Thank you for educating us though. And I don't care what they're called, I just want them gone.

Assault weapons are only semi-automatic. With the rubber band (assuming this is real) it's a Title II Class 3 machine gun.

There are multiple problems with this technique. First off, you not the shooter has done nothing to demonstrate accuracy. (No verifiable target, spraying a hillside) you can't hit shit doing this.

Second, he has just posted a video containing evidence he has converted that weapon to a machine gun. Yes, I know, it sounds silly, because it's just a rubber band, but the BATFE has already ruled these sorts of conversions (Rubber band and shoestring) to be actual machine guns.

That's a ten year, ten thousand dollar felony if the BATFE acts on this.

If someone were in a confined area with numerous targets, they most certainly COULD hit many targets in a short period of time. For instance, a person in a crowded room not trying to hit anyone specific, but looking to inflict as many casualties as possible in as short a time as possible wouldn't need extreme accuracy, just a point and shoot form the hip would suffice.

Not as easy as it might look in Call of Duty... You might well hit the first target, but the vast majority of rounds will miss. You will also put the vast majority of those rounds into the FIRST target, and have nothing left. It takes less than a second to empty the mag on that rifle in the video.

Casualties are almost certain to be lower than taking aimed shots with a semi-auto, like was done at VT, or Newtown.

Even a proper select-fire weapon that can be fired, aimed, from the shoulder, like an M-16, has been dialed back from full auto for use in the military for this reason.

(Military Operations in Urban Terrain), I can assure you that all that is needed to hit multiple targets is to hold the weapon in such a manner that the recoil cause the weapon to strafe from side to side as opposed to upwards.

It's not difficult to do.

I've done, or seen it done, with an M3A1 (Grease Gun), an M16A1, an MP5 and an AK74.

At a long distance, full auto is worthless and innacurate. In a confined area (such as an enclosed room), a large number of targets can be struck in very short order.

Additionally, simply holding down the trigger and emptying a magazine would rarely happen, repeatedly squeezing off 3-5 round bursts is quite simple to do and would be very effective without carefully aiming each shot.

If a gunman is less than 15 feet away and isn't particular about who they hit, aiming isn't essential.

One final thing - Having fired an M16 at full auto and emptied an entire magazine with a single pull of the trigger, I can state with a great deal of certainty that the recoil isn't huge and can be controlled.

There is no reason for a civilian to posess a weapon that can be made to (for all intents and purpose) be full auto with nothing more than a rubber band.

you know the difference between holding an AR loosely in your hand so recoil can jack the entire weapon back and forth, versus properly holding the weapon at the ready, supported, and the internal sear of the weapon handling the firing cycle. The two are not comparable.

The AR 'slide stocks' improve controllability of bump fire, but it is still dependent upon a 'weak' grip, and does not assist with holding the weapon at the hip.

Turning the M-16 sideways does turn muzzle rise to your advantage for sweeping. No argument there. Still very little comparison between a bump firing AR and a proper M-16.

In an enclosed area at very short range, the recoil is far less of an issue. Firing (even using "bumb firing&quot in short bursts, a person could quickly and easily strike multiple targets.

It's not a capability that anyone needs and it shouldn't even be an option.

The M16 on auto can be fired in short 3 or 4 round burst and in fact training for the infantry prior to Vietnam was conducted using the m 16 on both semi and full automatic. We do not need to discuss how to use it accurately under the automatic condition as that could help those who would use this to hurt others.

Unless I missed something, the military no longer issues full auto M-16's.

The bump fire method in the OP is difficult to produce a burst with. It is actually difficult to STOP firing until the magazine is empty. I won't say impossible, but difficult.

Ghoulish as it may seem, from a purely technical standpoint, I'd be willing to bet the shooter at Newtown did NOT use this technique.

It's a three round burst mode.

I had one tour in Vietnam and can only recall 2 times that I used full auto. One time we had our backs to the Son Thang river and were being overrun, saved only by the gunship Shadow answering our call for help. The other time I was walking point out of a dry paddy into a tree line but before I got to the trees the enemy opened up on us with 2 machine guns from the front, not cross fire, if not for the paddy dike many would not be here today. I much preferred semi to auto it saved ammo and was much more accurate. However that said, if in a small room full of people full auto would do a lot more damage than semi, if you were not picky and had no particular target and wanted to just kill or maim quickly.

The M16 on auto can be fired in short 3 or 4 round burst and in fact training for the infantry prior to Vietnam was conducted using the m 16 on both semi and full automatic. We do not need to discuss how to use it accurately under the automatic condition as that could help those who would use this to hurt others.

to apprehend violence" - wikipedia definition.

all this gun nut vomitus about definitions is just pure mental wankery

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't.

Rate of fire isn't the problem: It's the number of bullets that can be fired. It doesn't matter if a gun can fire five million rounds a second if it can only hold 5+1 rounds and the clip takes several minutes to change.

