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

[aubiefifty 18,398]

A former Fort Benning commander took a stand in the country’s ongoing debate on gun control with a thread of tweets posted Thursday evening.

“Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton wrote on Twitter.

The retired major general went on to write the AR-15 was the civilian version of the M16, a close relation to the M4 rifles currently used by the military.

“It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy,” Eaton wrote.

Eaton broke down the differences between the M16, M4 and AR-15 in the thread of seven tweets. He said those opposed to assault weapon bans were playing with semantics, when they claimed any meaningful difference existed between military weapons and AR-15 rifles.

“...The AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ … Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it,” he wrote. “They know it’s true. Now you do too.”

The tweets came on the heels of one of the country’s deadliest weeks in recent history. In the days since the Uvalde, Texas shooting, 20 mass shootings have claimed the lives of 17 people and injured 88 others, according to Gun Violence Archive. The researchers defined a mass shooting as any shooting with four or more victims shot, either injured or killed.

[wdefromtx 3,691]

Glocks are given to our troops nowadays, technically those are weapons of war too. 
 

I went back and through all the data and as some stated on here the AR-15 contributed very little to the overall homicide counts. I’m fact the a handgun is used 15 times more and knives are used 4 times more than rifles. That’s all rifles , not just AR’s. 
 

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Glocks are given to our troops nowadays, technically those are weapons of war too. 
 

I went back and through all the data and as some stated on here the AR-15 contributed very little to the overall homicide counts. I’m fact the a handgun is used 15 times more and knives are used 4 times more than rifles. That’s all rifles , not just AR’s. 
 

 

You have changed your mind on assault weapons?

[wdefromtx 3,691]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You have changed your mind on assault weapons?

More like we need to see what can be overhauled overall to help the issue. That’s the tricky issue……

But focusing on assault weapons sounds great and makes for good headlines, but really is a small blip on the radar screen compared to handguns and even knives. 
 

So yeah, after really looking at the statistics it’s not an assault weapon issue. 

[SaltyTiger 8,633]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Glocks are given to our troops nowadays, technically those are weapons of war too. 
 

I went back and through all the data and as some stated on here the AR-15 contributed very little to the overall homicide counts. I’m fact the a handgun is used 15 times more and knives are used 4 times more than rifles. That’s all rifles , not just AR’s. 
 

 

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
 

Hand guns are used more. However when the assault rifle is weapon of choice death totals rise. Like bad snakes, cobra is deadlier than a rattlesnake.

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

I have a M1 Carbine that was used in WWII and in Vietnam which makes it an actual weapon of war, yet nobody is talking about the M1 .30 caliber semiautomatic rifle as being banned.  Would the M1 fall under the weapon of war label?

I also own a Colt .45  SAA (Single Action Army) Peacemaker that was a weapon of war back in 1873.  How narrowly are these regulations going to be written?  There are a lot of terms being thrown around by people that really don’t understand what these terms may entail.  

[wdefromtx 3,691]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
 

Hand guns are used more. However when the assault rifle is weapon of choice death totals rise. Like bad snakes, cobra is deadlier than a rattlesnake.

Likely due to the fact it has high capacity magazines. Non assault rifles with high capacity magazines have similar death tolls. Limit the number of rounds down to something less convenient. 

[wdefromtx 3,691]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have a M1 Carbine that was used in WWII and in Vietnam which makes it an actual weapon of war, yet nobody is talking about the M1 .30 caliber semiautomatic rifle as being banned.  Would the M1 fall under the weapon of war label?

I also own a Colt .45  SAA (Single Action Army) Peacemaker that was a weapon of war back in 1873.  How narrowly are these regulations going to be written?  There are a lot of terms being thrown around by people that really don’t understand what these terms may entail.  

Yes they would be considered weapons of war. Just like my Glock.

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yes they would be considered weapons of war. Just like my Glock.

The left likes to change terms to get what they want using the emotions of the moment.  Not a way to make laws.

[homersapien 12,275]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Yes they would be considered weapons of war. Just like my Glock.

Not exactly. 

An assault rifle is obviously much more lethal and effective, which is why it's the standard infantry weapon instead of a pistol. 

And the ballistics aren't even close.

[homersapien 12,275]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The left likes to change terms to get what they want using the emotions of the moment.  Not a way to make laws.

Yeah, you becha'.  A gun is a gun to us.

Can't let those "emotions of the moment" get to you.  Especially when it's always someone else's kid, right?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not exactly. 

