The AR-15 was built for slaughter in war zones

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

It raises a point. Since everyone is claiming that the AR 15 is a military weapon, if he used .223 wylde or .223 Remington they are strictly speaking civilian cartridges.

Well yes you are korrect sir. The whole assault weapons argument is insane. It's because of the way it looks nothing else. It gets all the attention The gun control argument will never evolve as long as they center it around the area weapons

[Boiler 46,374]

Problem solved and no obvious signs of PTSD.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Problem solved and no obvious signs of PTSD.

Are you sure? There is a ring on that finger...

[Boiler 46,374]

you would think the blast would have torn the ring from her finger?

[Merle 458]

I read the article referenced to in the first post and it reads like a propaganda piece written by a lobbyist in order to convince the Army that the AR-15/M-16 rifle was superior to the M-14 which it was replacing. The AR-15/M-16 was designed to use a smaller, lighter cartridge for short range use in jungle warfare where firing distances were not as far. Soldiers could also carry more 5.56x45 ammunition than the 7.62x51 ammunition the M-14 rifle fired. I've had discussions with Vietnam vets who were in during the transition from the M-14 to the M-16 and most of them hated the M-16 due to it's lack of firepower and not being able to engage the enemy at farther ranges. Another thing, I highly doubt the 5.56x45 could take a head or arm off. Sounds like more propaganda hogwash. Good thing ol' terrorist boy wasn't using a FAL or a M1A with 20 round mags. He could have killed 5 or more gay club go'ers with each shot if he had.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Merle

[Jacque67 7,328]

I read the article referenced to in the first post and it reads like a propaganda piece written by a lobbyist in order to convince the Army that the AR-15/M-16 rifle was superior to the M-14 which it was replacing. The AR-15/M-16 was designed to use a smaller, lighter cartridge for short range use in jungle warfare where firing distances were not as far. Soldiers could also carry more 5.56x45 ammunition than the 7.62x51 ammunition the M-14 rifle fired. I've had discussions with Vietnam vets who were in during the transition from the M-14 to the M-16 and most of them hated the M-16 due to it's lack of firepower and not being able to engage the enemy at farther ranges. Another thing, I highly doubt the 5.56x45 could take a head or arm off. Sounds like more propaganda hogwash. Good thing ol' terrorist boy wasn't using a FAL or a M1A with 20 round mags. He could have killed 5 or more gay club go'ers with each shot if he had.

Interesting. Can anyone here back up the claims of Vietnam vets hating the M-16?

[Merle 458]

Interesting. Can anyone here back up the claims of Vietnam vets hating the M-16?

I just re-read that laughable article and I realized the testing they did back in 1962 wasn't even comparimg the M-16 to the M-14, it was comparing it against the M2 which fired the pathetically underpowered .30 Carbine ammunition. I guess the M-16 must have felt more powerful to the Rangers who tested it, especially the one who shot both butt cheeks off of one VC communist with one who didn't die instantly but lived for 5 minutes before dieing. I can see now how we won the Vietnam War having such a wonder weapon in the hands of our soldiers. Edited June 23, 2016 by Merle

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Interesting. Can anyone here back up the claims of Vietnam vets hating the M-16?

Yes I was trained by Vietnam vets lots of stories about how awful it was

[Merle 458]

Yes I was trained by Vietnam vets lots of stories about how awful it was

I've read stories about U.S. and British soldiers in Afghanistan being engaged by Taliban fighters with old British Enfield rifles out of the effective range of the 5.56x45 round. That must be an awful feeling; being shot at and not being able to effectively shoot back. The AR-15/M-16 family of rifles are not the awesome killing machines the anti-gun establishment think they are. They just happen to be the weapon of choice of a few idiots who decided to use them in their sick and twisted attacks on their defenseless victims. Banning them wouldn't have stopped them from doing what they did. They would have found other means.

[smilesammich 10,727]

I've read stories about U.S. and British soldiers in Afghanistan being engaged by Taliban fighters with old British Enfield rifles out of the effective range of the 5.56x45 round. That must be an awful feeling; being shot at and not being able to effectively shoot back. The AR-15/M-16 family of rifles are not the awesome killing machines the anti-gun establishment think they are. They just happen to be the weapon of choice of a few idiots who decided to use them in their sick and twisted attacks on their defenseless victims. Banning them wouldn't have stopped them from doing what they did. They would have found other means.

they can find other means, but will they be able to get their kill count as high? that's what many people have an issue with (even gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters). people/targets don't have many opportunities to run while the shooter reloads. i think it's a valid concern. the more shots a killer has the more damage he can do. it's about damage control. we might all be sitting ducks for the next mofo, but can't we at least give ourselves some better odds?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

they can find other means, but will they be able to get their kill count as high? that's what many people have an issue with (even gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters). people/targets don't have many opportunities to run while the shooter reloads. i think it's a valid concern. the more shots a killer has the more damage he can do. it's about damage control. we might all be sitting ducks for the next mofo, but can't we at least give ourselves some better odds?

2 or 3 glocks would be just as effective and very easy to conceal. The just choose the AR because it gets so much publicity.

I really don't understand the hoopla. Cheap handguns kill more in a week than Ar kill in a year.

[Merle 458]

they can find other means, but will they be able to get their kill count as high?

Yes, AR-15 rifles were not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 or 3 glocks would be just as effective and very easy to conceal. The just choose the AR because it gets so much publicity.

I really don't understand the hoopla. Cheap handguns kill more in a week than Ar kill in a year.

i think the hoopla arises out of this need to have all massacres equal in all matters. "they" are not a cohesive unit that "choose" a specific weapon for "publicity", that's dumb imo because it's the killing that gets the publicity, not the guns. the guns only get traction from folks who know anything about guns, ya'll been going on about the AR15 for friggin 18 pages. it's about the kill count, it's about a pile of bodies instead of just a couple bodies. and what better way to get maximum death than to make sure you rarely have to reload? i'm not basing this question on my knowledge of how many bullets it shoots how quick, i'm just taking what i've heard survivors of orlando say, that they were only able to run when the shooter needed to reload or left the area they were in. imagine if he'd gone into that club with a handgun, do you think he would have gotten the same number of kills?

Yes, AR-15 rifles were not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

what does 9/11 have to do with anything?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

i think the hoopla arises out of this need to have all massacres equal in all matters. "they" are not a cohesive unit that "choose" a specific weapon for "publicity", that's dumb imo because it's the killing that gets the publicity, not the guns. the guns only get traction from folks who know anything about guns, ya'll been going on about the AR15 for friggin 18 pages. it's about the kill count, it's about a pile of bodies instead of just a couple bodies. and what better way to get maximum death than to make sure you rarely have to reload? i'm not basing this question on my knowledge of how many bullets it shoots how quick, i'm just taking what i've heard survivors of orlando say, that they were only able to run when the shooter needed to reload or left the area they were in. imagine if he'd gone into that club with a handgun, do you think he would have gotten the same number of kills?

what does 9/11 have to do with anything?

Did you really say the Weapon used did not get the attention

[smilesammich 10,727]

Did you really say the Weapon used did not get the attention

no, that's not what i said. if you're questioning what i said - reread my post.

the headlines on sunday morning did not say "AR 15 SCARY LOOKING GUN USED IN ORLANDO" with a tiny byline of (49 dead). catch my drift?