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

[RF667799]

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.

If the problem was AR15 rifles blowing up in people's faces, your analogy would work.

 

[pinqy]

No, an M-16 uses a gas piston.

Not the M16A1, nor the M16A2, nor the M4.

An AR-15 is in the M-16 class, but there are differences. The M-16 class is a misnomer, since an M-16 and an AR-15 have some differences. Both are based on the M-10, which Colt bought the patent to in the 1960's. M-16's were used beginning in Vietnam, but most of those have been replaced by the M-4.

The original M16 was replaced in the late 1970’s by the M16A1, and the A1 was replaced by the A2 in the mid 1980’s. I qualified on the A1 in basic training, and after that the A2 until the 2000’s

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

intelligent people understand that people who are willing to do that-and face the consequences for doing that-are the ones least likely to be deterred by gun bans. That you want to ban people from being able to own any semi auto rifle puts you in a very very extreme minority.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

'how many people are you willing to see killed if the government tried to ban every single semi auto rifle and demand current owners register them and pay 200 dollars and give them up for a year? and its people like you are really shrugging your shoulders-you pretend your punitive and stupid laws are doing something-we who understand the issue know better. banning guns is a cop out for those who actually do care about stopping violence

 

[TurtleDude]

If the problem was AR15 rifles blowing up in people's faces, your analogy would work.

exactly.

 

[pinqy]

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

Ok, and that’s how many out of how many? And how does that compare with total murders? 2 out of 10 active shooters out of 1,000 total murders is different from 10 out of 50 active shooters out of 100 total murders.

.... but those 20% of cases, casualties per incident increased by about 46% compared to the other 80% of cases.

The use of percentages distorts things if we don’t know the base numbers. 46% of 20 is much higher than 46% of five and an average of 7.2 compared to 5 isn’t much as opposed to averages of 20 and 29.2.

And use of averages can obscure things. It would be possible for every incident with non-semi-auto rifle to have greater casualties than all but one of the semi auto cases, and have the average in the semi auto cases higher.

That's a significant casualty premium we pay for having easy access to semi-auto rifles.

What’s the actual number? Your use of percentages obfuscates the actual impact.

I used to teach out of a book called “How to lie with statistics,” and you’re using some classic techniques such as a small change in lower numbers sound far more impressive if you put it in percentages, and careful choice if sample used.

In exchange for this, we have access to a weapon that is of limited use for hunting

Huh? How is a semi-auto in .22lr or .306 or 30-06 of more limited use than bolt action or lever action?

and is of limited use for self-defense.

Are you including semi auto pistols in that claim? If not, then semi-auto is not the relevant quality.

It's great fun for blasting away at tin cans and playing weekend warrior,

You haven’t checked the price of a lot of larger caliber rifle ammo, have you?

 

[marke]

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?

Devil Kelley shot multiple innocent people with an AR-15 and Stephen Willeford shot Devin Kelley with an AR-15. The gun was not good or evil, it was the men wielding the gun who were good or evil. Thank God Stephen Willeford was armed with an AR-15 at the time of the mass shooting.

 

[Wayne Jr]

AR-15's are part of the M-16 class of weapons, and just about as deadly. Only difference with an AR-15 is that it works by impingement.

If you had an M16, would you go shoot up a mall?

 

[Wayne Jr]

You missed my point.

No we got the point, you're just regurgitating the same false bull**** we've debunked a thousand times. Don't you have a free vaccination clinic to protest or some other flat-earth nonsense to attend to?

 

[Wayne Jr]

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

I'm pretty sure the "in common use" thing meant the military, not civilian purposes. Short-barreled shotguns, for example, were banned because they were not in common use by the **military** and thus weren't suitable militia weapons. I could be wrong and I welcome your quote of the relevant portion of the SCOTUS ruling you refer to here.

 

[pinqy]

I'm pretty sure the "in common use" thing meant the military, not civilian purposes. Short-barreled shotguns, for example, were banned because they were not in common use by the **military** and thus weren't suitable militia weapons. I could be wrong and I welcome your quote of the relevant portion of the SCOTUS ruling you refer to here.

That was the logic. But as a matter of fact, short-barreled shotguns were of common military use by the U.S. in WWI.

 

[apdst]

They are also the WORST of both worlds, in my opinion.
They are not steady to shoot like a rifle, too bulky for a pistol, and suspending them out there in the air with two hands at different points does not improve anything over a handgun.
Either get a handgun or get a rifle. Not some goofy inaccurate hybrid of both.
In my opinion at least.

I can point shoot handgun with one hand very quickly.. Try that with one of those monstrosities.
You do not have any of the advantages of a rifle or a handgun.

Slap a pistol brace on one and you can get all the accuracy out of it that it is capable of.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm pretty sure the "in common use" thing meant the military, not civilian purposes.

