I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

Ralph Peters was a Chairforce Ranger Intelligence weenie during a time when no war was happening. He's an analyst not a doorkicker, but he's entitled to his opinion. As a 23 year Active Duty Combat Vet, Antiterrorism Expert, Law Enforcement subject matter expert who literally wrote the book on Active Shooter Response for the U.S. Air Force Academy, speed, audacity, and Lethality are required in responding to these incidents. Prevention must consist of detection, deterrence, and defeating these incidents effectively. The one common denominator of almost every incident of this type stems from folks prescribed Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) drugs, who suddenly stop taking them or run out. This creates what's called Serotonin Whiplash. Google SSRI Stories, and you'll see a frighteningly matched roll-up of incidents vs. drugs prescribed to the perpetrators. But...NO ONE wants to touch this issue/cause with a Vaccinated Crowbar. It's easy to scream take all the guns away...they did this in Australia, then you had roving gangs with knives and clubs literally kicking in doors to rob, rape, and murder folks in their neighborhoods during their evening meals.
a reply to: Willtell

originally posted by: coomba98
I have not heard one good reason why assault guns should be legal!

Name one good reason why it should?

As an Australian i have 0% fear of being shot.
As an Australian i have extremely little fear i would be hurt going out at night on the town.
As an Australian i have extremely little fear i would be harmed by others in most situations.

Whats the Americans fear % of these scenarios?

Do Americans in general like guns more than children?

Q: If you had a choice, would you rather:
a) Get ride of the guns.
b) Keep having children die so you get to keep said guns.

Theres been total of 30 mass shooting incidents have occurred as of February 14, thats almost one a day. This is crazy last Aussie mass shooting was i think Port Arthur in 1996.

Coomba98

The is a distinct difference between Australia and the U.S.. You don't get it and we don't care whether you do or not.

You have your snakes and we have our snakes....with guns. They won't give them up and, therefore, we won't either.

AR-15s aren't assault weapons. That's pure BS. They're merely semi-automatic weapons. In case you don't understand, giving up our weapons will not stop the mass shootings. It will increase them. 300-330 million weapons in the hands of the civilian population.

Your thirty 'mass shootings' since Feb 14 is pure BS. You might consider the source of your information before judging us. Likely the rest of it is 'suspect' as well.

a reply to: Willtell

Well, you know what they say about opinions. Everyone has one. He's welcome to his, but its not going to change mine.

a reply to: Willtell



I know one of the adages of the assault rifle crowd is the second amendment angle of "fighting the gubmnt" I kind of shake my head on this one, as tactically, this is complete lunacy. IF the "gubmnt" ever decided to fight you, you sure better have something better than small arms. Otherwise they can just puree you from 20k feet. WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES.






Those guys on the ground had Ak's. Didnt look like it did them very much good having them. Trust me, you would need something better than an AR-15 to fight the US military if in fact you ever have the misfortune of having to. Its really a delusional fantasy to think that way.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: Willtell



I know one of the adages of the assault rifle crowd is the second amendment angle of "fighting the gubmnt" I kind of shake my head on this one, as tactically, this is complete lunacy. IF the "gubmnt" ever decided to fight you, you sure better have something better than small arms. Otherwise they can just puree you from 20k feet. WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES.

Those guys on the ground had Ak's. Didnt look like it did them very much good having them. Trust me, you would need something better than an AR-15 to fight the US military if in fact you ever have the misfortune of having to. Its really a delusional fantasy to think that way.

Surveys years back showed 80% of the U.S. military wouldn't shoot American citizens. The exception was special forces where the numbers were reversed 80% would shoot citizens. There's not enough spec-for personnel to do squat against 300 million.

Then there's the likely desertion rate. Many, if not most would bail and head to home to take care of their families as opposed to shooting U.S. citizens, one would think.

Then there's the 23 million vets out there who have serious experience/training to contend with. Now add in the state national guard units.

Short of nuking itself, the U.S. military would be hard put even to maintain food, fuel and munition supplies, never mind subjugate 300 million people.

Just how one looks at it, I suppose.

P.S. The truth is most of us are hard supporters of our military. It would take an almost inconceivable event to cause that kind of confrontation, IMO.

Too many holes in this guy's story....he doesn't understand guns. I can fire as many rounds out of my 40 cal or even my 9mm, change my mag and keep going no problems. So, mortality rate, number of rounds you can get off is no different. There is nothing special about an AR, it's just a rifle. It does use magazines but so does about every hand gun out there and at least you can't easily hide an AR in your clothing. More bogus info feeding into the minds of scared, uneducated sheep.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: RickyD

I know whats its called, I also know its a lightened version of the AR-10 which was a bigger cal. than they wanted to carry.

I also know the "ARs" M16 ver.1 sucked because they were machined too well.

So don't try passing off that BS post as truth.

Test?

Here's a test, describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16"

Detachable grenade launchers don't count.

