What makes the M4/M16 type rifles more deadly besides the select fire trigger?

[RedRover]

What 2A supporters fail to understand (because the NRA has been marketing against this idea for 30 years) is that all rights under the Constitution are regulated.

The Bill of Rights doesn't apply restrictions/regulations to the rights of citizens. The Bill of Rights sets restrictions and limits the power of the government to infringe on those rights.

A strong case could be made (and has been made) that the NFA, the GCA et al. are indeed unconstitutional.

This argument that "One can't yell fire in a crowded theater" (as an example of restrictions on free speech) equating to one not being allowed to keep and bear certain kinds of arms is non sequitur.

For years the M24 served as the primary-issued military sniper rifle. Its serving a military purpose had no (nor should it have any) bearing on whether or not a civilian ought to be allowed to own a Rem 700.

Simply labeling a firearm a "weapon of war" has no relevancy on whether or not the right of a civilian to possess one may be infringed upon.

 

[Gunner3456]

Gun grabbers don't care about people who are murdered. They just don't like it that they can't control people who have guns.

 

[Gunner3456]

I have read that the military versions are somewhat less accurate than the AR-15 because the select fire dictates a chrome-lined barrel.

Comments?

 

[RVTECH]

Its serving a military purpose had no (nor should it have any) bearing on whether or not a civilian ought to be allowed to own a Rem 700.

And you are right but there has never been an issue with the antis about a Rem 700 being a 'weapon of war' because for one, the M24 was not a rifle that had anywhere near the issue numbers the M-16 did, and two, even if it had it's appearance was not particularly indifferent from that of a very common bolt action sporting rifle already in long term use so even if the M24 had a greater military presence it's unlikely a comparison would have been made.

The AR 15 was introduced essentially at the same time at the M-16 became the primary issue weapon for the Military so it has always been equated as a 'weapon of war' on appearance only - and this is one of the reasons why an 'argument' as to the AR-15 NOT being a 'weapon of war' is almost a moot point and is really a waste of time and breath.

If short barreled, pistol grip rifles had been in common, civilian use as long as bolt action rifles had prior to becoming a military weapon we may not be having this conversation but it is not the case.

The antis are typically inexperienced with firearms, are very narrow minded and when it comes to guns they are simply not going to listen to any rational or reason - let alone something as basic as operational differences such as semi auto / full auto as a defining factor between guns that are basically the same in appearance as a well known, 'weapon of war'.

 

[mhayd93]

You are switching back and forth between arguments. The point was that low capacity mags appear to create opportunities to stop murderers, not whether or not they have full auto. I already made the point that full auto has no real advantage to a murderer. Your insistence that a small group of people can perform as well with low cap mags doesn't change the obvious fact that the majority of people will perform better without having to reload as often.

Nor does it change the fact that the majority of murderers will be more effective with more effective ammunition.



This is patently untrue. An expert with a revolver is not going to be as dangerous as an amateur with submachinegun in a crowded room. Ever hear about bringing a knife to a gunfight? That's advice from our side of the room.

I suggest you read the first couple paragraphs in this article about the Manurhin MR73 Revolver that GIGN used to carry. This is literally an example of "expert with revolver vs amateurs with fully-automatic weaponry."

 

[RX-79G]

This argument that "One can't yell fire in a crowded theater" (as an example of restrictions on free speech) equating to one not being allowed to keep and bear certain kinds of arms is non sequitur.

We dont have to change Amendments to illustrate that at no time in US history was every person allowed to be armed. We have ALWAYS restricted access to weapons by prisoners or the insane. Are they not People?

Simply labeling a firearm a "weapon of war" has no relevancy on whether or not the right of a civilian to possess one may be infringed upon.

I agree. So why participate in such a ridiculous assertion by arguing that an AR15 is not a weapon of war? 2A is to preserve such weapons, not to pretend they don't exist.

All I've been saying is that they are more like military arms than not, and it is not a convincing argument to pretend otherwise when talking to some people but swear otherwise to ourselves.

