More than a rifle: How a new 6.8mm round, advanced optics will make soldiers, Marines a lot deadlier

[Rucker61]

You can talk about doctrine all you want, Rucker.... but the basic fact of the matter is that all of the doctrine and planning goes out the window on contact with the enemy. In heavy bush (like Vietnam) or urban combat (like Iraq), ordnance is of limited value... it's all about up close and personal small arms fire - tree to tree, room to room.

The fact of the matter is that that doctrine still drives design specifications. You should also note in neither Vietnam nor Iraq did any soldier have the mission of killing lots of people in a short time with his or her service weapon. That capability is not a part of the design of any service rifle as you claimed in post #38: "And it's very good at doing what it was designed to do... which is kill and wound large numbers of people". Given the number of rounds it takes in battle to cause even a single enemy casualty, the capability that is being used, and is reflected in the design, is to be able to put a large number of rounds downrange in a short time in the hope of perhaps causing a casualty.

I'd suggest to you that if the casualty-inflicting capabilities of small arms were irrelevant, then we could just issue sidearms, binoculars and radios to everyone without any loss of combat effectiveness.

I'd respond that I in no way have implied that "casualty-inflicting capabilities of small arms were irrelevant"; merely that the design of the service rifle was not to "kill and wound large numbers of people". If that was the intent, then the designers ignored the specifications and doctrine, and the semiauto service rifle has been a failure in allowing a single soldier to kill and wound large numbers of people.

 

[Cordelier]

The fact of the matter is that that doctrine still drives design specifications. You should also note in neither Vietnam nor Iraq did any soldier have the mission of killing lots of people in a short time with his or her service weapon. That capability is not a part of the design of any service rifle as you claimed in post #38: "And it's very good at doing what it was designed to do... which is kill and wound large numbers of people". Given the number of rounds it takes in battle to cause even a single enemy casualty, the capability that is being used, and is reflected in the design, is to be able to put a large number of rounds downrange in a short time in the hope of perhaps causing a casualty.



I'd respond that I in no way have implied that "casualty-inflicting capabilities of small arms were irrelevant"; merely that the design of the service rifle was not to "kill and wound large numbers of people". If that was the intent, then the designers ignored the specifications and doctrine, and the semiauto service rifle has been a failure in allowing a single soldier to kill and wound large numbers of people.

Yes or no, Rucker... is inflicting casualties on the enemy the primary purpose of a service rifle?

 

[Rucker61]

Yes or no, Rucker... is inflicting casualties on the enemy the primary purpose of a service rifle?

Are you reducing your claim that the design of the service rifle is to "kill and wound large numbers of people" to inflict "casualties on the enemy"? The primary purpose of the service rifle is to inflict casualties; it was not designed to "kill and wound large numbers of people".

 

[Cordelier]

Are you reducing your claim that the design of the service rifle is to "kill and wound large numbers of people" to inflict "casualties on the enemy"? The primary purpose of the service rifle is to inflict casualties; it was not designed to "kill and wound large numbers of people".

Oh, dear God.... I've heard of splitting hairs, but by this point I think we're down to quartering them.

 

[Rucker61]

Oh, dear God.... I've heard of splitting hairs, but by this point I think we're down to quartering them.

Actually, you've presented a text book case of shifting goalposts. You indicated that you were morally opposed to owning an FN FAL because it's purpose was to "kill and wound large numbers of people". If the service rifle is just to inflict casualties, then does your objection hold for bolt action rifles that duplicate the capabilities of say, the M1903 bolt action service rifle?

 

[Cordelier]

Actually, you've presented a text book case of shifting goalposts. You indicated that you were morally opposed to owning an FN FAL because it's purpose was to "kill and wound large numbers of people". If the service rifle is just to inflict casualties, then does your objection hold for bolt action rifles that duplicate the capabilities of say, the M1903 bolt action service rifle?

Shifting goalposts?? *LOL* Hokay, then...

