Quote:
Originally Posted by atom
actually the round was designed to injury enemy soldiers thus causing more resources used by the enemy having to remove their wounded from the battlefield.
|
Excellent points. It's not just removing the wounded, there is also the care involved.
The Military rule of thumb is 10 men are needed to support each troop in the field. It requires 20 to support each wounded soldier. But friendly fire constitutes close to 1/3 of all casualties in War. Pat Tillman's unfortunate death was not an anomaly.
The AR15 / M16 is hardly accurate in any hands other than an experts. An expert would much rather have a Kalishnikov, or for longer distances, a Barrett. The high volume magazines are the only real plus to the .556 ammo. Allows the troops to lay down a lot of fire, although 70 rounds is the standard issue for a combat infantryman.
As for the person with the AR1911? Get a 9MM. I was so glad when the Army switched over 27 years ago, and I was issued a decent piece.
But frankly, discussing a Guns accuracy and value is missing the point.
It's not Guns that are an issue. It is the lack of controls around WHO has one.
A lot of that blows back on irresponsible gun owners. Other than these mass shooters looking to kill as many people as possible before they commit suicide-by-cop, most criminals carry stolen guns. That's so the gun cannot be traced back to them. Where do you think they get them? They steal them or buy a stolen one. Duhhhhhhh.
I'm in total agreement with people who propose elimination of public ownership of Assault Weapons, requirements for Safety Training, an Eye Exam, Psychiatric Certification and periodic re-certification. Not to mention requiring a Gun Lock be sold with each firearm. I do all that certification for my car, and always keep it locked. I'll be happy to do it for my M12.