I suggest you read the first couple paragraphs in this article about the Manurhin MR73 Revolver that GIGN used to carry. This is literally an example of "expert with revolver vs amateurs with fully-automatic weaponry."

You misunderstand. The contest is not between which would win; GIGN vs amateur terrorist. It is a question of who would slaughter the most unarmed innocents.

 

[nwslopoke]

Which has little to do with whether the average American fairly evaluates those differences as making an AR15 not a military weapon. The military shoots semiauto all the time. It works really well.

Which is why it is a poor debate point to try to make. It just sounds like a silly technicality rather than a night and day difference between military and civilian rifles.

You actually ignored the part about military specification, which makes it a military approved weapon. Then to add the technical aspect is a technicality? Talk about a weak point.

 

[RX-79G]

You actually ignored the part about military specification, which makes it a military approved weapon. Then to add the technical aspect is a technicality? Talk about a weak point.

Pretend this is something you don't care about. If I show you two cans of beans and claim that one of them is marked kosher and the other not, would they stop being beans? That is what the people outside of the debate see. They are the ones you have to convince, and technicalities are not convincing.

 

[mhayd93]

We dont have to change Amendments to illustrate that at no time in US history was every person allowed to be armed. We have ALWAYS restricted access to weapons by prisoners or the insane. Are they not People?


I agree. So why participate in such a ridiculous assertion by arguing that an AR15 is not a weapon of war? 2A is to preserve such weapons, not to pretend they don't exist.

All I've been saying is that they are more like military arms than not, and it is not a convincing argument to pretend otherwise when talking to some people but swear otherwise to ourselves.


You misunderstand. The contest is not between which would win; GIGN vs amateur terrorist. It is a question of who would slaughter the most unarmed innocents.

I think the story I posted serves as a good counterpoint to your assertion that an untrained individual with more firepower is automatically more deadly than an expert with less firepower.

Using a 6-shot revolver, the GIGN Captain incapacitated 3 terrorists (and it isn't clear if he even used all 6 shots). Even if he did, that is a 50% success rate. Using the Newtown shooting for comparison, Adam Lanza fired around 150 rounds over the course of 5 minutes, ultimately killing 26 individuals. That comes out to a 17% "success" rate.

The GIGN captain was far more efficient and lethal on a round for round basis, and that was with terrorists shooting back at him and hostages to worry about. Putting this same individual in a scenario like Newtown, and I have no doubt he would achieve the same kill-count (or more) in 5 minutes with his 6-shot revolver.

 

[RVTECH]

All I've been saying is that they are more like military arms than not, and it is not a convincing argument to pretend otherwise when talking to some people but swear otherwise to ourselves.

Literally the best explanation of why the antis will NEVER be convinced of this.

This is akin to trying to convince the ATF the RBT 'still takes a single pull to fire a shot each time'.

 

[RX-79G]

I think the story I posted serves as a good counterpoint to your assertion that an untrained individual with more firepower is automatically more deadly than an expert with less firepower.

Using a 6-shot revolver, the GIGN Captain incapacitated 3 terrorists (and it isn't clear if he even used all 6 shots). Even if he did, that is a 50% success rate. Using the Newtown shooting for comparison, Adam Lanza fired around 150 rounds over the course of 5 minutes, ultimately killing 26 individuals. That comes out to a 17% "success" rate.

The GIGN captain was far more efficient and lethal on a round for round basis, and that was with terrorists shooting back at him and hostages to worry about. Putting this same individual in a scenario like Newtown, and I have no doubt he would achieve the same kill-count (or more) in 5 minutes with his 6-shot revolver.

The problem with this is that the kind of person who becomes an expert with a revolver is much less likely to decide to kill a room full of children. In the end, the GIGN Captain killed zero chilren, Lanza 26.

 

[mhayd93]

The problem with this is that the kind of person who becomes an expert with a revolver is much less likely to decide to kill a room full of children. In the end, the GIGN Captain killed zero chilren, Lanza 26.