Why would you believe that, given that the Heller decision affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to the militia: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"? "Self defense within the home" is not a militia mission.

Short-barreled shotguns, for example, were banned because they were not in common use by the **military** and thus weren't suitable militia weapons. I could be wrong and I welcome your quote of the relevant portion of the SCOTUS ruling you refer to here.

That was the thought by SCOTUS, but as SBSs were in use by the military, they do have a suitable use for the militia, as do SBRs and suppressors. The NFA 1934 was nothing more than a power play by FDR, with no basis in reality.

 

[pinqy]

Slap a pistol brace on one and you can get all the accuracy out of it that it is capable of.

I would just pay the federal tax and get an SBR. To my mind, AR and AK pistols just show the pointlessness of much of the NFA.
And BATFE keeps changing the rules on braces, it’s hard to keep up.

 

[danarhea]

If you had an M16, would you go shoot up a mall?

Nope. I have an AR-15 now, and I do shoot up things.....;. Like deer. LOL.

 

[Rucker61]

If you had an M16, would you go shoot up a mall?

Me? I'd sell it and add to the college fund.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Why would you believe that given that the Heller decision affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to the militia:

We were talking about what kinds of arms can be owned, not who can own them. I said "in common use" means the types of guns that are protected by the 2A for civilian ownership are arms that are 'in common use' by the military, not 'in common use' by civilians.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons"."

 

[Wayne Jr]

Me? I'd sell it and add to the college fund.

I'd probably do the same thing, student loan debt is a bitch!

So if you had an M16 and did something perfectly lawful and peaceful with it, like sell it, and you don't go shoot up a mall, obviously the M16 isn't the problem.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Nope. I have an AR-15 now, and I do shoot up things.....;. Like deer. LOL.

So you have an AR and aren't shooting up schools and malls. That means the rifle isn't the problem.

 

[Rucker61]

We were talking about what kinds of arms can be owned, not who can own them. I said "in common use" means the types of guns that are protected by the 2A for civilian ownership are arms that are 'in common use' by the military, not 'in common use' by civilians.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons"."

Scalia further explains in dicta:

"The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense." Self defense is not a militia-limited task.

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns". Not all law abiding citizens are in the militia, nor are they weapons they use for lawful purposes typically used by the militia.

"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”" No militia reference.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

If your opinion the correct viewpoint, NFA 1934 would have to be overturned. There are few types of weapons currently owned by civilians that aren't in common use by the military.

 

[danarhea]

So you have an AR and aren't shooting up schools and malls. That means the rifle isn't the problem.

I never said it was.

 

[PleasantValley]

Slap a pistol brace on one and you can get all the accuracy out of it that it is capable of.

I don't doubt that one bit.
but if we are talking accurate shooting, I would prefer a three point support with forearm, pistol grip and shoulder/cheek weld.
...but that is just me. I know I can get hits with that kind of support.

Now you have just added another required piece of hardware to the system.

For myself, I prefer a good carbine and or handgun if i want portable firepower.
Only hits count.
If I am shooting inside of 30 yards, I don't need any kind of brace to make quick, fast hits on man sized targets with my CZ.
Then from point blank out to about 300 I am very comfortable with a carbine.
Between 300 and 500 I am shooting to keep their heads down.
Beyond 500 I am running away like a scared little girl with my skirt up for extra speed.
No Rambo here. Just a man that knows his limitations and strengths.

I like very much getting quick and accurate shots with a carbine using all three points for support.

 

[Rucker61]

I don't doubt that one bit.
but if we are talking accurate shooting, I would prefer a three point support with forearm, pistol grip and shoulder/cheek weld.
...but that is just me. I know I can get hits with that kind of support.

I get the same 3 point support with pistol brace, angled foregrip and shoulder/cheek weld.

Now you have just added another required piece of hardware to the system.

Not sure what you mean here.

For myself, I prefer a good carbine and or handgun if i want portable firepower.
Only hits count.
If I am shooting inside of 30 yards, I don't need any kind of brace to make quick, fast hits on man sized targets with my CZ.
Then from point blank out to about 300 I am very comfortable with a carbine.
Between 300 and 500 I am shooting to keep their heads down.
Beyond 500 I am running away like a scared little girl with my skirt up for extra speed.
No Rambo here. Just a man that knows his limitations and strengths.

I like very much getting quick and accurate shots with a carbine using all three points for support.

You can do that with an AR pistol.

 

[PleasantValley]

I get the same 3 point support with pistol brace, angled foregrip and shoulder/cheek weld.



Not sure what you mean here.



You can do that with an AR pistol.

We could go round and round all day about this.
I do not like those types of "pistols" and you can not convince me otherwise.

 

[Rucker61]

We could go round and round all day about this.
I do not like those types of "pistols" and you can not convince me otherwise.

Correct, I cannot make you like them.