Designed to kill

I've said before that the 2nd Amend. is based on the lethal use of guns. There is no way around that.

They are not tools or sporting implements to garner constitutional protection.
 
Air Land Battle Doctrine...

When I was on active duty in the US Army as a lower-enlisted(E-1 to E-4), we(our basic training class/plt & advanced course) were taught to "shoot to wound" or cause the enemy in combat to tie up 3 soldiers on the "battlefield"( the wounded enemy + 2 "battle buddies").:rolleyes:
This seemed hard to swallow way back then & even today in the GWOT it's even more difficult to understand.
As posted in other topics(see LTC Dave Grossman's On Killing On Combat) & the non fiction books; One Perfect Op & American Sniper(by former SEAL Chris Kyle), US troops are bound by US law(s), Articles of War, RoEs(rules of engagement), the Hague Accords, the UCMJ and other factors.
US small arms are not ideal weapon platforms compared to artillery, armor, bombs, Navy ships, etc.
Combat troops(outside of spec ops or maybe snipers in some conditions) do not need to kill. They want to have successful(aka: Zulu 7) outcomes to missions.
The Army(DA's) Judge Advocate General mandates legal issues & the UCMJ.
Their main center & school is in Charlottesville VA(on the UVA campus).

ClydeFrog
 
One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible
Click to expand...

I will start by saying that in have firearms and am pro gun. But in my opinion assault rifles were designed to be reliable shoot auto and semi auto etc. And yes kill as many soldiers (people) as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That's not to say civilians should not have them but they are what they are and were designed to Quote. assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible. I don't see the point in denying that.

were taught to "shoot to wound" or cause the enemy in combat to tie up 3 soldiers on the "battlefield"( the wounded enemy + 2 "battle buddies").
This seemed hard to swallow way back then & even today in the GWOT it's even more difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

I have heard and being told that to me its rubbish. If you shoot a enemy soldier you shoot to kill. That way he won't shoot back and kill you or one of your comrades.
 
Last edited:
Like ClydeFrog said, it's the same thing that was driven into me, day in, day out. We had classes on this, and charts that explained the financial aspects of the war, Vietnam, when I served. As for a publication I can link to, I have no idea. I may google it later.
We were told to win it on logistics, not KIA's. WWII was shown as an example, for instance targeting cargo ships instead of destroyers with submarines.
 
When I was on active duty in the US Army as a lower-enlisted(E-1 to E-4), we(our basic training class/plt & advanced course) were taught to "shoot to wound" or cause the enemy in combat to tie up 3 soldiers on the "battlefield"( the wounded enemy + 2 "battle buddies").
Click to expand...

That seems strange to me. I don't doubt that you are telling the truth, but I have always been taught to shoot to center of mass in the Marine Corps. Even if you are off a bit, you still stand a pretty good chance at hitting something. While it is true that the primary goal is to incapacitate the target so that they are incapable of returning fire, one of the quickest and most effective ways to do that is to kill them.
 
Designed to kill

One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible. After thinking about it for a long while, I came to the conclusion that I have never seen a gun slogan that read, "For when you need a kill." or "More time. More destruction." In fact, most are quite the opposite, GLOCK has "Perfection", Sig has "To hell and back", and FNH has "Distinct Advantage".
Click to expand...

Company mottos or slogans have nothing to do with a particular model of firearm's design.

I certainly know that when I buy a gun, those are the qualities I am looking for. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

There is a distinct difference between design and application. Guns are designed to launch projectiles down range in a controlled manner. Some are designed to do this faster than others. Ideally, they are designed such that they will do this in a reliable manner.

From a design standpoint, the gun does not care if it is launching projectiles down range at 800 rpm at an enemy combatant, innocent civilians, paper targets, or animals. These are all applications of the design and not the design itself. There is nothing unique about firearms that makes them specifically beneficial for causing death over causing dirt to splatter.

These considerations apply regardless of whether the gun was designed with the purpose in mind that it would be used for combat. We had a discussion in another thread about sniper rifles. kraigwy noted using a REM 700 sniper rifle. Strangely, the model he noted is marketed as a hunting rifle and variants are marketed as hunting, target, sporting rifles. They are all pretty much the same gun doing the exact same thing in the same manner with some slight ergonomic differences. That the sniper version is "designed" to kill whereas the target version is not would be a silly bit of conjecture.

Besides, more often than not, it is the damage of the bullet that does the killing, not the gun itself. Sure, a few people get beat to death with guns, but there aren't many guns designed to be blunt force objects.
 
I would most certainly hope that any weapon I have self defense, home defense, or in the unlikely event of civil unrest...etc... would be infinitely reliable and effective in stopping the threat. To think otherwise or wanting to gloss over the true nature of a tool for stopping the threat is stupid, foolhardy, and caters to the gun control crowd.
 
Shep's post; calibers...

We(US Army) were trained(more appropriate conditioned) to aim center mass too & hit the target. It's the largest target area & fastest way to stop the threat.

LTC Dave Grossman a retired US Army Airborne Ranger & PhD explains these points better. He also says the .223/5.56x45mm is NOT a ideal lethal caliber.
The US spec ops & procurement officers T&Eed the larger, more powerful 6.8SPC, .300 Blackout, .458SOCOM, 7.62x51mm etc to provide a more lethal caliber.
Retired US Army General Stanley McCrystal(SF) stated the 5.56mm is a danger to the public but I think his remarks are off-base.

