Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My father always wished that they had guns when the Reds came in 1927 and shot my grandmother and took over the family farm. Making him an orphan at the age of 10. That was followed up by the murder of 10 million people. A news event, that the NY Times refused to report to the world....and if fact, lied since they thought the murder of 10 million people was only a phase Stalin was going through....a mid-life crises??
Tyranny in the US is....well minor...compared to tyranny in the rest of world.
The US is special.
My mother always said the only TWO things wrong with Americans.....
1) they are incredible naive
2) they don't realize how lucky they are
ps...the rest of the world does....which is why everybody tries to get here.
This country is run by criminals that regularly support leaders that engage in tyranny.
However, the US is killing its people using the "by a thousand cuts" method. There is no difference. Just think how many more horrible people would exit today if the Germans and others did not intervene.
No such thing as "Infantry to Infantry" I was an infantry officer for a decade (commanding a company when I left). We carried mortars, ATGMs, grenades, mines and Comms equipment that had big guns and bombs at the other end of it. Even when I was in Serbian rear areas during the Bosnian humanitarian crisis in a platoon we had mortars, ATGMs, grenades and comms (but no identifying insignia).
You're talking UO predominantly and I already said that was an exception. That said barring body armor the best weapons there would be a combat shotgun and sniper support.
The relevance is in credibility. You keep stating as hard facts things that show your grasp of the subject is tenuous at best.
Here are exerpts from the
"The Infantry Rifle Squad: Size is Not the Only Problem"
Written by Major Paul E Melody from the School of Advanced Military Studies
As a result of their WWI tactical experience all Western
armies in World War II (WWII) organized their infantry
squads and platoons around either a LMG or automatic
weapon.'
Given Marshall's fixation upon increasing the squad's
rifle fire, it seems he failed to appreciate the historical
impact that an effective LMG had made on infantry combat,
particularly at the squad level. Simply put, three or four
riflemen could not equal the efficiency and effectiveness
of a LMG's firepower.
As a measure of a squad's effectiveness, ASIRS compared
a variety of squad organizations in terms of fire capability,
control, attrition effects, and maneuverability.
Using these factors, the ASIRS compared six variations in
squad size (squads ranged in size from four to eleven men):
weapons (the test varied the number of BARs as a percentage
of weapons in each squad, ranging from as few as zero to as
many as three); leadershbi (each squad only had one leader,
no assistants were used except in the eleven man fire team
squad; this was to determine the extent of one man's command
and controlO: and structure (all except the eleven man
squad were organized with a base of fire team, the BAR - if
the squad had a BAR assigned - and only one leader). The
types of missions used in the test were limited to attacks
and defenses.46
The ASIRS report addressed each of the components of
what the testers felt constituted an effective squad: fire
20
capability, control, attrition effects, and
maneuverability. In terms of fire capability, ASIRS concluded
that a squad's volume and accuracy of fire peaked
when fifty percent of the members were equipped with BARs
How can volume of fire not be absolutely critical when it forms the entire basis onto which an infantry squad is organized? I didn't make this up, its not an opinion. This is a fact. To connect this back to the thread.
1.) Not all guns are equally lethal
2.) High volume firearms present a significant danger to the general public and greatly enhance the achievable number of kills possible in a spree shooting.
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle resulted in nearly twice as many deaths compared with shootings carried out with only regular handguns, shotguns or rifles. I don't see mention of semiautomatic handguns in the study.
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
LOL
Semi-automatic firearms are "regular" firearms. What was used as the study baseline, people who engaged with a flintlock rifle?
Just when I think that liberals can't make themselves look anymore ridiculous. I'm surprised that they can work the voting lever at all. Utterly hilarious.
You'll never be able to regulate semi-automatic firearms. Its the most common firearm by a wide margin, and firmly embedded into the culture and present in tens of millions of homes across the nation. No politician has the guts, the pushback would be tremendous, and the no-nothing commies who try will get laughed off of their platform like they always do.
