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

[mhayd93]

When you correct some guy on the internet for saying Weapon of War, you are not engaging the legal system.

The fence sitters are being reached out to, just not with anything that is logical or convincing.

"Logical" and "convincing" are in the eye of the beholder, hence the existence of numerous differences in political, ideological, and cultural beliefs across the country.

I have engaged with anti-gun people before and presented what most people would consider logical arguments (statistics on gun control not working, the Constitution, the benefits of firearms, etc…) to no avail. Being logical with illogical people typically produces little results.

 

[titsonritz]

"Logical" and "convincing" are in the eye of the beholder, hence the existence of numerous differences in political, ideological, and cultural beliefs across the country.

I have engaged with anti-gun people before and presented what most people would consider logical arguments (statistics on gun control not working, the Constitution, the benefits of firearms, etc…) to no avail. Being logical with illogical people typically produces little results.

That's because it is all about "feels".

 

[RVTECH]

I have engaged with anti-gun people before and presented what most people would consider logical arguments (statistics on gun control not working, the Constitution, the benefits of firearms, etc…) to no avail. Being logical with illogical people typically produces little results.

Try this with someone who is ultra lib/left with nearly everything else however is not entirely anti gun but has very 'skewed' ideas and opinions about certain aspects of gun control.

It would almost be easier if this person were completely anti-gun. The contradictions of his own arguments and opinions are mind boggling.

 

[The B]

I did once "win" an internet argument on gun control. The guy i was debating with genuinely didnt know the true stats on gun control vs. gun crime, and lo and behold, to his credit, confronted with some of these un-spun stats (namely that "gun deaths" includes suicides, at half or more of the total), he totally backed off his position and said he was going to be doing some reconsidering..

never seen anything like it

but it happens, apparently.

 

[Hueco]

That's because it is all about "feels".

Of course it is - if you're not emotionally invested then nothing changes - that's true of all humans. Why do you think the best arguments or cases you've ever heard wrap a statistical truth inside of a compelling case study? Because you can't connect with a statistic.

Really tired of seeing this "we're logical and your emotional so you're wrong" mentality. 1) it's not getting us anywhere and 2) it's flat wrong.

 

[RVTECH]

I did once "win" an internet argument on gun control.

Not exactly a 'win' but I have often had to clear up some antis and those who just simply did not know any better on the 'basics' - IE there is no 'registration' , licenses needed (other than CCP & other state requirements) and the BIGGEE - how so many simply believe a gun is ILLEGAL to display in public (such as OC) and some other things as well.

 

[mhayd93]

Of course it is - if you're not emotionally invested then nothing changes - that's true of all humans. Why do you think the best arguments or cases you've ever heard wrap a statistical truth inside of a compelling case study? Because you can't connect with a statistic.

Really tired of seeing this "we're logical and your emotional so you're wrong" mentality. 1) it's not getting us anywhere and 2) it's flat wrong.

This sentiment definitely exists, but I think you are reading a lot into "it's all about the feels."

 

[RX-79G]

"Logical" and "convincing" are in the eye of the beholder, hence the existence of numerous differences in political, ideological, and cultural beliefs across the country.

I have engaged with anti-gun people before and presented what most people would consider logical arguments (statistics on gun control not working, the Constitution, the benefits of firearms, etc…) to no avail. Being logical with illogical people typically produces little results.

I can tell you as a gun person, the stuff ideas put on display in this thread aren't even consistent with themselves. But the central problem 2a rights people have is their tendency to assert an absolute right - as if that is a legal concept. From there a lot of the rhetoric also sounds like belief rather than doctrine.

On this topic, ARs are either a great choice for the Unorganized Militia, or they are absolutely not Weapons of War. They can't really be both.

 

[mhayd93]

I can tell you as a gun person, the stuff ideas put on display in this thread aren't even consistent with themselves. But the central problem 2a rights people have is their tendency to assert an absolute right - as if that is a legal concept. From there a lot of the rhetoric also sounds like belief rather than doctrine.

On this topic, ARs are either a great choice for the Unorganized Militia, or they are absolutely not Weapons of War. They can't really be both.

Ah, you finally reveal your true colors; one of those "it's the fault of 2A supporters that people want to take guns away."

