>For decades the American military has trained its conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in the semiautomatic mode — one bullet per trigger pull — instead of on “burst” or automatic in almost all shooting situations. The weapons are more accurate this way, and thus more lethal.
Can any miltaryfags confirm this?
If that's the case than maybe a ban might not be so unreasonable. Military stuff is designed to be as lethal as possible on humans
nytimes.com
...
I love how AR-15's are apparently the only rifles ever made according to liberals
Are you saying that Civ guns should be full auto only?
Yes, yes he is.
...
There is no legality to a ban on automatic weapons. If the military can use it, the civilians should be able to as well.
>5.56
>lethal
ohohoho. 7.62x51 is a REAL man's caliber.
thanks for calling in the shills now. HEY EVERYONE! READ THIS FUCKING PIC! MASS INEPTITUDE OR PURPOSEFUL IGNORANCE! What does that spell?!?
I don't believe in school shootings terrorist events etc but I'm not like a flat earthed or anti vax/chemtrails but I can't see these media events being real change my mind?
You do know the US military fires 250,000 bullets to kill one person, right? Right?
jonathanturley.org
>Military stuff is designed to be as lethal as possible on humans
>a ban might not be so unreasonable
woah... that actually made me think..
i've changed my mind on the gun debate now, we need to ban all guns because they're designed to harm humans.
like, wtf guys?! why does anyone even need a gun lmao
also saged your obvious bait thread
real fuckin nato
Why do Americans put up with redcoats who want to take their guns instead of shooting them?
Yes semi-auto is the rule in almost all military infantry engagements.
Exceptions:
- if you are the machine gunner, fire in small bursts on full auto
- Close quarters combat, fire in bursts on full auto
If you think this is a good enough reason to waive your rights you are retarded.
The 2nd amendment is the right that fundamentally protects all of your rights from being infringed.
If some people looked at knife fatalities like they look at gun fatalities, knifes would be instantly banned.
Guns are designed to be lethal and reliable as this is literally their purpose as a tool, complaining about their lethality is a complement.
>Can any miltaryfags confirm this?
I'll confirm something for you alright. Rifles are for engaging targets at longer ranges. Yes they can engage targets at closer ranges but where they really make a difference when being use at distances greater than 50 yards. Less than 50 yards a pistol is adequate depending on situation and relative skill of the shooter. Typically 30 yards or so is used for qualification purposes for pistols in the military after a mere 2 week course with the weapon. I'll bet most of these victims were engaged at shorter than 50 yard range maybe even into the 30 yard range. Additionally, shotguns are good up to maybe 100 yards with slugs depending on the skill of the shooter. So what I'm trying to explain to you is that mass shootings in schools don't require a rifle.
There are uses for both Semi-Auto and Full-Auto in various combat scenarios, I can tell you now some armies have introduced a Semi-Auto only service rifles in the past and weren't successful.
How about the M14, which was very unsuccessful in full auto?
I suppose that's why they developed an intermediate cartridge and specifically low recoil rifle to replace it.
american military is shit
>muh 556
kike shit for faggot soyboys
REAL FUCKIN NATO IS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SPEC FOR MEN'S ROUNDS
No shit sherlock, its almost like alternate fire modes are memes or for very specific situations like fire suppression, which we have specialized weapons to do and otherwise just waste ammo.
...
Remember America once you lose it, theres no going back, so make sure they dont take your rights away and buy more guns
>mr 2g with the 1b headshot over here
Throwing 5 pieces of lead in someones direction is usually better than throwing 1.
Nope. In actual combat logistics matter, when soldiers were switched to full auto they would just waste all their bullets redundantly shooting the same guy 5+ times so the military told them to knock it off and eventually took the capability off some service rifles. This is was 3-round burst is for, lets you shoot a guy a lot, but not waste as much ammo, and even that isn't supposed to be the default fire mode.
There are uses for it, like when you go charging in somewhere and don't care about wasting ammo because everything needs to be dead (You know, an ASSAULT) but for the most part its just a massive waste of bullets and bullets are heavy so you can't be carrying around thousands of them to waste.
With AR-15s, and every other weapon, mass murderers prefer Gun Free Zones
98% of the time, whereof they are free to murder without the worry of anyone
firing back. It's not such a brainteaser if you let your mind function, is it?
And the government racketeers who knowingly mandate these murder zones
need to be indicted. If not per the RICO statue, then certainly for their
criminal negligence. Live free or owned. Western peasantry are increasingly
opting for the latter.
Serious question, do you idiots think Paddock would have done less damage with a Scar 17?
>Be in the world;s greatest infantry unit
>Two shooters line up for a demonstration
>Same experience level, both using an M4A1 from 15 yards or so
>Shooter 1 empties his mag on full auto
>Shooter 2 empties his mag on semi auto, a few seconds slower than shooter 1
>We all go to inspect the targets
>Full auto shooter's shot group makes starting in the center and eventually moves off the target
>Semi auto shooter's rounds are all in a half dollar sized grouping
>Lesson learned
Your question seems genuine but you need to learn the purpose of the 2A.
