• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are AR-15’s weapons of war? Here’s what a former Fort Benning commander had to say

Rich2018 said:
No, or at least not yet



You tell me...lever action Winchesters have been used in war.
Click to expand...

That's what I keep saying. The term "weapons of war" includes a lot of current and older firearms, but not the semiautomatic AR-15
 
Rucker61 said:
That's what I keep saying. The term "weapons of war" includes a lot of current and older firearms, but not the semiautomatic AR-15
Click to expand...

Indeed
An the AR-15 is still a WOW despite never having been adopted by a military as an official small-arm
Though it wouldn't surprise me if a few AR-15's had found their way into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers in current hostilities.
 
Rich2018 said:
Indeed
An the AR-15 is still a WOW despite never having been adopted by a military as an official small-arm
Though it wouldn't surprise me if a few AR-15's had found their way into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers in current hostilities.
Click to expand...
Given that muskets, black powder cap and ball revolvers, single shot rifles, lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, semiautomatic shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols including rimfire pistols have all be issued by the military for use in war and actually used in war, what is the purpose of including AR-15s in this list?
 
Rich2018 said:
Neither was the British built SLR (the British version of the FN FAL). Yet it was used in war.
Click to expand...

He has his own definition, just like you have your own definition of "portable". The funny thing is, he can consistently support his. :ROFLMAO:
 
RF667799 said:
Because it would not be out of place in it.
Click to expand...
Other than it actually hadn't been used in war.

So once it's grouped with muskets, black powder cap and ball revolvers, single shot rifles, lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, semiautomatic shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols including rimfire pistols, then what?
 
Rucker61 said:
Given that muskets, black powder cap and ball revolvers, single shot rifles, lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, semiautomatic shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols including rimfire pistols have all be issued by the military for use in war and actually used in war, what is the purpose of including AR-15s in this list?
Click to expand...

Because it would not be out of place in it.
 
Rich2018 said:
Indeed
An the AR-15 is still a WOW despite never having been adopted by a military as an official small-arm
Click to expand...
it has never at any time been, nor is it currently a weapon of war.
Rich2018 said:
Though it wouldn't surprise me if a few AR-15's had found their way into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers in current hostilities.
Click to expand...
if so, then it could be classified as a weapon of war. Until you can prove it has been used, it remains NOT a weapon of war.
 
rahl said:
it has never at any time been, nor is it currently a weapon of war.
Click to expand...

It has been a WOW since the day it was designed.

rahl said:
if so, then it could be classified as a weapon of war. Until you can prove it has been used, it remains NOT a weapon of war.
Click to expand...

A WOW does NOT need to have been used in hostilities.
 
rahl said:
proven false.
Click to expand...

Nope, your opinion is worthless and is anything but "proof".

rahl said:
it has to be used in war, to be a weapon of war. It remains as it was the day it was designed, not a weapon of war.
Click to expand...

Proven false

The Auto-Ordnance company produced a gun intended to be a replacement for their Thompson SMG
It was not adopted, and consequently was never used in warfare.
 
Rucker61 said:
Other than it actually hadn't been used in war.

So once it's grouped with muskets, black powder cap and ball revolvers, single shot rifles, lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, pump shotguns, semiautomatic shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols including rimfire pistols, then what?
Click to expand...

You got your quotes mixed up. I gotta say I'm a little offended. :)
 
Rich2018 said:
No, or at least not yet



You tell me...lever action Winchesters have been used in war.
Click to expand...
All weapons that ever did exist or ever will exist will be weapons of war that's what weapons are for. This is a stupid distinction that is really here to drum up emotional response.

I see you've abandoned the term assault weapon ran out of emotional currency with that one huh?
 
bluesmoke said:
My perspective is that of the surgeon and medical examiner. I'm agreeing with their position on such as the .223 cal. causing so much bodily damage whether dead or alive. In the case you present, I'm saying the one shot with the .223 vs a significantly larger cal, like a .30, would more likely cause greater damage because the .223 bullet is more likely to fragment, which causes more damage (incl a larger, shallow cavity) than a non-frag bullet. The .30 would more likely be lethal due to bullet mass.
Click to expand...
You mean your perception is the same as a couple dishonest people pushing an agenda. Yeah no kidding.
That you think a 556 round cause more damage on average then a 30 cal just shows how clueless you are. Even the dishonest doctors and medical examiners whose nonsense you fell for didn’t try and make that claim.
It’s flat out idiotic.
If a bullet causes more damage it is more likely to be lethal. End of story.
 
Rich2018 said:
Neither was the British built SLR (the British version of the FN FAL). Yet it was used in war.
Click to expand...
It doesn't meet my definition for a weapon of war.


Rich2018 said:
It has been a WOW since the day it was designed.
Click to expand...
Not by my definition.


Rich2018 said:
You have on many subjects...all have been refuted.
Click to expand...
Hold on here. You say that they are opinions. Opinions cannot be refuted.


Rich2018 said:
You merely confuse your opinion for a fact.
Click to expand...
I doubt that he has.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So, would it be fair to say that with a "damage rating" from 0 to 100 (with 100 being "dead") what you would see with the heavier round would be a steeper curve than you would with the lighter round (assuming identical points of impact and impact vector) - and that anything after "dead" is sort of irrelevant to "damage"?
Click to expand...

My point being you can be dead will less damage to the body yet alive with more bodily damage. Someone who has survived or died of poisoning will likely have less bodily damage than a gunshot victim, dead or alive.
 
rahl said:
no it doesn't.

which makes your above claim that the 223 does more damage, laughably moronic

which still makes your statement laughably moronic.

nobody has to overcome the demonstrably false and hilariously ignorant comments you make regarding terminal ballistics, lethality and "damage" lol. You've been sufficiently schooled on all of the above.
Click to expand...

Ballistics prove the .223 will more likely fragment than a significantly larger cal. bullet such as a .30 cal. More frag causes greater damage, creating a larger, shallow, cavity in the body though not as lethal as a larger cal. of greater mass. A bullet of greater mass is more deadly. All you do is make false statement of opinion w/o fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom