Designed to kill

Exactly, "designed to kill", I just want to look at the speaker and say "Duh !"

When someone comes questioned what guns are for, it's best not to dance around the subject and try to placate them with sporting, hunting, collecting, what have you.

It's best to hit them right between the eyes with a "Of course it's designed to kill, if it couldn't kill someone what would I need it for?"
 
Both AK and AR type weapons were actually designed to be LESS distructive than previous military arms.
Lets go all the way back to WW1. The most common cartidge used was something around 30 caliber, the rifles were designed to shoot at ranges of up to 1000 yards. Almost all were bolt action rifles. The killing power was astonishing. Armies had just transitioned from black powder to smokeless powder and no one really understood the power of the weapons being used.
WW2 came so fast after WW1 that military thinkers had not yet come up with an alternative to the devistating 30 caliber rounds. So, we went to war with the 30/06 rounds. The major achievement of WW2 was the M1 Garand. This combined power with auto-loading. However, all sides in WW2 were looking for something smaller to issue to the troops. The US came out with the M1 Carbine, the Germans with the Sturmgewehr 44. Neither was up to the task and both had short production lives.
Finally, Russians came out with the AK-47. It was two years after the war, so it had no impact on WW2. Here was a weapon that was good for 200 yards, used a shortend 30 caliber round, was light weight, cheap to produce and had just enough killing power to get the job done.
10 years later Stoner came out with the AR-15 (latter the M-16) and ten years after that the US military finally accepted this as the standard issue weapon.
Almost all hunting rifles are more powerful than the AK or AR type weapons. Some are even auto-loaders. The only thing that seperates the AK or AR type weapon is the quick change 30 round magazine.
The idea that these are somehow "killer" rounds is rediculous. They were designed to be right on the edge between light weight and effective. At long range neither of these weapons is any good.
Their only attraction to mass killers is the high capacity magazines. Take these away and they will just turn to shotguns, bombs or fire.
I don't know what would be worse: keep what we have (the vast majority of AK and AR type weapons are never misused) or institute a ban and see what happens? Admittedly, a high cap ban would hurt more honest people with little real result for the criminal or insane. I believe they would simpley turn to other methods.
 
Last edited:
Both AK and AR type weapons were actually designed to be LESS destructive than previous military arms.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, I just don't agree with how you are saying it.

The individual round fired from these weapons is less destructive then say a 30.06 round, but the rate of fire and increased amount of ammo a soldier can carry make the soldier more destructive. This is the formula, and this is why it's not just about the weapon, it's about the soldier, or the owner, the shooter, the lawman.

The tools are only enablers and although we keep improving the tools over the years, the roles men play are as old as society and haven't changed a lick.
 
Both AK and AR type weapons were actually designed to be LESS distructive than previous military arms.
Click to expand...

I would disagree they were not designed to be less destructive. They were designed to fire auto and semi -auto. For them to controllable in full auto it required a less powerful intermediate round making it less destructive. It was a by product of the design not a deliberate feature to make it less destructive. The army and manufacturers put out the rubbish about better to wound than kill to get round the criticism of the less powerful round.
 
"The tools are only enablers and although we keep improving the tools over the years, the roles men play are as old as society and haven't changed a lick."

Exactly my point. Try to take away high cap mags and you could end up with worse problems. Just tune in the evening news and see what mass killers are using around the world. It's mostly car bombs and suicide bombers. This is the technological break through for mass killing in this century. Add a cell phone and you can do it remotely with little risk to yourself.

Manta - how dead is dead? 30/06 rounds were overkill. The guns were big and heavy. The rounds were heavy. I did point out that the first "assult rifles" were failures because they lacked the power to get the job (kill someone) done. Both the AK and AR type weapons just hit that balance between weight and effectiveness. They are, however, not as powerful as most hunting rifles.
Want quick fire? Almost any semi-auto pistol can pump out as many rounds as an AK or AR in the same amount of time.

You both remind me of the princes in the middle ages that wanted to ban crossbows because they rendered armour useless. They used the same argument. In the end, the crossbow was quickly replaced by fire arms. Knights gave up armour and the killing was just worse.
This is my concern.
What will mass killers turn to next?
What can we do to restrain them?
 
Last edited:
You both remind me of the princes in the middle ages that wanted to ban crossbows because they rendered armour useless. They used the same argument. In the end, the crossbow was quickly replaced by fire arms. Knights gave up armour and the killing was just worse.
This is my concern.
What will mass killers turn to next?
What can we do to restrain them
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything should be banned. And do not think banning certin type of firearms will make any difference in stopping mass killings. But to try and argue that assault rifles are not designed for inflicting maximum casualties in a very efficient manner is wrong. They are designed to kill accurately reliably and are very effective at doing so. PS Should they be banned no.

Almost any semi-auto pistol can pump out as many rounds as an AK or AR in the same amount of time.
Click to expand...
True but a hand gun round doesn't come close to the power and effectiveness of a AK or AR round ability to kill in other words.They can be used for hunting or target shooting but that's not what they were designed for.
 
Last edited:
I was taught "shoot to cause a casualty" in BCT in 1967 and I read they were telling recruits that in 1917. It's the bayonet that's designed to kill.
And yes, my "assault weapon" is the M1888 Rod Bayonet .45-70 I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898.
 
