Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Yamato

Women Need AR-15 (Scary Looking Guns)

102 posts in this topic

I didnt think it was in specific reference to landmines... its just that landmines were the logical extension of it.

Bleeding out doesnt take "quite an agonizing time". Its not instantaneous, but neither is it as long as I believe you think.

The 5.56 (and the M16) was designed so that soldiers with relatively little amount of training could carry a lot of ammunition and fire it on full auto with a decent amount of accuracy while still being able to kill the enemy.

The problem with wounding the enemy is this: They can still fire back, and they can still fight another day. If you wound a member of the enemy force thats attacking you, thats not going to take 2 others out of the fight to "rescue" him--- no no, the attack continues. It continues until you're dead and the opposing force has won the battle --- only then do they deal with their injured.

One of the Sgts in my unit actually works for Colt and did a whole presentation on the design and effects of the 5.56mm NATO round we use... it is not "designed to wound", I can tell you that for sure.

Well, then I guess that in West Point you learn myths instead of strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, myths again.

it was simply designed to be effective low recoil, full auto controlable round. it brakes up once it hits, tears flesh. it does not make clean hole, and comes out. it might come out sideways, or in parts. simple physics, it loses energy fast, since it is so light

the round they had before 308 aka 7,62 nato, is too strong for full auto.

the idea that it was designed to tie up 2 other soldiers to help wounded is a holywood myth. especially since the round was made to use again soviets, for the most part, but they never told soviets that they had to have 2 guys pick up wounded instead of firing at the enemy, afgan war 1979-89 showed that pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, myths again.

it was simply designed to be effective low recoil, full auto controlable round. it brakes up once it hits, tears flesh. it does not make clean hole, and comes out. it might come out sideways, or in parts. simple physics, it loses energy fast, since it is so light

the round they had before 308 aka 7,62 nato, is too strong for full auto.

Which is why the Russians AK 47 is still the most effective assault rifle? Opps, sorry can't be. It is a 7.62...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then I guess that in West Point you learn myths instead of strategy.

You learnt that its designed to wound at West Point?

Regardless, people, even professors, do occasionally speak of rumors as if they are fact simply because some rumors make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You learnt that its designed to wound at West Point?

Regardless, people, even professors, do occasionally speak of rumors as if they are fact simply because some rumors make sense.

I suggest you look at the FN advertisements when they introduced the NATO caliber (could not find any online). They even announced it as "more humane and less death causing". One of the reasons the US wanted to keep the man stopping 7.62 but lost out to the majority of NATO that wanted the new caliber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you look at the FN advertisements when they introduced the NATO caliber (could not find any online). They even announced it as "more humane and less death causing". One of the reasons the US wanted to keep the man stopping 7.62 but lost out to the majority of NATO that wanted the new caliber.

I believe I know what your referring to, but it may help to add a bit of context:

When they were trialing the 5.56mm rounds, the competition went out to many different companies. There was one version, called the M193 which meeted all the required standards, but was not selected for one reason. It was too good, in a sense. It was considered overkill, and because of that, it was deemed "inhumane" to use. The one that ended up being chosen was a belgian made SS***** something designation. I believe this is why they referenced it as "more humane and less death causing".

I don't know where the myth that its "designed to wound, not kill" came from, but I'll tell you this: Even among soldiers in the infantry, I've heard all sorts of "myths" as to how the 5.56mm NATO round "works". Its common to hear many different claims about the 5.56mm round. The reason this particular myth is so popular (in my opinion) is that at first glance, it sounds plausible. When facing an enemy with superior numbers, why shoot to kill, taking 1 soldier out of the fight when you can shoot to wound and take 3 out of the fight? If you look at the situation a little bit more closely, though, you'll see that that premise itself is erroneous. Soldiers are not taught to come rushing to the aid of their buddies as soon as they get injured. Long story short, they win the battle, and then go to the wounded soldier --- which means that if the myth were true, you'd be taking 1 soldier partially out of the fight, and giving him a real chance of living to fight another day.

And if you look at it from another perspective: If the bullet is designed to wound, not kill, it becomes much more difficult to inflict a significant enough wound to take him out of the fight, than if you have a bullet thats designed to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When facing an enemy with superior numbers, why shoot to kill, taking 1 soldier out of the fight when you can shoot to wound and take 3 out of the fight?

that is a holywood myth, the superior number force they planed to fight was ussr, it was not in ussr practice to pick up wounded before fight is over. even if it was, you can't rely on 2 sodiers come pull out a wounded one right after he falls. but it sounds so good in the movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you look at it from another perspective: If the bullet is designed to wound, not kill, it becomes much more difficult to inflict a significant enough wound to take him out of the fight, than if you have a bullet thats designed to kill.

If it fragments enough it is all over the body and after the adrenaline of the shock wears down keeps the person for a long time in the hospital. War over for that one. Now, with a single wound, as long as the adrenaline lasts the guy can keep on fighting unless there is a strong hit and large amounts of blood loss(as typical with the large calibers).

The kill/wounded ratio has increased dramatically (in favor of wounded) as well as the round kill ratio (to the point that in WWII it was about 25K rounds per kill, in Vietnam twice that and in Iraq almost ten times that). And not because soldiers hit less, they just wound more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in rounds as it's relevant to the subject:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better question is, which wasn't answered in the last thread featuring the OP in it, why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone outside of law enforcement and the military need an assault rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better question is, which wasn't answered in the last thread featuring the OP in it, why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone outside of law enforcement and the military need an assault rifle?

why do you need a 6000lb, pick up truck, outside farm and construction business? 20 pair of shoes, you only have 2 feet or 3000sq ft house, ppl live for years in 8x12 cell with a room mate???

it is rally irrelevant why I need something, there is no reason why I should not have ar15 if I want to. you don't decide what I need,

next thing you'll ask why do I need two guns? or 100 rounds of ammo, or 2 cans of gas in my garage.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better question is, which wasn't answered in the last thread featuring the OP in it, why do you need an assault rifle? Why does anyone outside of law enforcement and the military need an assault rifle?

Hey Michael. Would you be surprised is i told you one of my friends who lives in New Zealand has an AK47, AR15 and a combat shotgun. All this in a place where owning a firearm isn't a right. Why don't you try and change your own countries laws instead of advocating for restricting the rights of Americans?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't about guns anymore, it is about SOMEONE decide what I need based on THEIR perception of needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. you don't decide what I need,

the government decides that all the time. What is for the good of the society we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the government decides that all the time. What is for the good of the society we live in.

Yea like slavery and Jim Crow, and "civil unions" whatever that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the government decides that all the time. What is for the good of the society we live in.

it does??? lol, in your dreams, maybe

the more it decides, the worst off society is,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Michael. Would you be surprised is i told you one of my friends who lives in New Zealand has an AK47, AR15 and a combat shotgun. All this in a place where owning a firearm isn't a right. Why don't you try and change your own countries laws instead of advocating for restricting the rights of Americans?

One of my relatives has an FAL and two M16's, although this may be down to his involvement in the military than a need for an large weapon.

And how exactly am I "restricting the rights of Americans"? As far as I am concerned, no one has given me a legitimate answer to the question I posed. And as for your ideas about "changing the laws in my own country", I am satisfied with the current regulations. It's certainly better than allowing people to buy or sell firearms like guitars.

why do you need a 6000lb, pick up truck, outside farm and construction business?

I don't. I have a small car which is economical because fuel is expensive and public transport is crap.

20 pair of shoes,

I have three pairs of shoes (two for everyday use and a pair for special occasions) and a pair of flip flops which act more like summer slippers than anything else.

it is rally irrelevant why I need something, there is no reason why I should not have ar15 if I want to. you don't decide what I need,

Of course I don't. That's what we have the government for.

next thing you'll ask why do I need two guns? or 100 rounds of ammo, or 2 cans of gas in my garage.

Indeed, why do you need multiple weapons, more ammunition than most African militaries and two cans of gas? You planning on blowing up something? You planning on going on a shooting spree to prove that loonies with multiple firearms are harmless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea like slavery and Jim Crow, and "civil unions" whatever that is.

You against gay people, Yamato?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You against gay people, Yamato?