CF
 
We(US Army) were trained(more appropriate conditioned) to aim center mass too & hit the target. It's the largest target area & fastest way to stop the threat.

LTC Dave Grossman a retired US Army Airborne Ranger & PhD explains these points better. He also says the .223/5.56x45mm is NOT a ideal lethal caliber.
The US spec ops & procurement officers T&Eed the larger, more powerful 6.8SPC, .300 Blackout, .458SOCOM, 7.62x51mm etc to provide a more lethal caliber.
Retired US Army General Stanley McCrystal(SF) stated the 5.56mm is a danger to the public but I think his remarks are off-base.

CF
Click to expand...

I think I may have misunderstood you the first time. Did you simply mean to say that our goal is not to harm people beyond being incapacitated? If so, I agree wholeheartedly, but I would never aim for a leg or arm in combat simply so I could injure the target.

As for the caliber thing, I completely agree, but that is a different story entirely. It doesn't help that we are restricted to ball and tracer ammo either. Also, it is probably very hard for the military to move away from the 5.56 after having it as the cartridge for both the main service rifle and SAW for such a long time. I'm sure that there is quite the surplus of it in warehouses, just like 30-06 was back in the day.

Also, I like what was said about the 2 different setups of the same model gun. One is clearly marketed as a hunting gun, but somehow adding a pistol grip, rails, and an adjustable stock suddenly makes it a more efficient killing tool? I don't think the justification behind those parts is to make it easier to kill people with the rifle, they are to make the user more comfortable or to provide a greater ease-of-use.
 
A gun is designed for the sole purpose to destroy and cause damage. This is true of a .22 short or a 20mm Vulcan round. It destroys clay pigeons, paper targets, deer and varmint, walls, humans, animals, soda cans, trees, whatever it happens to hit. Some are designed to be more efficient at it in their specialized roles.

I don't see why we can't just accept that and move on. Yes, they're dangerous. Yes, they could do a lot of damage. Guns are meant to destroy. Gasoline is meant to burn. When it burns in an appropriate manner, there's no problem. When you light a circus on fire and kill 160 people and injure over 600, it's domestic terrorism. Guns are the same way.

More often than not, guns destroy what we all consider to be an appropriate target. Often the target doesn't feel that way but the rest of us agree it's self defense. I have a feeling many anti's would support these people (rapists, murderers, maybe even burglars) being destroyed by the state by means of lethal injection.

It's the nature of society. Things are destroyed. We are given a constitutional right to carry today's most effective means of protection so that we can disable a threat. They're dangerous, good at killing, and that's their point. Everything else (sporting, for instance) is just icing on the cake.
 
C-Span, gun owners...

Knowledge is power.
I saw a recent exchange between a young woman testifying before a panel(US Senate or Congress) & a elected offical where she called the AR(M4 rifle) a "big, scary gun" saying young single moms need ARs to fend off violent attackers in the home, :confused:.

As a gun owner & citizen she is entitled to express her opinion or choices but I felt her reasons/rationale were a bit off-base.

To their credit, SIG-Sauer, www.SIGsauer.com , advised new firearm owners to get formal training & understand how to use their new weapons properly(safely).

Gun owners & armed citizens should know what their firearms can and can not do.

CF
 
The man who designed the AR did so because one day he had an idea that boiled down to "Hmmm, we need a combat rifle capable of shooting intermedite sized rounds quickly and accurately". To say anything different is an insult to rational thought. ARs were meant for fighting.
 
Eugene Stoner...

Eugene Stoner R&Ded/engineered what is now called the "AR"(Armalight Rifle).

I, personally, do not like the AR/M4 platform for a # of reasons but I understand how & why it has such wide-spread use(military/LE/armed citizens/hunters).

Im surprised no TFLers havent brought up the "Kalish" :D or the AK47 which is in use world-wide far, far more than M4s/M-16s.

CF
 
It is my understanding that firearms were invented for the sole purpose of killing fellow men.

I don't think anyone ever invented a gun because someone said.. "hey I need something reliable."

A firearm has no practical use other then killing or destroying something.
 
Actually, I know one - it might be destroying but not in our sense.

I've read there are special large bore shotgun like things that are made to loosen some scale deposits on the inside of blast furnaces. Some giant gauge by Winchester.

True the tech is derivative of killing guns. Also, cannons are used for dislodging potential avalanches - but they are surplus military weapons. There are compressed air device to do the same.

But I agree with the main thrust - guns were designed as weapons. The sporting uses are derivative of practicing for the weapons use (people or animals as targets). They are protected by the 2nd Amend. as killing instruments.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
. . . .But I agree with the main thrust - guns were designed as weapons. The sporting uses are derivative of practicing for the weapons use (people or animals as targets). They are protected by the 2nd Amend. as killing instruments.
Click to expand...
I think that even trying to claim that firearms (with the exceptions noted by Glenn and maybe a few other exceptions) are anything but weapons is, in the long haul, a mistake. The 2A does not say ". . . . the right of the people to keep and bear tools . . . "
 
I agree - I've had that discussion with folks. The apologist line failed in the UK and Australia.

Modern Sporting Rifle - whatever - it is a modern gun protected by the Second Amendment to protect oneself and defense against tyranny.

Hard to do that with a bowling ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top