SIGSHR said:
. . . .And yes, my "assault weapon" is the M1888 Rod Bayonet .45-70 I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898.
Click to expand...
That would make you at least 114 years old. . . . and that's if you carried it up the hill as an infant. :confused:
 
The army and manufacturers put out the rubbish about better to wound than kill to get round the criticism of the less powerful round.
Click to expand...

This was standard information taught to soldiers in Basic Training entering the Army in the early 80s. I am sure it started before I went in and continued long after.

It wasn't rubbish because it came from experience learned in the Vietnam war and before. You kill a man the enemy is down a man. You wound him and you take one or two more out of the fight to help get the wounded back to aid.

That being said, no one ever told us not to put several into a guy if you though he could still do damage. And although I am not going to lend credence to the stories of a guy getting shot in the arm by 5.56mm and the round coming out someplace far removed. I will say I hit a deer with .223Rem from about 100 yards, the round struck the deer broadside in the lungs, took a decided left turn up and into the spine, chewed all the good meat up there on that side of the spine that we called the "back strap".

A 5.56mm "Boat Tail" can do some squirrely things.
 
It wasn't rubbish because it came from experience learned in the Vietnam war and before. You kill a man the enemy is down a man. You wound him and you take one or two more out of the fight to help get the wounded back to aid.
Click to expand...

In the big scale of winning the war putting the enemies logistics under pressure makes sense. To the soldier killing the enemy to stop him shooting back and killing him or his comrades is whats importent. PS The big push by the Americans in Vietnam was enemy body counts. Its hard to do that without killing the enemy.
 
It wasn't rubbish because it came from experience learned in the Vietnam war and before. You kill a man the enemy is down a man. You wound him and you take one or two more out of the fight to help get the wounded back to aid.
Click to expand...

It was rubbish when the military started going against combatants, such as in Vietnam, that were willing to abandon their wounded. We will spend $10s of thousands of dollars to rescue or deal with a wounded soldier and so we think the opposition puts such value on their soldiers and that just isn't the case with a lot of our enemy.

Just because military theory is taught does not make it accurate or current.

Back when fighting the Moro in the Philippines, the Moro got wounded a lot, but wounding them didn't result in the occupation of several combatants to help the wounded get aid. Instead, the Moro just kept fighting. Many of our opposition value dying in battle over going home when their stint is up.

You never see battles where there are two people not fighting for every person injured. Even when there are efforts to rescue a soldier, to extract her/him from battle, the rescuers, if part of the unit engaged in battle, only does so so long as they have the resources to do so and then those combatants return to the fight. If the theory worked, when you wounded 1/3 of the opposition, the battle would be over, but that never happens.
 
None of my six AR-15 rifles have ever killed anyone.

There is a myth that the 5.56mm cartridge was designed to wound and is ineffective for that reason. Swiss and Swedish doctors raised holy hades when they saw Viet Cong and NVA troops who were wounded with the bullet from the M193 5.56mm round. They caused a wide uproar.

Since about 2000 i have killed a few hundred wild hogs using the M193 5.56mm round: Most were killed at close range from tree stands. Some were killed at ranges over 300 yards. Not one hog escaped after being hit. Yeah, i had some memorable tracking and dragging jobs.

When fired from a gun with a 20" or longer barrel the bullet will fragment at ranges to about 175 yards. Typically, the bullet penetrates 5-7", yaws 90 degrees and fragments, destroying the lungs. Sometimes the heart, diaphragm and liver are also damaged. i had three or four bullets that failed to fragment after hitting a hog at close range. But the hog died anyway.

Army Colonel (Dr.) Martin Fackler is arguably the worlds most respected authority on military small arms wound ballistics.


http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/papers...ns_of_military_rifle_bullets.fackler.unk.html
 
Last edited:
So, all firearms are designed for the purpose of killing is what we have established so far. Based on that logic, many things go into the design of rifles to make them easier to use, more durable, or easier to aim. If I were to take two rifles of the same caliber and comparable design, but put a tactical stock with rails, a scope, pistol grip, fore grip, and adjustable stock, is the tactical rifle more deadly?

Its easier to use, aim, and maybe the plastic/metal is more durable than the traditional wood stocks on some rifles. Are these additions for the purpose of making it easier to kill or are they simply a luxury like leather seats in a car?
 
Pistol grips aid in aiming so yes, they do make it better at killing.
Click to expand...

By that argument, they make guns easier to shoot what you are aiming at; thus reducing the risk to bystanders. Ergo, pistol grips make guns safer.
 
Not to go too far afield, but I believe the earliest assault weapons were rocks and sticks. Did a lot of damage for many generations.

Do you suppose they would have caused more deaths if they had been painted black?
 
zerokilled.jpg
 
P1090,

No they do not make guns safer. They make them easier to aim. What you do when you aim them is on you, but the original reason why guns needed to be easy to aim is to make them more effective in combat. That is not subject to opinion.

Admitting this does not make you an anti. People on our side need to see this because right now everyone thinks we are out of touch nutjobs, and if everyone used the type of logic seen on here I might have to agree with them.
 
The injuring an enemy combatant takes three other soldiers out of the fight hasn't been true since WWII and the Wermarcht.

The bad guys we fought were more fastistidious about recovering thier dead than thier wounded, knowing that we would provide aid to the wounded after the engagement was over.

As much as I disagree with the notion that all guns are weapons, the fact still remains that the Second Amendment was drafted in order to ensure that the people had the means to resist tyranny, foreign or domestic.

And you do that with weapons, good, effective, modern weapons.

Wether that weapon is a Kentucky long rifle or an AR-15 doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top