To answer your question (as you don't seem to be willing to answer my simple yes/no)... no, I am not opposed to Springfield M1903 ownership... nor, for that matter, Springfield Model 1861 ownership. Yes, they were designed to produce enemy casualties as well.... but as far as small arms go, I think technological advances made in the field since World War I have made military-style weaponry just too dangerous for public consumption. Pretty much from the Tommy Gun until now, the costs we pay for these weapons far outweighs the benefits we reap from their public availability. But that's just my opinion... you have your opinion as well, and I'm sure it differs substantially.

I will point out, though... if you're not the one paying the price - if it's not your friends and/or family that have been killed because of easy access to this weaponry - well, then it's pretty easy for you to just shrug it off. Just as long as it's someone else, all is good. You get to blast away at your tin cans and play weekend warrior while other people do the bleeding and mourning. That's not for me, though.

 

[TurtleDude]

Shifting goalposts?? *LOL* Hokay, then...

To answer your question (as you don't seem to be willing to answer my simple yes/no)... no, I am not opposed to Springfield M1903 ownership... nor, for that matter, Springfield Model 1861 ownership. Yes, they were designed to produce enemy casualties as well.... but as far as small arms go, I think technological advances made in the field since World War I have made military-style weaponry just too dangerous for public consumption. Pretty much from the Tommy Gun until now, the costs we pay for these weapons far outweighs the benefits we reap from their public availability. But that's just my opinion... you have your opinion as well, and I'm sure it differs substantially.

I will point out, though... if you're not the one paying the price - if it's not your friends and/or family that have been killed because of easy access to this weaponry - well, then it's pretty easy for you to just shrug it off. Just as long as it's someone else, all is good. You get to blast away at your tin cans and play weekend warrior while other people do the bleeding and mourning. That's not for me, though.

so you want to ban private citizens owning semi auto rifles? what do you think the proper construction of the Second Amendment stands for in terms of weaponry that honest citizens can possess?

do you think banning stuff is more likely to disarm honest people or violent criminals

 

[Cordelier]

so you want to ban private citizens owning semi auto rifles? what do you think the proper construction of the Second Amendment stands for in terms of weaponry that honest citizens can possess?

do you think banning stuff is more likely to disarm honest people or violent criminals

I don't think this is the appropriate thread for this discussion, Turtle... for you want an in-depth legal discussion, we can take it elsewhere.

But basically, in a nutshell, my position is this.... no enumerated Constitutional right is absolute - over time, all of them have been limited in some way by laws the Congress saw as necessary and proper to pass. The limitation of Constitutional rights is, by definition, a very serious matter... any laws that take this course have to withstand judicial review by the Courts. For most of the rights contained in the first Eight Amendments, the laws limiting them have to withstand the highest level of strict scrutiny. But my position is that where it comes to the Second Amendment - because it is the only enumerated right qualified by a prefatory clause - and because that prefatory clause effectively imbues the Congress with substantial powers over the underlying right, I believe any laws it deems necessary and proper to pass which limit the right to keep and bear arms deserve broader deference by the Courts than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, I believe intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate level if judicial review when deciding upon the Constitutionality of such laws.

If there were no prefatory clause, I would argue that any statutory restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms would be subject to strict scrutiny - just as any statutory restrictions on the right to freedom of speech would be. But that fact of the matter is that the prefatory clause does exist, and as such, it must necessarily modify the underlying right in some way. I cannot believe that original intent would countenance that existence of "wasted words" within the Constitution of the United States.

That being said, I would limit semi-auto rifle ownership in the same way the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) limited full-auto rifle ownership... and were I on the Supreme Court reviewing such a provision, I would apply the standard of intermediate scrutiny when deciding upon the Constitutionality of such a provision.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think this is the appropriate thread for this discussion, Turtle... for you want an in-depth legal discussion, we can take it elsewhere.