>If that's the case than maybe a ban might not be so unreasonable. Military stuff is designed to be as lethal as possible on humans
Exactly. We need these types of weapons in the hands of civilians. Posting mandatory pasta about 2A
>NATO rounds aren’t 556
U having fun son?
So the alternate fire modes aren't memes?
So now that these idiots have started doing the barest minimum of research on guns how long before they find out that one shoots a bullet intended to wound more often than kill and we get this headline because they never walk anything back?
>Why the AR15 being designed as less lethal makes it the most deadly gun in history
There is a point to them
It's a /k/ meme that 7.62x51 is referred to as :"real fuckin nato"
Semi auto and full auto serve different purposes. If you take into account that ammo is at a premium in the field and every shot counts. It is far more effective to shoot on semi auto. But if you need to suppress the enemy spray and pray is more effective.
The 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to bear arms "except scary military-grade weapons".
They are memes. The left constantly talks about them being child slaughterers in every situation, someone standing far away releasing a hail of fire and killing every child in the state within 2 seconds and never having to reload with his 'high-capacity baby-killer 5000' mags.
There is a place for them, and the left doesn't know what that is, but it sounds scary to them because they're idiots so full auto is a meme. When the actual fucking military rarely uses full auto yet you claim its the default firing mechanism of these weapons you are memeing.
>Be in the world's greatest infantry unit
pic related
Even suppressive fire has to be accurate. I've had some training with submachine guns, was taught to shoot in 2-3 round bursts when using full auto.
Look, This post was made by some DNC shill.
You mean in actual combat they would just miss most of the time on auto.
They probably use auto for CQB stuff and ambushes.
The thing is, most of the time military features only matter when someone is shooting back at you.
>You mean in actual combat they would just miss most of the time on auto.
Yeah, or that.
But that's what machine guns are. A round from any rifle every two seconds have proven to be enough to keep the enemies head down and is effective at suppression.
Good point. From now on only sell fully automatic guns.
>muh full auto only for suppressing fire
How about actually killing people? Are you going to have full view of your target and time to aim? Sometimes sure but not always - most of the time you're going to want to just throw lead in their direction.
I can confirm. I played PUBG once. IT was much easier to shoot a zipper-head in semi-auto mode.
>conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in the semiautomatic mode
This is true and is true in most armies, that is how I was trained.
That said, a handgun with hollowpoint bullets is more lethal for targets who aren't using body armor or combat vests with magazines etc to block the bullet. Ie, regular students.
Unless every kid wears kevlar, the shooters would be more successful with a smaller firearm (like an smg or handgun) with hollowpoints rather than FMJ 5.56 that contrary to the myth wont fracture in a regular body shot.
So no, I think making full auto rifles less accessible is sufficient as well as requiring additional background checks for things like .50 BMG.
Also I think we need to consider the gun culture in the US as well as the abundance of illegal firerarms and the unfortunate inability of the police to teleport themselves in front of a shooter before the first bullet is fired.
As long as criminals easily can get firearms, law abiding citizens should have at least equal access. Otherwise you risk ending up like Sweden where muslim kids can threaten you with a Ak-47 and you aren't even allowed to carry pepper spray for self defense.
Where ever i am there is always a weapon at hand. There is always a chance to upgrade. My life is like COD2 played on "Hero." The one aspect of human nature, "killing shit," is a highly adaptive sport.
Only fired my M4 in burst once. Most of the firefights I was in I used semi. But full auto would be fucking nice clearing a room.
>most of the time you're going to want to just throw lead in their direction.
Enjoy not hitting them. Unless you are on an open field and they are running at you in a completely straight line down that open field, and there's a lot of them like this is some WWII era battle where machine guns legitimately did chew through everyone, you are not going to find yourself in that position.
Full auto is for suppression because as soon as you start doing it everyone will scatter and hide and if you keep doing it all you are doing is shooting dirt and rocks.
haha yeah if you're fucking Russians with shitty AKs
youtube.com
Slide thread.
Why would you not hit someone with a full auto burst? The first bullet is still going to go in the same place as it would in semi-auto, you're just going to throw a couple extra in that direction after - increasing your chances of hitting.
We're talking about 5.56 here on weapons that are specifically designed to fire an accurate burst with controllable recoil.
That looks like an environment better suited for marksmen with battle rifles and snipers. Poor lad doesn't even have optics.....
>Ugg boot
Most soldiers don't even have access to full auto unless you are rucking a 249 or 240.
More accurate? Yes, for the most part.
More lethal? Definitely not. Anyone trained with automatic weapons is still gonna hit their target. Be it 1 bullet or 50.