As a result of their WWI tactical experience all Western
armies in World War II (WWII) organized their infantry
squads and platoons around either a LMG or automatic
weapon.'
Given Marshall's fixation upon increasing the squad's
rifle fire, it seems he failed to appreciate the historical
impact that an effective LMG had made on infantry combat,
particularly at the squad level. Simply put, three or four
riflemen could not equal the efficiency and effectiveness
of a LMG's firepower.
As a measure of a squad's effectiveness, ASIRS compared
a variety of squad organizations in terms of fire capability,
control, attrition effects, and maneuverability.
Using these factors, the ASIRS compared six variations in
squad size (squads ranged in size from four to eleven men):
weapons (the test varied the number of BARs as a percentage
of weapons in each squad, ranging from as few as zero to as
many as three); leadershbi (each squad only had one leader,
no assistants were used except in the eleven man fire team
squad; this was to determine the extent of one man's command
and controlO: and structure (all except the eleven man
squad were organized with a base of fire team, the BAR - if
the squad had a BAR assigned - and only one leader). The
types of missions used in the test were limited to attacks
and defenses.46
The ASIRS report addressed each of the components of
what the testers felt constituted an effective squad: fire
20
capability, control, attrition effects, and
maneuverability. In terms of fire capability, ASIRS concluded
that a squad's volume and accuracy of fire peaked
when fifty percent of the members were equipped with BARs
How can volume of fire not be absolutely critical when it forms the entire basis onto which an infantry squad is organized? I didn't make this up, its not an opinion. This is a fact. To connect this back to the thread.
1.) Not all guns are equally lethal
2.) High volume firearms present a significant danger to the general public and greatly enhance the achievable number of kills possible in a spree shooting.
So you think throwing up some no name admin who barely holds a field grade rank? You understand anyone can write a report, and it doesn't mean a thing.
Further your conclusion from the report is inaccurate, the report proposes reducing squad equipment by 1 SAW (LMG) to replace with a standard rifle (currently an M4/M16 with 3 round burst fire). This would reduce volume of fire not increase it, even with automatic fire (currently rarely issued in rifles) and also reduce muzzle velocity with either the M16 or M4 over the SAW.
Like I said, your grasp of the subject is tenuous.
How can volume of fire not be absolutely critical when it forms the entire basis onto which an infantry squad is organized? I didn't make this up, its not an opinion. This is a fact. To connect this back to the thread.
1.) Not all guns are equally lethal
2.) High volume firearms present a significant danger to the general public and greatly enhance the achievable number of kills possible in a spree shooting.
I'd rather face off against someone with an AR than a 12 gauge at close range.
Volume of fire does not equal lethality. Period. You are clueless in this arena.
I've fired 3 different full autos out to ranges of 500 yards.
Accuracy diminishes. The purpose of a squad support machine gun is to keep the combatants down, suppressive fire.
A submachine gun is for clearing a room/close engagement, say a trench.
So you think throwing up some no name admin who barely holds a field grade rank? You understand anyone can write a report, and it doesn't mean a thing.
Further your conclusion from the report is inaccurate, the report proposes reducing squad equipment by 1 SAW (LMG) to replace with a standard rifle (currently an M4/M16 with 3 round burst fire). This would reduce volume of fire not increase it, even with automatic fire (currently rarely issued in rifles) and also reduce muzzle velocity with either the M16 or M4 over the SAW.
Like I said, your grasp of the subject is tenuous.
So backing my point by presenting information from a reputable military publication is somehow less viable then the unverifiable personal account of some no name individual on the internet? Even if we assume your story is true, by your own admission you have never been in a gunfight before. Since none occurred involving US forces in Bosnia. So on one hand we have data and information collected over the span of 3 large wars vs the opinion of 1 military officer who has never seen combat.....