No I think gay people should have the same rights I do. The EXACT same rights I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how exactly am I "restricting the rights of Americans"?

you don't you can't, lol, but keep talking it is entertaining,

And as for your ideas about "changing the laws in my own country", I am satisfied with the current regulations. It's certainly better than allowing people to buy or sell firearms like guitars.

awesome, that you're satisfied with your laws, however we are not talking about your laws, lol but I guess it is better than allowing people to buy or sell firearms like guitars, where ppl have this mentality, (see the quote below) let it not change, lol would not trust much paranoid individuals, with pov like that; (again, see the quote below) to have guns, you'd shoot when you'd see someone putting hand in the inside pocket, thinking he is going for the gun, while he went for his valet,

Indeed, why do you need multiple weapons, more ammunition than most African militaries and two cans of gas? You planning on blowing up something? You planning on going on a shooting spree to prove that loonies with multiple firearms are harmless? .

we go to shooting ranges spend thousands of rounds to shoot paper, no one gets hurt, I know, it is hard to compreheand by some one with mentality like that; (see the quote below)

why do you need multiple weapons, more ammunition than most African militaries and two cans of gas? You planning on blowing up something? You planning on going on a shooting spree to prove that loonies with multiple firearms are harmless? .

I don't. I have a small car which is economical because fuel is expensive and public transport is crap.

I have three pairs of shoes (two for everyday use and a pair for special occasions) and a pair of flip flops which act more like summer slippers than anything else.

see, again you measuring the world by your personal standards, that is exactly my point.

neither I care, nor I asked what you personally drive, or how many shoes you personally have, you should work on better telling apart rhetorical questions from literal.

btw, your, and our, gvmnt should ban small cars, I don't care how many stars its crash rating is, they are death traps,i've seen enough crashes to know it, I was involved in lethal crash myself, I was passenger in Lincoln mark 7 and we t-boned, Toyota corolla, she ran a light, guess which car had fatalities.

stay safe bro.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you need a 6000lb, pick up truck, outside farm and construction business? 20 pair of shoes, you only have 2 feet or 3000sq ft house, ppl live for years in 8x12 cell with a room mate???

it is rally irrelevant why I need something, there is no reason why I should not have ar15 if I want to. you don't decide what I need,

next thing you'll ask why do I need two guns? or 100 rounds of ammo, or 2 cans of gas in my garage.

Your freedom to own an ar-15 infringes on my right to feel safe if you are not trained and have a very intense background check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your freedom to own an ar-15 infringes on my right to feel safe if you are not trained and have a very intense background check

lmao, anyone's safety take precedence, over your right to FEEL safe, even if such right existed, but it doesn't, lol.

a privilege to drive infringes on your life, and should scare you a lot more than any gun, look at statistics , you are a lot more likely to be killed by a car, that by any gun, this is a fact. you can't deny it.

lol, I personally do have traning and intensive background check done, more intensive than you can ever imagine.

but don't mind me , you still have no point here

no amount of traing or most intensive background checks, will prevent accidents, that is a fact too, there are plenty of them in police, and especially in the army, you have no idea how many accidents trained professionals have. nothing you can do about it, that is also a fact, unless you are taking every gun away from everyone, but you are not suggesting that, are you?

also ppl with clean records and enough training, sometimes flip and go postal there would be no reason for you to take their guns away even by your proposed laws.

and you have absolutely no idea, who will snap and who wont, who is to say you personally wont flip and go postal in 3 months???? no one. (even if you don't have a gun, you have a car and can drive, raod rage, and vehicular homicide are not that uncommon,)

again you have to take every single gun away to be remotely confident (don't forget, illegal guns will always be there, and gangs will always have them, that is a fact too), but neither you realistically can do it, nor you campaign for that, or are you???

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your freedom to own an ar-15 infringes on my right to feel safe if you are not trained and have a very intense background check

The liberal's so-called "assault" rifles were used in 0.6% of gun homicides in 2011. If the 0.6% makes you feel unsafe and the 99.4% doesn't, you might wind up taking the liberal bait and worrying over AR-15 background checks. Acknowledging that hand guns are used in nearly all gun crimes is difficult for a liberal to do because it's not as easy to infringe on our right to bear hand guns. Bullying the spooky looking black plastic rifle is so much easier in lib social circles I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberal's so-called "assault" rifles were used in 0.6% of gun homicides in 2011. If the 0.6% makes you feel unsafe and the 99.4% doesn't, you might wind up taking the liberal bait and worrying over AR-15 background checks. Acknowledging that hand guns are used in nearly all gun crimes is difficult for a liberal to do because it's not as easy to infringe on our right to bear hand guns. Bullying the spooky looking black plastic rifle is so much easier in lib social circles I'm sure.

Tell me how many ar-15 stoped home envasions if you think they are so needed or how many rapes were prevented due to an ar-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.