You may believe that, but I don't. The M 16 has benefits in combat, but mass shootings aren't combat. Both the M 16 and the AR-15 will heat up equally with rounds fired and they both have the same limit. A person trying to kill the most people wouldn't be using auto fire, they'd be using semi auto directed fire until the weapon exhausted itself, somewhere around 300 rounds within a short period of time would be my guess. At some point, either weapon would become useless, so the mass murderer would need a second weapon to continue the killing. At some point the weight of carrying everything has a limit and that will determine how much damage can be done. Let's say the person uses 30 round magazines, has two shoulders and two arms. If the limit for the weapon was 300 rounds, then it would take 30 30 round magazines to exhaust three weapons. I really can't see how someone could show up with more than 3 weapons ready to fire, but my estimate of the 300 rounds to exhaust the weapon could be off. Carrying all that around, even with a backpack wouldn't be easy and it has to have a limit of destruction.
What may or may not be believed on the part of yourself is not relevant to discussions pertaining to facts. None of which does anything to even attempt to address the facts being pointed out. The AR-15, and other similar rifles, are not the most commonly utilized firearm for the commission of mass shootings, but rather the semi-automatic handgun. As such there is no justified basis for attempting to prohibit the ownership of firearms such as the AR-15, as it will have no impact on the frequency or death toll of mass shootings in the united states. Furthermore, the district of columbia and city of Chicago attempted to justify their total handgun prohibitions on the fact handguns were most commonly used in murders. But the united state supreme court still ruled, despite this fact, a total prohibition on an entire class of firearms was still unconstitutional and not allowed. The criminal misuse of a firearm is simply not a legally acceptable reason for attempting to prohibit the legal ownership of a firearm. That is the long and short of the matter, and no amount of complaining to the contrary will change that fact.
At present the discussion has moved far away from its origin, and is now currently embroiled in a discussion pertaining to the lack of knowledge on the part of certain posters who are claiming military experiences, and treating said experience as if it makes them experts about a subject they do not actually possess knowledge regarding.
Ok now I understand and can help you. The question being "Is the ArmaLite Rifle-15 a weapon of war? Yes if being used in that capacity, as well a is a Colt 45 APC and a 9mm Glock. I assure you I was in the military.
Military weapons only require them being made for military purposes or used by the military, so you are claiming no military weapons existed before the M 14 and that's ridiculous.
"Military Weapon" is a misnomer. These are weapon bought by the military, and may have "input" by the DOD as to design.
And yet such is the case, as the united states military will not acquire, nor issue, the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle to any of its personnel. That fact alone means it is not a military weapon. When the united states military actually begins issuing the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle to its personnel, do be sure to let those present know about such. Until such time actually occurs, it is not a military weapon.
When was the last time a semi-automatic rifle was standard-issue equipment to united states military personnel?
I know what the AR stands for, in fact, I think I was the first to bring that up. The M 16s I was trained with aren't used anymore, but besides the auto fire selector and a few things added to prevent easy auto conversion, the AR-15 I bought after being in the USMC was identical to the M 16 I trained with, except the ability to remove the barrel was different.
I used both the M 16 and bought an AR-15 shortly afterwards. Except for the things I have mentioned, the weapons were identical.
I used the General Electric M61 20mm cannon.....It was attached to another piece of military equipment, a jet
Generally speaking a military weapon is a weapon used extensively by the military or designed to be a weapon used extensively by the military. It's my understanding, any weapon can be owned by the public under certain conditions, but under normal conditions the M 14 wasn't made available to the public, even with the selector welded or missing. There are knockoffs which lack fully auto capability, but I don't think the Chinese and Canadian versions are being imported. The M 14 went into service in 1959 and it was in limited service in 1964, meaning M 16 were already replacing the M 14s. The M 14 or any knockoff is still a military weapon and there is absolutely no requirement for a weapon to be fully auto to be a military weapon. It only requires a history of being used as such.
Maybe so....I'm not to worried about you flying a jet.....I stand a better chance of spell "damn" right.
It might take me longer in >67 than most people and there isn't a reason to do it, now or many years ago. They got 2 years and that was it.
