifles. Those are fully automatic and much more powerful. Assault rifles are already banned and the AR-15's you can buy in gun stores don't fit into that category, unless legislators invent things to be considered military... like "military grips" which is basically a pistol grip. Which often doesn't make the gun any more lethal.

RyJones 14y ago
In the US, the AR15 used to be (for ten years) an assault weapon. It still is in some states. If you ask combat veterans of OIF/OEF how often they use anything other than semi auto on issued M4/M16 rifles, you'll find the frequency is almost zero.
- rdl 14y ago
  3-round burst was fairly commonly used (less than semi, though). Most issued rifles only had safe/semi/burst, not safe/semi/auto. Mainly from vehicles or in room clearing. SAWs have largely replaced the full auto rifle, though. (actually, I think something like 95% of troops never fired a weapon at all. There were 1% of troops responsible for most of the combat, and then a few more percent who got engaged by IEDs, etc.)
  - sarvinc 14y ago
    I can think of only two situations where I ever used full-auto on an M4; clearing a trench and clearing bunkers; i.e. suppressive fire. I would absolutely not use full-auto to clear a room. Room clearing requires highly disciplined and discrete fire; hostages, non-combatents, POWs etc. My friends and I would rather take a bullet than wound or kill a non-com.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Yes, I meant a structure like a bunker/culvert/etc., not a house. i.e. something they would hit with a mk19/at4/grenade/etc. first. Most use was with people who didn't have SAW or heavier, from vehicles, though, which was the only time I saw it actually used myself.
  - dfc 14y ago
    I was under the impression that 3 round burst was a waste and rarely used. The increased fire rate dramatically reduces accuracy compared to firing three rounds quickly. The army's recent RFP got rid of the 3 round burst requirement: http://www.defensereview.com/u-s-army-issues-new-individual-carbine-rfp-request-for-proposal-how-will-the-next-carbine-improve-on-the-colt-m4m4a1-carbine-we-have-some-ideas/ http://www.defensereview.com/u-s-army-issues-new-individual-...
    - rdl 14y ago
      The big problem with it in the M4 IMO is that it degrades the semi-auto trigger pull. Firing from vehicles was basically suppression, or very close at a large target from a supported firing position. Contractors were limited to rifles under most contracts, generally (although .30 cal machine guns were allowed in some cases, so the RPK was quite popular), so that's the main reason they used rifles that way rather than what the US Army would do (an M249, M240, or better, M2 or mk19). The greater argument here that semi auto is adequate for almost all rifle/carbine use, I fully agree with, but there were both US military people and contractors (and most of the indigenous security forces) who used full auto or 3 round burst.
      - hga 14y ago
        Ah ha! I've heard that, but never gotten confirmation. What I've heard is that on semi-auto mode, the weight of the trigger increases with each pull in a three round cycle. If true, it again tells us how little the Army cares about individual rifle marksmanship ... which I suppose is another causality of the McNamara DoD regime.
        rdl 14y ago
        Yeah, I just stuck to my Browning Hi Power, CZ-97B, M14, and various disposable AKMs when possible; M9 when forced. Also, let's just say Brownell's catalogs were pretty popular :)
hga 14y ago
Unless you define "power" as rate of fire, in this case as noted elsewhere an option for 3 round bursts, there's absolutely no difference in power. You shouldn't put 5.56 NATO rounds in a .223 chamber, that's likely to result in excessive pressure, but besides that the details matter only to those wanting the most in accuracy. In fact, not being limited by the Hague convention, we civilians and stateside police can use rounds that are loaded with much more effective expanding bullets.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > In fact, not being limited by the Hague convention, we civilians and stateside police can use rounds that are loaded with much more effective expanding bullets. That has always really bothered me. I get the point for hunting, having the animal die as fast as possible is good, but I don't buy the argument that they are important for police because they have less penetration power. If we want to reduce the number of people accidentally shot by police, I think we would be better served by training police to actually hit what they shoot at, not giving them bullets that hopefully won't go through as many walls or people.
  - hga 14y ago
    What if you have to shoot someone and there are "pain-in-the-ass innocent bystanders" behind him? I.e. even if they get injured or killed, fewer will die? Now, that's not likely to happen, i.e. ideally you can follow Rule 4 by changing your angle, but ... well, in the real world your alternative just isn't going to happen. Unless they take personal responsibility (and in anti-gun places like NYC that's very hard since there aren't many places to shoot), most police aren't good shots, don't have to shoot very often, and aren't well trained. At the Connecticut legislative hearing on this, the anti-gun police officer giving testimony had to admit training was on the order of a few hours a year. And then there's fire discipline, you have seen the picture of the pickup truck, wrong model, color and with two Hispanic ladies delivering papers, that was perforated by LAPD cops who were ... concerned that one of the own was hunting them? However, that's not the main reason for using expanding ammo in self-defense. We, civilians and the police, are not allowed to kill per se, nor is that our objective. If in such a situation, we desperately want to stop someone, and for handguns "stopping power" scales with the diameter of the bullet, including expansion if that occurs, lethality with the number of holes you punch in someone. For .223/5.56 NATO, Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds have very iffy stopping power (details on request), so using them in self-defense if you have an alternative is a very bad idea.
DanBlake 14y ago
The assault weapon rhetoric is politically defined. A AR-15 is nearly the same weapon as a Mini-14, which just looks like a normal hunting gun. The features that define a 'assault weapon' were just made up from some committee. The stupid thoughts on that are, if you add a bayonet lug to the gun below, it becomes a assault weapon. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCHrsykW3qw/UPh-QOaG7jI/AAAAAAAAAH4/np-Obav_IWI/s1600/Mini14.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCHrsykW3qw/UPh-QOaG7jI/AAAAAAAAAH...
- dmix 14y ago
  Lawyers love debating language while detaching themselves from reality.
jff 14y ago
"Assault weapon" is a term invented by Brady et al. because they wouldn't be taken seriously if they said "scary black gun". Assault rifle, battle rifle, these terms have meaning. Assault weapon is not a real category.
- MrMember 14y ago
  The term has been attributed to Josh Sugarmann, head of the gun control advocacy group the Violence Policy Center. Going by this quote of his, he likely came up with it to intentionally confuse people who aren't knowledgeable about firearms. "The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Zak 14y ago
[Military M-16s and M-4s] are fully automatic and much more powerful [than civilian AR-15s]. This is slightly misleading. The military weapons fire the same ammunition: the same bullet, at the same velocity. In terms of kinetic energy of the bullet, the weapons have the same power. The fully-automatic capability of the military weapons simply allows many more shots to be fired in a given amount of time.