This is a bolt action: 10 shots in 6.5 seconds.

...
"Fuck worrying about a name, ie "assault".

Focus on magazine capacity first and speed of reload second.

Every gun is registered and every bullet is inventoried.

Lives will be saved."

... 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?

I teach college and have had many vets in class over the years, and only two ever talked openly about killing, and they were both in the same class talking to each other in front of the whole class.

I think it was because both were still almost teenagers that they didn't have that reserve you see in older guys.

You raise some good points, however I think your underestimating the intelligence of good people. If you were a teacher in that school and you had a concealed weapon, heard a gun shot, went to investigate.... you would of seen they are not carrying a concealed weapon but a rifle. It's pretty obvious they are the bad guy. Now yes it can get much more complicated than this, but having a few good citizens that are armed in situations like this, would have more than likely yielded better results and less deaths. It's no different than the police coming in, except it takes them longer to respond, where you are right there.

A bit of history. He ended his life working at a medical clinic and lobbying against the insurance industry. Previous to that he was a SWAT member and prior to that he was teacher. I can see that had been a teacher there he too would have stood up for those kids, no matter what just like the brave hero teachers who died protecting those kids that they could.

Teachers, as I'm sure you don't know, can't just wander off from their kids. Beyond the fact that kids at that age can't be left alone under the best circumstances, but those teachers are legally in loco parentis and are, for the time those kids are in school, basically their parents legally in terms of protecting them from danger.

Which means they cannot leave them for any reason at any time until someone else assumes in loco parentis responsibility for them.

I would like you to name ONE time when a concealed or open carry person stopped or prevented one of these tragedies.

The difference my friend is training. A john rambo wannabe doesn't have the kind of training someone like my husband had. He knew about fields of fire. He understood negotiating techniques. He never took a shot he could make 100%. He was a professional. Not a cowboy wannabe.

This post saddens me in the level of ignorance demonstrated.

LeeAnn.

As if it isn't obvious from that post.

in a confined space.

That's hugely different than trying to shoot scattered targets at a long distance.

As to your description of what the .223 round does, it's entirely accurate and is better written than what I've been able to describe to people.

When folks form their opinions based upon some spectrum of lethality based upon military use in combat conditions, it's IMPORTANT to realize how individual weapons are, in fact, used. And why. Having SOME experience in this regard, I want to offer some information that likely challenges some public assumptions. The assumption that I'm challenging is the presumed relative lethality of the M16/AR-15 in automatic mode as opposed to semi-automatic mode. It is arguable whether a shooter could kill more people with any given amount of ammunition in fully automatic mode as opposed to semi-automatic mode. In my opinion, he could NOT. YMMV.

Likewise, it's IMPORTANT to understand the HUGE difference (for an armed defender) between targeting the "bad guy" in a crowd as opposed to how the military trains troops. In "combat conditions," it's a LOT easier ... unless, of course, the "bad guys" are surrounded. There is far too little appreciation for the HUGE potential for "collateral damage" with an armed defender/security person. Of all the folks in our society who're trained and equipped to use weapons in some military or law enforcement role, VERY few are trained in their use in an urban/street/crowd situation.

It's difficult to convey an appreciation for the horrific damage done to the human body by the standard AR-15 .223 slug. I've seen victims of Claymore mines that had FAR less damage.

The guns aren't the problem, it's that bad people use them. Bad people who intend on killing will accomplish their goal by any means necessary. A gun is typically the first thing that is thought of when you intend to kill, but lots of things can be used including vehicles. Banning guns or types of guns isn't going to solve anything. Having good people like us with guns is a better idea. I guarantee you if one of the teachers had a concealed weapon while at that school shooting, they could of either completely prevented killings or greatly reduced the number of innocent deaths. The more good people that are armed, the better. There is no 100% way to prevent criminals from using weapons or other methods of killing, but increasing the number of good people with a gun and some basic training on how to defend themselves and others will help the most.

"Having good people like us with guns is a better idea". No it isn't. Get some new talking points-these old NRA chestnuts aren't convincing anyone.

If he had ran into that school and just yelled BANG really loud several time I'm pretty sure the outcome would have been different.

LeeAnn.

Right?

...should be considered no different from a machine gun.
I'll bet that the victims of the Valentine's Day massacre had plenty of bullets in their bodies even if the room was only "sprayed" without aiming.

Also, listen to the first words in the video, "patriots weapon of choice". Those are not words of a target shooter or self-defense gun owner.
The guns themselves evoke an attitude that attracts people I will never trust.

'automatic' firing is used to gain 'firepower superiority'. that means you want to bad guys to stop firing and put their heads down because of all the bullets coming there way. you may not hit anything but it is scary to hear a shitload of lead going by your head. been there, done that and got the holes in my t shirt.