But basically, in a nutshell, my position is this.... no enumerated Constitutional right is absolute - over time, all of them have been limited in some way by laws the Congress saw as necessary and proper to pass. The limitation of Constitutional rights is, by definition, a very serious matter... any laws that take this course have to withstand judicial review by the Courts. For most of the rights contained in the first Eight Amendments, the laws limiting them have to withstand the highest level of strict scrutiny. But my position is that where it comes to the Second Amendment - because it is the only enumerated right qualified by a prefatory clause - and because that prefatory clause effectively imbues the Congress with substantial powers over the underlying right, I believe any laws it deems necessary and proper to pass which limit the right to keep and bear arms deserve broader deference by the Courts than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, I believe intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate level if judicial review when deciding upon the Constitutionality of such laws.

If there were no prefatory clause, I would argue that any statutory restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms would be subject to strict scrutiny - just as any statutory restrictions on the right to freedom of speech would be. But that fact of the matter is that the prefatory clause does exist, and as such, it must necessarily modify the underlying right in some way. I cannot believe that original intent would countenance that existence of "wasted words" within the Constitution of the United States.

That being said, I would limit semi-auto rifle ownership in the same way the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) limited full-auto rifle ownership... and were I on the Supreme Court reviewing such a provision, I would apply the standard of intermediate scrutiny when deciding upon the Constitutionality of such a provision.

given the federal government has never been properly given that power, I would strike down every and all federal gun control law save perhaps ones that regulate what can be imported into the USA

your argument is that you want to ban all semi auto rifles made after May 19, 1986 and make them increase in cost to the point few could afford them. I would find that complete proof the government is now rogue

 

[Rucker61]

Shifting goalposts?? *LOL* Hokay, then...

To answer your question (as you don't seem to be willing to answer my simple yes/no)... no, I am not opposed to Springfield M1903 ownership... nor, for that matter, Springfield Model 1861 ownership. Yes, they were designed to produce enemy casualties as well.... but as far as small arms go, I think technological advances made in the field since World War I have made military-style weaponry just too dangerous for public consumption. Pretty much from the Tommy Gun until now, the costs we pay for these weapons far outweighs the benefits we reap from their public availability. But that's just my opinion... you have your opinion as well, and I'm sure it differs substantially.

I will point out, though... if you're not the one paying the price - if it's not your friends and/or family that have been killed because of easy access to this weaponry - well, then it's pretty easy for you to just shrug it off. Just as long as it's someone else, all is good. You get to blast away at your tin cans and play weekend warrior while other people do the bleeding and mourning. That's not for me, though.

Since the introduction of the AR-15 to the civilian market, there have been an average of 5 KIA per year in a mass shooting with an "assault weapon". If we look at just since the end of the AWB, that number is only 17 KIA per year in a mass shooting with an "assault weapon". You're more likely to die falling out of bed, falling out of a chair, falling out of a window, falling down the stairs or being struck by lightning than being killed by a mass shooter with an AR-15.

 

[Rucker61]

I don't think this is the appropriate thread for this discussion, Turtle... for you want an in-depth legal discussion, we can take it elsewhere.

But basically, in a nutshell, my position is this.... no enumerated Constitutional right is absolute - over time, all of them have been limited in some way by laws the Congress saw as necessary and proper to pass. The limitation of Constitutional rights is, by definition, a very serious matter... any laws that take this course have to withstand judicial review by the Courts. For most of the rights contained in the first Eight Amendments, the laws limiting them have to withstand the highest level of strict scrutiny. But my position is that where it comes to the Second Amendment - because it is the only enumerated right qualified by a prefatory clause - and because that prefatory clause effectively imbues the Congress with substantial powers over the underlying right, I believe any laws it deems necessary and proper to pass which limit the right to keep and bear arms deserve broader deference by the Courts than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, I believe intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate level if judicial review when deciding upon the Constitutionality of such laws.

If there were no prefatory clause, I would argue that any statutory restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms would be subject to strict scrutiny - just as any statutory restrictions on the right to freedom of speech would be. But that fact of the matter is that the prefatory clause does exist, and as such, it must necessarily modify the underlying right in some way. I cannot believe that original intent would countenance that existence of "wasted words" within the Constitution of the United States.