Also, its noted already that the more SAWs (LMG) added to the squad increased its volume of fire and accuracy
The ASIRS report addressed each of the components of
what the testers felt constituted an effective squad: fire
20
capability, control, attrition effects, and
maneuverability. In terms of fire capability, ASIRS concluded
that a squad's volume and accuracy of fire peaked
when fifty percent of the members were equipped with BARs
The reasoning for dropping the 2nd LMG wasn't because it didn't add more firepower, it was due to the reason listed below.
As a result, the light infantry
squad's second LMG does not initially appear to make the
squad less effective. Once the squad is in combat, however,
with its squad strength lingering at seven or eight men,
the presence of two LMGs will degrade the squad's close
43
combat strength and make the squad more quickly combat
ineffective
If my gasp on the subject is tenuous that's fine, I'm a civilian. I'm more concerned with the fact that infantry military officer doesn't understand the most rudimentary principles of infantry doctrine.
Volume of fire does not equal lethality. Period. You are clueless in this arena.
I've fired 3 different full autos out to ranges of 500 yards.
Accuracy diminishes. The purpose of a squad support machine gun is to keep the combatants down, suppressive fire.
A submachine gun is for clearing a room/close engagement, say a trench.
Anything to back this up or are you just making up nonsense per usual?
I just posted a video demonstrating your premise is false.
I'm not making anything up. I live in reality, not theoreticals. Try it sometime.
1.) If volume of fire doesn't contribute to greater lethality then you have no use for a semi-autos, or mags over 10 rounds. Begs the question why waste the time and money on buying an AR-15 when a trusty old bolt action rifle is just as deadly.
2.) It doesn't matter if full auto's are wildly inaccurate. The volume of bullets it spreads over the beaten zone is what makes it so deadly. The deadliest shooter in American history, the Vegas shooter. Didn't aim a single shot, he fired from distance into a beaten zone the size of a football field packed shoulder to shoulder with people. With this method he was able to strike 480 people out of the 1100 rounds he fired. You increase the rate of fire the death toll would have increased. Accuracy in this situation was only of importance in terms of keeping the beaten zone on the crowd. Had he used a bolt action rifle (instead of AR-15's) he wouldn't have even come close to striking 480 people in a 10 minute span.
3.) Suppression fire works because the people being shot at know that a greater volume of fire being thrown at them means they have a higher likelihood of being struck. Hence they hunker down and don't move.
More bullets being fired = higher probability of people being hit. Hence greater lethality.
Semi-automatic firearms are "regular" firearms. What was used as the study baseline, people who engaged with a flintlock rifle?
Just when I think that liberals can't make themselves look anymore ridiculous. I'm surprised that they can work the voting lever at all. Utterly hilarious.
You'll never be able to regulate semi-automatic firearms. Its the most common firearm by a wide margin, and firmly embedded into the culture and present in tens of millions of homes across the nation. No politician has the guts, the pushback would be tremendous, and the no-nothing commies who try will get laughed off of their platform like they always do.
You are exactly right, a complete ban would be literally impossible, it would spark a civil war unlike anything ever seen before...But the trick in avoiding this AND accomplishing stricter gun control comes down to 'psy-tactics'...
Work to change public opinion/ public sentiment towards gun ownership in general...thats what all the mass shootings are achieving, with every new one that happens (especially shootings in schools), more and more regular law abiding gun owners are saying "enough is enough, I dont want guns in my house anymore, only law enforcement and military should have (certain) guns". Proof of this can seen after every mass shooting, in the 'gun turn in' events, people standing in line to WILLINGLY turn over their guns to Law enforcement, trying to get as many guns off the 'street' as possible.
Basically its conditioning/ brainwashing people into siding with a tyrannical govt...its MUCH easier and more effective than trying to accomplish it thru brute force. (no risk of a public up rising or revolution if majority of the public thinks the new laws are a good thing and/or being done to protect their safety).
Drug laws are a great example...even though the Govt does not have the right under the Constitution, to create or enforce drug laws, majority of people support them because they think its the right thing to do, its safer for everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd rather face off against someone with an AR than a 12 gauge at close range. 