Just a reminder of your original statement I had replied to:

"This is patently untrue. An expert with a revolver is not going to be as dangerous as an amateur with submachinegun in a crowded room. Ever hear about bringing a knife to a gunfight? That's advice from our side of the room."

You are deviating from your core statement.

 

[RX-79G]

Just a reminder of your original statement I had replied to:

"This is patently untrue. An expert with a revolver is not going to be as dangerous as an amateur with submachinegun in a crowded room. Ever hear about bringing a knife to a gunfight? That's advice from our side of the room."

You are deviating from your core statement.

Because you brought up an irrelevancy. The GIGN guy will kill maybe six before he has to reload. The moron with the big magazine will kill many more in the same crowded room.

 

[mhayd93]

Because you brought up an irrelevancy. The GIGN guy will kill maybe six before he has to reload. The moron with the big magazine will kill many more in the same crowded room.

No, I brought up a real life example that literally contradicted your assertion. An expert with a revolver was undeniably more lethal than an untrained person with a fully automatic firearm. Also, how does reloading matter? Lethality is a measure of successful shots on target, not volume of shots at a target.

I don't disagree that a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine has the potential to be more effective, I only contend your claim that it is inherently more lethal; so much so that (according to you) it automatically makes an untrained shooter more deadly than a highly trained shooter with a firearm of lesser capacity.

 

[monkeybutler]

\What we need is not some unlikely legal argument that flies in the face of established precedent (weapons have never been completely unregulated), but a public opinion win that leads politicians of both parties (you know who you are; Nixon, Reagan, Bush) to leave well enough alone - because the repercussions of broad bans will be worse for the country, not better.

This is smartest and most pragmatic thing I have read in this thread so far.

 

[RX-79G]

No, I brought up a real life example that literally contradicted your assertion. An expert with a revolver was undeniably more lethal than an untrained person with a fully automatic firearm. Also, how does reloading matter? Lethality is a measure of successful shots on target, not volume of shots at a target.

I don't disagree that a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine has the potential to be more effective, I only contend your claim that it is inherently more lethal; so much so that (according to you) it automatically makes an untrained shooter more deadly than a highly trained shooter with a firearm of lesser capacity.

This is monkey shines. The only pertinent measure is how many people end up dead for the nightly news to report on. We are discussing why many people associate large capacity magazines with mass murder, not whether a ninja can catch an arrow in flight.

Lethality is whatever metric you want to set, but the one we're talking about is how many people a single crazy person can kill before he is stopped. What is really ridiculous is that you know the GIGN guy would be that much more dangerous with the AR than the revolver for the same reason the nutjob is.

 

[RedRover]

I agree. So why participate in such a ridiculous assertion by arguing that an AR15 is not a weapon of war? 2A is to preserve such weapons, not to pretend they don't exist.

All I've been saying is that they are more like military arms than not, and it is not a convincing argument to pretend otherwise when talking to some people but swear otherwise to ourselves.

I believe that I understand your pretext here concerning the semantics of "What is in a name/designation?", and that the 2A does preserve such weapons.

I think the point is -- In conveying the AR-15 as not being a "weapon of war" -- Is that, since its inception, (the semi-auto version) has been marketed to only the civilian population. As such, being the most popular (type of) semi-auto rifle in America; under present interpretation of the constitution and established law; its ownership ought to be protected due to having a long history of being in common use by the civilian public. Whereas, typically, those types of arms designated as "weapons of war"(AKA real Assault Weapons), (justified or not) have become more and more restricted for civilian ownership.

It is a result of the goal posts having been shifted further and further by the antis, in turn causing pro 2A supporters having to establish new trenches to thwart further restrictions.

If the anti line is to refer to AR-15s as "Assault Weapons" and "Weapons of War", and that is why they need to be banned or further restricted.... Of course the natural response is to state that:

1. AR-15s aren't 'Assault Weapons' by the true definition of the term (as they are not as effective at suppressive fire as machine guns).

2. As far as I understand it, no military in the world has ever issued semi-auto AR-15s to their troops.

So the anti's attempts to designate AR-15s as "Assault Weapons" and "Weapons of War" is wholly incorrect.