That being said, I would limit semi-auto rifle ownership in the same way the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) limited full-auto rifle ownership... and were I on the Supreme Court reviewing such a provision, I would apply the standard of intermediate scrutiny when deciding upon the Constitutionality of such a provision.

SCOTUS has already decided that restrictions can't be placed on firearms "in common use for lawful purposes".

 

[Cordelier]

given the federal government has never been properly given that power, I would strike down every and all federal gun control law save perhaps ones that regulate what can be imported into the USA

your argument is that you want to ban all semi auto rifles made after May 19, 1986 and make them increase in cost to the point few could afford them. I would find that complete proof the government is now rogue

May 19, 1986 was the date FOPA became effective.... my hypothetical legislation would only become effective when (and if) it is signed into law. No ex post facto laws.

I suggest Congress has substantial powers in the field not only from it's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but also - and even more fundamentally - from it's constitutional power to organize, arms, and discipline the militia, which ties in directly with the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment. Like I keep saying, the Second Amendment is a completely different kettle of fish with the prefatory clause than it would be without it.

 

[Cordelier]

SCOTUS has already decided that restrictions can't be placed on firearms "in common use for lawful purposes".

Exactly... change the law, you change the lawful purposes.

 

[TurtleDude]

May 19, 1986 was the date FOPA became effective.... my hypothetical legislation would only become effective when (and if) it is signed into law. No ex post facto laws.

I suggest Congress has substantial powers in the field not only from it's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but also - and even more fundamentally - from it's constitutional power to organize, arms, and discipline the militia, which ties in directly with the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment. Like I keep saying, the Second Amendment is a completely different kettle of fish with the prefatory clause than it would be without it.

in other words you don't have anything that would justify a complete ban on all semi auto rifles made after a certain date. why are you so terrified of people owning firearms that are used in less murders than fists, clubs and feet?

 

[Rucker61]

May 19, 1986 was the date FOPA became effective.... my hypothetical legislation would only become effective when (and if) it is signed into law. No ex post facto laws.

To what purpose? To drive sales of AR-15s to levels not seen even in 2008-2010, in which incidentally, there were zero mass shootings with "assault weapons"? If your goal is fewer AR-15s, it seems the wrong way to go.

I suggest Congress has substantial powers in the field not only from it's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but also - and even more fundamentally - from it's constitutional power to organize, arms, and discipline the militia, which ties in directly with the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment. Like I keep saying, the Second Amendment is a completely different kettle of fish with the prefatory clause than it would be without it.

Congress has full power under Article 1, Section 8 to organize, arm and discipline the militia. How does the Second restrict that power at all?

 

[Rucker61]

in other words you don't have anything that would justify a complete ban on all semi auto rifles made after a certain date. why are you so terrified of people owning firearms that are used in less murders than fists, clubs and feet?

..and fewer deaths in mass shootings, on average each year, than in murders by water.

 

[TurtleDude]

..and fewer deaths in mass shootings, on average each year, than in murders by water.

when you see people demanding sweeping gun bans and they claim it is for public safety, and they focus on stuff that is far less likely to cause deaths than other items, it is easy to reject their claims as dishonest

 

[Rucker61]

Exactly... change the law, you change the lawful purposes.

In the Gun Control Act of 1968, Congress defined lawful uses of firearms as "hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity". While an AR-15 isn't particularly suited to trap shooting, it is commonly used in the lawful acts of hunting, target shooting and personal protection. Are you going to define those as illegal actions?

 

[Cordelier]

In the Gun Control Act of 1968, Congress defined lawful uses of firearms as "hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity". While an AR-15 isn't particularly suited to trap shooting, it is commonly used in the lawful acts of hunting, target shooting and personal protection. Are you going to define those as illegal actions?

