Semi automatic military style guns are not assault rifles...

[TahitiNut]

8. It's bizarre how SO MANY people just don't comprehend how such weapons ...

... are REALLY used in the military under combat conditions.

First of all, the notion that a AR-15 in fully automatic mode is somehow more lethal is ridiculous. I can think of only one situation during which it might make sense to fire in fully automatic mode. That would be if confronted by a "banzai" charge where the enemy personnel were a veritable thicket and within 50-75 yards. Even then, it's highly arguable. It's virtually always a waste of ammunition.

Even in semi-automatic mode, infantry are trained to exercise "trigger discipline" and fight against the tendency to panic (get excited) and twitch rapidly without selecting targets between each shot.

No matter how well-supplied, ammunition is NEVER unlimited. One of the more immediate limitations is the need to carry it all. On a LRRP, that's far from trivial. Even in a defensive position (firebase or post), ammunition has to be carried, distributed, returned, collected, ... and handled obsessively. Contrary to myth, troops are rarely armed 100% of the time. In most situations, arms are kept in the arms room under lock and key. Only under the highest alert conditions are a significant number of troops under arms and carrying ammunition.

The imbeciles in that video wouldn't last 5 minutes under an assault. They'd kill each other.

IMHO, the most important characteristic of the M16/AR-15 is the ballistic "signature" of the type of ammunition it uses. The the AR-15 with .223 military ammo was outlawed by many nations as "inhumane." It has to do with how the slug behaves when it comes in contact with the human body. It tumbles and rolls and tears up the tissue. For a long way. It's rare for it to cause a "through-and-through" wound. No ... it makes a mess.

It's this last that will cause the Sandy Hook first responders nightmares for months or years. The carnage had to be horrific. The sight of mutilated child bodies lying catty-wumpus in lakes of blood with splashes all over the walls would make a Quenten Tarantino movie seem like Disney.

The Springfield bolt action used in WW1 was tame in comparison. The Garand M1 used in WW2 likewise. Adding to the horror is the seemingly toy-like 'feel' of the M16/AR-15 ... like plastic from Mattell. Well, what it does sure ain't toy-like.

One other misconception seems rampant, and that's what 'good' an armed teacher or even security guard could do in such a situation. IMHO, it's almost certain they'd make the situation worse. Even those of us who served in the military received training where the "good guys" were on one side of a line and the "bad guys" were on the other side. Mix 'em up and I don't know who could tell who they were killing ... behind their target, beside their target, or crossing in front of their target ... even assuming they could tell who the "target" was. Or how many. Or where. Hell, it took hours for the police to be reasonably sure there was only ONE "bad guy" at Sandy Hook. The "bad guy" has the overwhelming advantage: he knows that EVERYONE else is his "target." The folks who're actually trained to use guns under such conditions are a small minority of folks trained to use arms. SWAT, Secret Service, some FBI, very few military ... very very few police ... that's all. And THEY find it difficult! It's just fucking INSANE that the wannabe cowboys think it's so simple. God help us.

FWIW, that's why guys are trained to "bring a knife to a gunfight" in the military. (The 'knife' is called a bayonet.)



Caveat: While I'm a Viet Nam veteran with experience under fire, I was NOT in a combat arms unit and (thank God!) didn't have to do the job of an eleven-bravo. You might notice, though, that those guys aren't eager to talk about it ... even to disabuse folks of their illusions. After all, even if folks listen, how could they possibly understand?