K~

Yeah they use the same gas operated, rotating bolt action but the cyclic rate varies depending on a multitude of factors. The guns effectiveness depends on the person using weapons. They are essentially the same gun using the same round though. The AR-15 is not the greatest gun for the record. I myself own a Colt M4A1 carbine Mil-Spec variant much like the one I carried in the Army. That said, there are better weapons out there to choose from like the H&K MP7 which was easily the best weapon used during my service. The whole "Assault Rifle" thing is a ridiculous term to begin with. Hell, more than a decade in the service and I never heard a single soldier utter the words assault rifle when referring to any rifle.

People that pretend they know about firearms. Do you realize that the AR15's 5.56/.223 62gr military rounds from the m855 used in the old m16s to the m885a1 used in our M4 Carbines wouldn't even be considered an option by most deer hunters past 100 yards? Would you consider the Ruger Mini-30 an assault rifle Because they make tactical kits to give it a military look? It can also come chambered in the NATO 7.62 (.308) round which is a hell of lot more powerful than any .22 caliber and they make 30 round clips for them also.

Throwing these "assault" labels around on firearms while claiming to know about them has me scratching my head. If you know these weapons then you know the ammo issued by the military has less stopping power due to the Geneva Convention. The original m855 green tip was designed to penetrate but create the smallest wound channel possible which is less effective than ammo available to hunters at the local Walmart. Those of us that were deployed usually own these weapons because we know how to work on them from our time in the service. Those that own them and weren't in the service like the fact they can modify the rifle to suit their needs from shooting at the range, home defense, or shooting coyotes at night.

a reply to: Anathros

Bla lba bla, alot of words to say nothing but BS.

Describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16"

There is no difference, you guys just want your weapons of war so you can fufill your Rambo fantasies.

!0 in huh, where motor pool?

K~

a reply to: aethertek

So don't believe the lie that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Not a lie because no military in the world carries one.

The M variants are designed with different tolerance, and function.

The assault weapon term was made up by team Clinton that REICH WINGER camp.

Because under the Reagan presidency machine guns made after 86 were banned.

Ones made before where grandfathered in.

Those same REICH WINGERS created the background check. First time in over 200 years. Until that REICH WINGER CLINTON signed it in to LAW.

We have to prove to the state we were innocent.

That authoritarianism is fine according to some.

So we need another does of REICH WING AUTHORITARIANISM.

Ammiright?

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Anathros

Bla lba bla, alot of words to say nothing but BS.

Describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16"

There is no difference, you guys just want your weapons of war so you can fufill your Rambo fantasies.

!0 in huh, where motor pool?

K~

I said they are essentially the same weapons. (Read the first paragraph of my post) That said, the m16 had full auto where my military issue m4 has 3 shot burst. The civilian models are semi-automatic just like the majority of the guns on the market. Why don't you simply tell us the answer you're looking for?

I know that you claim to know about weapons and if you did, you'd know that the caliber and it's ballistics determine the effectiveness of any given firearm and the AR15 isn't more effective just because it's built off the platform of a military rifle designed over 50 years ago.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Anathros

Bla lba bla, alot of words to say nothing but BS.

Describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16"

There is no difference, you guys just want your weapons of war so you can fufill your Rambo fantasies.

!0 in huh, where motor pool?

K~

Trolling for lulz.

originally posted by: coomba98

What is lazy, immature and mentally incompetent is bringing up a car fatalities on a gun conversation. WTF!!!!

The whole either you love guns or you love your kids...is a lazy argument

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Living in dream land no? Where talking about the whole country not your little area. This is not how you collect data!! Ohh my area is this so this must be how everywhere is in my country! like WTF!

I'm just saying that America is huge and vastly different throughout it states, and there are a good number of states I would not live in and guns have nothing to do with it.

1996!!! And America has had what just this very year!! its 30 and its only 24.02.2018!!!

Are you on drugs?.... Can I please have some, you know the rule puff puff pass! And repeat after me.... "I love guns more than the wellbeing of unarmed children attending school!

People kill even in Australia as with the case of a vehicular attack last year. Dimitrious Gargasoulas drove a Holden Commodore into Bourke St Mall, resulting in the deaths of 6 people and injuring 30+ others. If people want to kill they do....

As to mass killings in the US if we look at the last 50 years there has been 156 shooters out of what 500 million of people living in the US over those 50 years. Around 1000 people died in those shootings with about 176 of them children.

America's population is about 15 TIMES that of Australia so to use any number from XX out of 100,000 is meaningless and just troll bait.

Ya we have issues and mostly it is drugs...the legal kind...why do people want to kill in the first place is the big question to answer. The second question is why do people like this guy in FL go unchecked with 39 calls on him to the local police and even the FBI? Why are schools gun free zones when every place else is not gun free...Of the 21 mass shootings in the last 50 years at schools I would bet in almost every case if the shooters expected guns to be at the schools they would have never gone there, AND if they did would not have had much time to do anything until they were engaged.