Not at all... but if it's illegal to own a semi-auto rifle manufactured after a certain date - just as it's illegal to own a full-auto rifle manufactured since May 19, 1986 - then I'd suggest whatever you do with such a rifle would be an unlawful purpose.

If you disagree, feel free to encourage the NRA to challenge the full-auto restrictions contained in FOPA. It's been over 32 years since they have been enacted... how come they haven't been struck down?

 

[Rucker61]

Not at all... but if it's illegal to own a semi-auto rifle manufactured after a certain date - just as it's illegal to own a full-auto rifle manufactured since May 19, 1986 - then I'd suggest whatever you do with such a rifle would be an unlawful purpose.

If you disagree, feel free to encourage the NRA to challenge the full-auto restrictions contained in FOPA. It's been over 32 years since they have been enacted... how come they haven't been struck down?

But first, you have to ban the AR-15 while ignoring the fact that the Second protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes, which would prevent making them illegal to own, regardless of manufacturing date. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

 

[Cordelier]

But first, you have to ban the AR-15 while ignoring the fact that the Second protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes, which would prevent making them illegal to own, regardless of manufacturing date. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

Sure... go with that. I think the bigger challenge for me is actually getting such a law through Congress than getting SCOTUS to sign off on it's constitutionality.

 

[Rucker61]

Sure... go with that. I think the bigger challenge for me is actually getting such a law through Congress than getting SCOTUS to sign off on it's constitutionality.

In your opinion, is the AR-15 "in common use for lawful purposes"?

Assuming you've reviewed the actual numbers of annual deaths in mass shootings from AR-15s, why the big push to ban them?

 

[Cordelier]

In your opinion, is the AR-15 "in common use for lawful purposes"?

Assuming you've reviewed the actual numbers of annual deaths in mass shootings from AR-15s, why the big push to ban them?

We've been over this in other, more appropriate forums, Rucker. I went through the FBI Active Shooter Study. Semi-Auto rifles are used in about 20% of active shooter incidents.... but those 20% of cases, casualties per incident increased by about 46% compared to the other 80% of cases. If you eliminate the cases where the shooter wasn't a "hardened killer", ie, no fatalities, <5 injured.... then that's about 16% of all cases and casualties per incident were 78% higher than the other 80% of cases control group.

That's a significant casualty premium we pay for having easy access to semi-auto rifles. In exchange for this, we have access to a weapon that is of limited use for hunting and is of limited use for self-defense. It's great fun for blasting away at tin cans and playing weekend warrior, though.

I don't see the price we pay as a society as being anywhere near the benefit we receive from them, and so I support efforts to restrict them. You're free to disagree and support the NRA and it's policies all you want and vote accordingly. You go your way, and I'll go mine and eventually things will get decided by Congress one way or the other. But in the meantime, semi-auto rifles are proliferating and becoming cheaper, and access to them is becoming easier. And mass shootings are becoming more common. Eventually enough is going to be enough and things will reach a breaking point.... unfortunately, though, that also means there are going to be more Sandy Hooks and more Parklands and more kids getting killed for nothing. I don't take any joy from that - and I hope I turn out to be wrong.... but I don't think I will be.

Frankly, this subject just depresses me... I know you guys get off talking about your guns and all else. That's fine if that's your thing. But to me, it's just an eight year-old girl with the back of her head blown out.

 

[Rucker61]

We've been over this in other, more appropriate forums, Rucker. I went through the FBI Active Shooter Study. Semi-Auto rifles are used in about 20% of active shooter incidents.... but those 20% of cases, casualties per incident increased by about 46% compared to the other 80% of cases. If you eliminate the cases where the shooter wasn't a "hardened killer", ie, no fatalities, <5 injured.... then that's about 16% of all cases and casualties per incident were 78% higher than the other 80% of cases control group.

That's a significant casualty premium we pay for having easy access to semi-auto rifles. In exchange for this, we have access to a weapon that is of limited use for hunting and is of limited use for self-defense. It's great fun for blasting away at tin cans and playing weekend warrior, though.