Also, our entire government is founded on the principles of certain inalienable (or absolute) rights. The right to bear arms falls into that category, thus why it got its very own amendment in the Bill of Rights. So, no, there is no central "problem" among those who defend the Second Amendment from that angle. If you don't believe in absolute rights being a legal concept, I suggest you study American history a little more.

 

[RX-79G]

Ah, you finally reveal your true colors; one of those "it's the fault of 2A supporters that people want to take guns away."

Also, our entire government is founded on the principles of certain inalienable (or absolute) rights. The right to bear arms falls into that category, thus why it got its very own amendment in the Bill of Rights. So, no, there is no central "problem" among those who defend the Second Amendment from that angle. If you don't believe in absolute rights being a legal concept, I suggest you study American history a little more.

You reveal your true colors as someone who can't read.

Didn't say anything remotely like that. What I have said is that we need better tactics, because a second Trump election has demonstrated that preaching to the choir is totally ineffective. A fervent minority is still a minority.

Inalienable is different than absolute. Again, reading. A right that can't be taken away can still have limits - including all the ones that you already support - like disarming criminals.

 

[mhayd93]

You reveal your true colors as someone who can't read.

Didn't say anything remotely like that. What I have said is that we need better tactics, because a second Trump election has demonstrated that preaching to the choir is totally ineffective. A fervent minority is still a minority.

Inalienable is different than absolute. Again, reading. A right that can't be taken away can still have limits - including all the ones that you already support - like disarming criminals.

Haha you have demonstrated yourself as having very poor reading comprehension (either that or you like being ignorant for the sake of playing devil's advocate). Proof: you accuse me of supporting disarming criminals yet I have never brought that up at any point during this conversation.

Inalienable and absolute are literally synonymous with one another, please do your best to read (and comprehend) this definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inalienable

Make sure you check out the synonyms as well on that page. If you need help with comprehending it, just let me know

At the end of the day, you do what you feel is right in fighting for the Second Amendment, and I will fight it my way. I know I stand against any and all restrictions, and it seems as though you feel the same way. With that common ground, I am leaving this thread!

 

[RedRover]

Words matter in the scope of public opinion.

The term 'assault' generally has a negative connotation in our society; often associated with a crime such as: 'Assault & Battery', 'Aggravated Assault' or 'Sexual Assault'. It is thought of as being perpetrated by an aggressor, and it is considered as an offensive action.

While an assault may be committed with the use of a rifle, there really is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'(despite the erroneous legal defined term). The 'assault' is the intention of the person utilizing the rifle.

A hammer is a tool designed to drive nails.. A baseball bat designed to hit baseballs.. A tire-iron to mount/dismount tires. At the point that they are used as offensive weapons, do they suddenly change designation to: 'Assault hammers', 'Assault bats', and 'Assault tire-irons'?

My rifle(s) and pistols choose to identify as 'self-defense weapons'. None of them by themselves have ever gone out on their own and committed 'assault'.

The 2A protects the right to 'self-defense'. As long as antis are able to dictate the narrative away from 'self-defense' to 'assault', they will be able to justify their goal of disarming Americans to those that are ignorant about firearms.

This is why it is necessary to steer the conversation to 'self-defense'. Whenever I've had conversations with anti-gunners (or even those indifferent), I often bring up the question: "What would you do if someone broke into your house, looking to do you harm? What would be your plan? Hide somewhere, call 9-11 and hope that the police arrive before the intruders find you?" It often leads to the follow up adage: "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away".

Some have answered akin to: "Well, I do have a pump-action shotgun (or a .22 revolver) in my bedroom closet, left to me by my grandpa when he passed". "So yeah, I can see the potential need to have something for self-defense". Often these same people then state: "But then, I don't see why anyone would need an assault rifle when a shotgun is enough". I then ask, "What about multiple attackers? What about having the most effective tool available for one's self-defense and that of one's family?"

When the conversation sticks with 'self-defense' and away from 'assault', often I can tell that the light starts getting turned on and as the mind is getting won over, the heart is too.

 

[RX-79G]

Haha you have demonstrated yourself as having very poor reading comprehension (either that or you like being ignorant for the sake of playing devil's advocate). Proof: you accuse me of supporting disarming criminals yet I have never brought that up at any point during this conversation.

Inalienable and absolute are literally synonymous with one another, please do your best to read (and comprehend) this definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inalienable

Make sure you check out the synonyms as well on that page. If you need help with comprehending it, just let me know

At the end of the day, you do what you feel is right in fighting for the Second Amendment, and I will fight it my way. I know I stand against any and all restrictions, and it seems as though you feel the same way. With that common ground, I am leaving this thread!