ceejayoz 14y ago

There's a reason most combat troops aren't using bolt-action rifles or shotguns.

powertower 14y ago
I'd hate to defend against an assailant with a bolt-action rifle in my hands. Not only can it take 5-6 shots to take someone down (depending on what drugs they are on, were the shots hit, and the caliber and velocity of the bullet), but I'd imagine that in that specific moment of shock and panic were your life is in danger, it would be kind of difficult to properly operate a weapon that requires more actions over a simple trigger pull. The only thing that makes an AR15 and similar weapons “assault weapons” is that the general public believes that semi-automatic weapons are the same thing as fully automatic weapons, and they look scary.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  That's why shotguns are popular for home defense, not bolt-action rifles.
  - powertower 14y ago
    Assailants, murders, bad guys, and general criminals can take your life away from you outside your home, through a wall, via a car, and from a further distance than a shotgun could defend you from. Aside from that, and as I've stated, in that moment of panic and terror when your life is about to end, operating a weapon that requires a pump or a bolt action is not ideal. You'll jam it up, forget to pump it back, etc. I also don't quite understand how other people can dictate to me that I shouldn't own a one trigger pull / one shot weapon because it looks scary - while being somewhat functionaly identical to a non-scary looking simi rifle or handgun.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      Let's not go and pretend surprise drive-by shootings and long-range snipings are the standard case for a home invasion.

epmatsw 14y ago

Hunting is a pretty solid and common use for a weapon that wasn't designed for military use.

jonnycoder 14y ago
Common bolt-action hunting rifes are based on a design that was created for war.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

speedyrev 14y ago

Flint locks were deadly weapons designed for military use. Why not want the most modern weapons? There is an entire sport shooting class for these modern weapons. It's also the preferred weapon for varmint shooting such as helping cattlemen clear ground hogs from pasture land.