The actual numbers of dead are minuscule compared to any other form of homicide or death, and your opinion that the AR-15 is of limited use for hunting and self defense is without merit. It's just as useful as any other rifle for hunting and makes a great home defense weapon. It's great for blasting at cans, too. None of this makes any difference with regards to the firearm being in common use for lawful purposes.

I don't see the price we pay as a society as being anywhere near the benefit we receive from them, and so I support efforts to restrict them. You're free to disagree and support the NRA and it's policies all you want and vote accordingly. You go your way, and I'll go mine and eventually things will get decided by Congress one way or the other. But in the meantime, semi-auto rifles are proliferating and becoming cheaper, and access to them is becoming easier. And mass shootings are becoming more common. Eventually enough is going to be enough and things will reach a breaking point.... unfortunately, though, that also means there are going to be more Sandy Hooks and more Parklands and more kids getting killed for nothing. I don't take any joy from that - and I hope I turn out to be wrong.... but I don't think I will be.

Rights aren't subject to a cost/benefit analysis. The facts are that AR-15s used in mass shootings result in about an average 17 deaths per year since the end of the AWB, and 5 deaths per year since 1964. Interesting that you name Sandy Hook and Parkland, as those are the only two school mass shootings in 54 years where an AR-15 was used, but don't name Virginia Tech or Sante Fe High School where other weapons were used. That's 34 K-12 student victims of a mass shooting in a school where an AR-15 was used in fifty four years of student ownership. That's it.


If the number of dead mattered rather than the black scary rifle, handguns would have been banned long ago. No one could carry a knife. The driving age would have been raised to 19. Passengers in cars would be required to wear full NASCAR safety equipment.

Frankly, this subject just depresses me... I know you guys get off talking about your guns and all else. That's fine if that's your thing. But to me, it's just an eight year-old girl with the back of her head blown out.

I enjoy the discussion about our rights. More eight year old girls are killed by handguns than by AR-15s in mass shootings. In fact, there hasn't been a single 8 year old girl killed by someone with an AR-15 in a mass shooting in a school ever. In fact, since 1999, 28% more eight year old girls have been killed by non-firearm means than by guns.

 

[Cordelier]

The actual numbers of dead are minuscule compared to any other form of homicide or death, and your opinion that the AR-15 is of limited use for hunting and self defense is without merit. It's just as useful as any other rifle for hunting and makes a great home defense weapon. It's great for blasting at cans, too. None of this makes any difference with regards to the firearm being in common use for lawful purposes.



Rights aren't subject to a cost/benefit analysis. The facts are that AR-15s used in mass shootings result in about an average 17 deaths per year since the end of the AWB, and 5 deaths per year since 1964. Interesting that you name Sandy Hook and Parkland, as those are the only two school mass shootings in 54 years where an AR-15 was used, but don't name Virginia Tech or Sante Fe High School where other weapons were used. That's 34 K-12 student victims of a mass shooting in a school where an AR-15 was used in fifty four years of student ownership. That's it.


If the number of dead mattered rather than the black scary rifle, handguns would have been banned long ago. No one could carry a knife. The driving age would have been raised to 19. Passengers in cars would be required to wear full NASCAR safety equipment.



I enjoy the discussion about our rights. More eight year old girls are killed by handguns than by AR-15s in mass shootings. In fact, there hasn't been a single 8 year old girl killed by someone with an AR-15 in a mass shooting in a school ever. In fact, since 1999, 28% more eight year old girls have been killed by non-firearm means than by guns.

How many people were killed in '67 Corvairs or '78 Pintos? A relatively small number compared with the overall population of drivers, but we saw a problem with the design and we corrected it to save lives.

Same thing with fatal airplane crashes.... every time one happens, we investigate the crap out of it, find what caused it, and take actions to try it from happening again.

So why do we just keep shrugging our shoulders every time a mass shooting happens?

Enough is enough.