 

[RX-79G]

I believe that I understand your pretext here concerning the semantics of "What is in a name/designation?", and that the 2A does preserve such weapons.

I think the point is -- In conveying the AR-15 as not being a "weapon of war" -- Is that, since its inception, (the semi-auto version) has been marketed to only the civilian population. As such, being the most popular (type of) semi-auto rifle in America; under present interpretation of the constitution and established law; its ownership ought to be protected due to having a long history of being in common use by the civilian public. Whereas, typically, those types of arms designated as "weapons of war"(AKA real Assault Weapons), (justified or not) have become more and more restricted for civilian ownership.

It is a result of the goal posts having been shifted further and further by the antis, in turn causing pro 2A supporters having to establish new trenches to thwart further restrictions.

If the anti line is to refer to AR-15s as "Assault Weapons" and "Weapons of War", and that is why they need to be banned or further restricted.... Of course the natural response is to state that:

1. AR-15s aren't 'Assault Weapons' by the true definition of the term (as they are not as effective at suppressive fire as machine guns).

2. As far as I understand it, no military in the world has ever issued semi-auto AR-15s to their troops.

So the anti's attempts to designate AR-15s as "Assault Weapons" and "Weapons of War" is wholly incorrect.

I don't think that argument really works. The AR15 was designed and intended to be a select-fire weapon. The fact that the FA function is blocked doesn't transform it into a new weapon, anymore than taking M14 parts and mounting them in an M1A receiver does. But giving civilians war guns has never been an issue - CMP still exists to do exactly that. Garands, Carbines, 1911s, etc have been sold at a discount to citizens for 118 years.

And from a global perspective, many militaries issue semiauto versions of their military rifles to reservists. That both demonstrates that idea, and bolsters the fact that the US Unorganized Militia ought to have a similar weapon(s).

 

[RedRover]

I don't think that argument really works. The AR15 was designed and intended to be a select-fire weapon. The fact that the FA function is blocked doesn't transform it into a new weapon, anymore than taking M14 parts and mounting them in an M1A receiver does. But giving civilians war guns has never been an issue - CMP still exists to do exactly that. Garands, Carbines, 1911s, etc have been sold at a discount to citizens for 118 years.

And from a global perspective, many militaries issue semiauto versions of their military rifles to reservists. That both demonstrates that idea, and bolsters the fact that the US Unorganized Militia ought to have a similar weapon(s).

When it comes to the established definition of a 'machine-gun' and an 'assault-rifle', the functions of the rifle very much come into play.

To somehow redefine semi-auto rifles as 'assault rifles' and 'weapons of war' is fundamentally incorrect. There is no argument here. There is no opinion to be had. There is a very clear distinction between a select-fire weapon and one that is semi-auto.

When it comes to putting new restrictions on semi-auto rifles (a la adding them to the NFA), this cannot and shall not be done until the definition of a 'machine gun' and what constitutes an 'assault weapon' is changed by an act of congress, signed into law by the POTUS, and potentially upheld by the SCOTUS.

 

[American123]

Not at all. Machinegun regulation started because of criminal mass shootings and public revulsion to them. Not as a result of some carefully constructed legal argument.


What 2A supporters fail to understand (because the NRA has been marketing against this idea for 30 years) is that all rights under the Constitution are regulated. What we need is not some unlikely legal argument that flies in the face of established precedent (weapons have never been completely unregulated), but a public opinion win that leads politicians of both parties (you know who you are; Nixon, Reagan, Bush) to leave well enough alone - because the repercussions of broad bans will be worse for the country, not better.

The irony of crafting laws to stop crime that ignores the laws already and will continue to ignore them after those laws were put into place.

I perceive the intent of NFA had nothing to do with ACTUALLY stopping criminals, but as just an opportunity to restrict the general populace's access to those items, otherwise, why would they have made it an option to pay $200 to buy those items, which at the time, kept all but the ridiculously wealthy (which included mobsters) from buying them legally if they wished.