Inalienable means cant be taken away, which is similar, but different from absolute which implies that it has an overriding authority in virtually all situations. Try arguing that with an MRI machine.

And you didn't say that you support arming people in jail, but since no one does I presumed you didn't as well. That presumption is my own, and has nothing to do with literacy.

 

[Babalugats]

I often hear the gun grabbers say we don't need military style weapons in civilians hands. The firearm supporters often fire back saying the AR15 is not a military style weapon. Besides the select fire trigger system of the M4/M16, what would make a higher end AR15 less capable than an M4/M16? It seems to me that we can get higher quality and more accurate barrels for our AR15s compared to the typical M4/M16 barrels. Wouldn't improved accuracy give us a more capable firearm especially at farther distances.

The M16A1 that I humped in my youth, in the good old Marine Corps, is a far more robust rifle, built with much more tighter specs, as for accuracy, I shot sharpshooter x3 expert x2 and marksman in boot..I
could put 7/10 rounds into my man sized target at 500 yards, all with the iron sites. It was a very fine rifle( the trigger could have been better) I see modern Marines today with lasers/optics folding stocks the DI's all kissy kissy and yet they are still walking around with a pizza box on their chucks, and they no longer have to qual at 500 yards..its all about sight alignment and trigger pull...SEMPER FI

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Not sure about the idea / term of "more deadly".
Dead is dead...no matter if one is made dead from a rock , club , spear , arrow , round ball , bullet etc...

In my experiences from combat the select fire options on the M16 series of rifles / carbines were useful for specific purposes , but not the end all , be all of shooting.

The willingness to kill , can however , have someone be "more deadly"....

But a M4/M16 , AR15 or a flintlock rifle...is just a rifle.
None is more deadly than the other.
Andy

 

[The B]

Not sure about the idea / term of "more deadly".
Dead is dead...no matter if one is made dead from a rock , club , spear , arrow , round ball , bullet etc...

In my experiences from combat the select fire options on the M16 series of rifles / carbines were useful for specific purposes , but not the end all , be all of shooting.

The willingness to kill , can however , have someone be "more deadly"....

But a M4/M16 , AR15 or a flintlock rifle...is just a rifle.
None is more deadly than the other.
Andy

great example of the disingenuous arguments that make us look like we're either lying or stupid. whatever point you're trying to make, there isn't anyone in this thread or on this planet that wouldn't agree you can do a hell of a lot more killing with an AR than a flintlock

the AR is, irrefutably, "more deadly." subjective phrase, sure... shall we quantify "more deadly" some? all-else-equal:

~how many more people can I shoot with an AR than a flintlock in *any* specified time longer than about 1 second? infinitely more
~how much more damage are my rounds going to do with an AR than a flintlock? cavitation, yaw, fragmentation and 3200fps vs. a lead ball lodging in a body at ... what? 700fps? and 5.56 zips through barriers and armor - im guessing any flintlock can't even get through heavy vegetation and still be expected to kill

but all-else-not-equal: a child can pick up an AR and kill, but if you handed me, a decently proficient markman, a flintlock, i would probably need at least some kind of instruction to figure out how to load, cock, and fire the thing... and using it effectively in any kind of combat/against people...? not even happening.

nah, dawg.. im sorry.. ARs are way "deadlier" than flintlocks, or most other guns in the safe. in fact im not sure more overall kill-power exists in any small arm. some may match, but when you factor in maneuverability, ease of use, low recoil/muzzle rise, highly lethal rounds, etc, etc... it's pretty much the ultimate small arm.

take any given person and hand them a pile of different guns and let them loose in any human-filled environment and they WILL be more effective at killing with an AR than with many, many, many other guns.

and this is plainly obvious to the average voter, who can smell bullship. so can we just be honest?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

great example of the disingenuous arguments that make us look like we're either lying or stupid. whatever point you're trying to make, there isn't anyone in this thread or on this planet that wouldn't agree you can do a hell of a lot more killing with an AR than a flintlock

the AR is, irrefutably, "more deadly." subjective phrase, sure... shall we quantify "more deadly" some? all-else-equal:

~how many more people can I shoot with an AR than a flintlock in *any* specified time longer than about 1 second? infinitely more
~how much more damage are my rounds going to do with an AR than a flintlock? cavitation, yaw, fragmentation and 3200fps vs. a lead ball lodging in a body at ... what? 700fps? and 5.56 zips through barriers and armor - im guessing any flintlock can't even get through heavy vegetation and still be expected to kill

but all-else-not-equal: a child can pick up an AR and kill, but if you handed me, a decently proficient markman, a flintlock, i would probably need at least some kind of instruction to figure out how to load, cock, and fire the thing... and using it effectively in any kind of combat/against people...? not even happening.

nah, dawg.. im sorry.. ARs are way "deadlier" than flintlocks, or most other guns in the safe. in fact im not sure more overall kill-power exists in any small arm. some may match, but when you factor in maneuverability, ease of use, low recoil/muzzle rise, highly lethal rounds, etc, etc... it's pretty much the ultimate small arm.

take any given person and hand them a pile of different guns and let them loose in any human-filled environment and they WILL be more effective at killing with an AR than with many, many, many other guns.

and this is plainly obvious to the average voter, who can smell bullship. so can we just be honest?

I disagree and stand by my statement.

In any event....
My main point to be more clear here is :

No item of any kind is "more deadly" than another.
Dead is dead...one can not be more dead.

The willingness to kill , is what makes a person "more deadly"...
If one is willing to kill then one is deadly...if one is not willing to kill...then one is not deadly...no matter what item is on hand.
Andy

Edit it add:
My point of view is that it ain't about the so called weapon....
Because nothing , not one item , is "more deadly" than another...its the person who is deadly or not.

 

[RVTECH]

The willingness to kill , is what makes a person "more deadly"...

This is no doubt true however the thread was about the 'weapon' quotient and not the 'human' or person aspect.

 

[CountryGent]

It is My understanding that no one has ever been murdered with a registered MG. There was a self defense case.

I'm aware of at least two cases of justified self-defense incidents involving one ore more duly registered machine-guns. The one with the most documentation is Gary McFadden's incident with an AC-556.

There are two cases in which a duly registered machine-gun were used in a homicide. The most well known example was a Patrolman Roger Waller who blew away a police informant with a Mac-11 registered to him, not his department. The other one I've been unable to find as much detail, but it appears it was a medical doctor who came home from the range and found his wife being taken to Pound Town by a friend; crime of passion quickly followed.

 

[RedRover]

great example of the disingenuous arguments that make us look like we're either lying or stupid. whatever point you're trying to make, there isn't anyone in this thread or on this planet that wouldn't agree you can do a hell of a lot more killing with an AR than a flintlock

the AR is, irrefutably, "more deadly." subjective phrase, sure... shall we quantify "more deadly" some? all-else-equal:

~how many more people can I shoot with an AR than a flintlock in *any* specified time longer than about 1 second? infinitely more
~how much more damage are my rounds going to do with an AR than a flintlock? cavitation, yaw, fragmentation and 3200fps vs. a lead ball lodging in a body at ... what? 700fps? and 5.56 zips through barriers and armor - im guessing any flintlock can't even get through heavy vegetation and still be expected to kill

but all-else-not-equal: a child can pick up an AR and kill, but if you handed me, a decently proficient markman, a flintlock, i would probably need at least some kind of instruction to figure out how to load, cock, and fire the thing... and using it effectively in any kind of combat/against people...? not even happening.

nah, dawg.. im sorry.. ARs are way "deadlier" than flintlocks, or most other guns in the safe. in fact im not sure more overall kill-power exists in any small arm. some may match, but when you factor in maneuverability, ease of use, low recoil/muzzle rise, highly lethal rounds, etc, etc... it's pretty much the ultimate small arm.

take any given person and hand them a pile of different guns and let them loose in any human-filled environment and they WILL be more effective at killing with an AR than with many, many, many other guns.

and this is plainly obvious to the average voter, who can smell bullship. so can we just be honest?

Two separate groups of 10 riflemen are sitting stationary in parallel lines 900 yards apart from each other on flat ground w/ no cover. One group is armed with AR15s chambered in 5.56x45/.223 (55gr). The other group is armed with bolt-action rifles w/ 26" bull-barrels chambered in 7.62x51/.308 (168gr).

If the two groups are firing upon each other... Which group of rifleman is going to more deadly?