Just a little history, back when I was in school there were gun clubs AT THE SCHOOLS...almost every truck had a gun rack in the back window with at least one gun in it as example... What has changed that guns were not an issues back then and today they are????

How is it everyone in a "Communist" country all armed with Gun's never run around shooting each other as much as Americans?

a reply to: Anathros

Medical doctors have said that if many of the wounded had been shot with handguns rather than an AR15 they would have survived.

Google it yourself, it’s kind of gory to even read

a reply to: Willtell

You're making the wrong point. No one was armed in the school other than the active shooter and the armed police, that people relied upon, sat outside and did nothing. So this is a great example of gun control utterly failing the people at risk. Assault weapons or not, you're making the entirely wrong point. Gun control DOES NOT WORK! Never did, never will. Just ask people in Chicago, who have the strictest gun laws in the country.

a reply to: openminded2011

You're wasting your keystrokes.

Some people are only interested in history when its been cherry picked and prechewed for them.

Like I posted elsewhere a few months back, the Battle of Kursk shows what nonsense this "defence against tyranny" excuse is. The Russians had two million men in defences almost a hundreds deep and the Germans came close to crushing them before the Soviet counteroffensive. The US military is several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Wehrmacht and the BIlly Bob militias a flyspeck compared to the Red Army.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So am I. As soon as things settle down when we get to Tennessee...(I figure if I keep sayin' it, it'll happen, right?).

Perhaps 3. One for me, one for my sister and her husband, and one for my other sister who's going with us. We all grew up around guns. Cheaper than buying one retail, much less three.

a reply to: Willtell

You either need to learn some history, or refrain from some of this. The Win. m-1907 SLR, with extended mags, was the preferred carbine of the Border Patrol, all during Prohibition. My grandfather bought one second hand in 1914, when his cousin migrated up to Canada. The Cannucks wouldn't let him own either the little Winchester carbine, nor a Rem. M-11, 12 gauge shotgun. I still have the shotgun in my basement, but the 351 was with an uncle in Cali. I don't know for sure that his son still has it, given their nonsense laws.

If Win. had used their .351 ammo instead of the smaller 32SLR, to whelp their Carbine William's baby, I think the 30 cal., M 1 Carbine, would have held it's own, on WWII battlefields. But even so, many G.I.'s preferred it over the much larger 30-06G, Garands, and 1903 Springfields.

Willy Schmeisser created his first Assault Rifle, the 8mm Kurz, with half the power of their 8mm Mauser. Then the Russkies kidnapped Willy, and forced him to redo this assault rifle into the SKS, carbines. Later the AK-47 was it's direct successor. Did A. Kalashnikov, really invent anything, or was he only a Soviet front man?

There is no good reason that a .351SLR, or a .401 WSL, couldn't be loaded with a FMJ spitzer bullet, and give the AK's a run for it's money. And these were pre WWI, self loading carbines. You can reform the Russian cartridges into 401 WSL's.

I've been suggesting here that a 401 WSL Upper could be hatched out, using an AR made for the A K's Russian's rim. All three of these run right at 50,000 C.U.P. levels. IMO, it's ridiculous to use either a 30 Carbine, or an AR -15 against an Elk. Both the 351's and 401's, have killed them in droves. Only the 357 Maximum comes close to these two ancient Winchester/Johnson carbines.

Murdoch's New York Post shifts on assault-weapons ban, after Florida school shooting

The editorial board of Rupert Murdoch's New York Post is responding to Wednesday's mass shooting at a Florida high school by calling for the revival of an assault-weapons ban, an idea it said made sense “only to the ignorant” just four months ago. The tabloid splashed the message of its latest editorial on the cover of Friday's print edition. “MR. PRESIDENT, PLEASE ACT,” read an all-caps headline. A subhead added: “We need sensible gun control to help stop the slaughter.”
Reinstate the federal assault-weapons ban, or at least revive its key features. Passed in 1994 but allowed to lapse 10 years later, that law prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms that bore certain features, like detachable magazines, that made them more dangerous. Perhaps most important, it also outlawed “large capacity” magazines. Critics argue that the ban did little good — but the fact is that the average toll from mass shootings has been growing. It’s surely worth trying to trim a casualty from the next killer’s total. Note, too, that the ban did no real harm. And it certainly didn’t lead the nation down the “slippery slope” toward eliminating other weapons, let alone a repeal of the Second Amendment, as the NRA and other Washington lobbyists warned.

This is a Trump supporting fox news founder's paper the very right-wing New York Post.

The conservative editorial board of the New York Post now supports the return of the 1994 Federal assault-weapons ban.

a reply to: Willtell

Add another moron to the list. He checked all of the boxes though.

Guns are for hunting
Weapons of war
Teachers are going to shoot students
Conflate automatic and semi automatic
Misinterpret the 2nd amendment
AR's aren't used for hunting (they are, just look it up)

There are stupid people everywhere. You found one of them.

I'm really tired of the gun debate, one side has all of the facts, the other makes up lies and uses their feelings to attempt some sort of superiority argument.