An assault rifle is obviously much more lethal and effective, which is why it's the standard infantry weapon instead of a pistol. 

And the ballistics aren't even close.

I believe they know and understand this most basic fact.  What I cannot understand is whether the ignorance is genuine or, simply the result of some sort of fear of drifting too far from the tribe.  I have to conclude that the answer is either in some cases, both in others.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, you becha'.  A gun is a gun to us.

Can't let those "emotions of the moment" get to you.  Especially when it's always someone else's kid, right?

The "all guns are equal" yet, we cannot restrict sales of any,,, is alarmingly illogical.

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, you becha'.  A gun is a gun to us.

Can't let those "emotions of the moment" get to you.  Especially when it's always someone else's kid, right?

Emotions, I rest my case.  

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

44 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The "all guns are equal" yet, we cannot restrict sales of any,,, is alarmingly illogical.

You are disingenuous.  The left’s point is banning all guns and you know it.  

[icanthearyou 4,468]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You are disingenuous.  The left’s point is banning all guns and you know it.  

That is a lie. 

Saving lives, a more peaceful society, those are the goals.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That is a lie. 

Saving lives, a more peaceful society, those are the goals.

 

 

What guns would you allow citizens to own?

[TexasTiger 14,474]

39 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You are disingenuous.  The left’s point is banning all guns and you know it.  

That’s why Obama took your guns like you were promised,

[icanthearyou 4,468]

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What guns would you allow citizens to own?

No brand or particular model.  I would begin the discussion with fire rates above 100 rounds per minute, magazines over 15 rounds should require much scrutiny to own.

Edited June 4, 2022 by icanthearyou

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

22 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s why Obama took your guns like you were promised,

It has been a constant threat, you are correct.  Only seems like when Dems are in charge do we have our rights assaulted.  Let no emergency go to waste.

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

26 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No brand or particular model.  I would begin the discussion with fire rates above 100 rounds per minute, magazines over 15 rounds should require much scrutiny to own.

Interesting concept.

[TexasTiger 14,474]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It has been a constant threat, you are correct.  Only seems like when Dems are in charge do we have our rights assaulted.  Let no emergency go to waste.

Obama was in office 8 years. What gun right was “assaulted” during that time? You’re sounding a bit delusional— the gun industry is banking on you being so— “buy now while you still can!”

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Obama was in office 8 years. What gun right was “assaulted” during that time? You’re sounding a bit delusional— the gun industry is banking on you being so— “buy now while you still can!”

Gun sales have risen most years since 1999.

The January increase should not be taken as unusual, nor should the rise in gun sales from 2019 to 2020 be viewed as an anomaly. The number of gun sales has increased most years since 1999. Sales first topped 25 million in 2016, 20 million in 2013, 15 million in 2011 and 10 million in 2006. The first full year the FBI kept data was 1999, when total sales were 9,138,123.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/02/10/this-is-how-many-guns-were-sold-in-all-50-states/43371461/

This was from an article on Feb 10, 2021.  So no matter who was in office gun sales increased.  The driver for some is the constant talk about the 2nd Amendment, but in 2020 there were 5 million new gun owners that bought guns.  From the same article:

Who bought these guns? CBS News pointed out that over 5 million people were first-time gun buyers last year. CNN reported a sharp rise in sales to Black Americans and women. "Sales to women are also up 40% through September when compared with the same period last year," the news network pointed out.

It appears people are arming themselves because they don’t feel safe.

I haven’t bought a gun in years other than to collect.  The President’s push for gun sales with his talk about banning has no affect on me.

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,172]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

That is a lie. 

Saving lives, a more peaceful society, those are the goals.

 

 

Yes by banning all guns.  You may be overestimating the effect of your calling anybody a liar.

[TexasTiger 14,474]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Gun sales have risen most years since 1999.

The January increase should not be taken as unusual, nor should the rise in gun sales from 2019 to 2020 be viewed as an anomaly. The number of gun sales has increased most years since 1999. Sales first topped 25 million in 2016, 20 million in 2013, 15 million in 2011 and 10 million in 2006. The first full year the FBI kept data was 1999, when total sales were 9,138,123.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/02/10/this-is-how-many-guns-were-sold-in-all-50-states/43371461/

This was from an article on Feb 10, 2021.  So no matter who was in office gun sales increased.  The driver for some is the constant talk about the 2nd Amendment, but in 2020 there were 5 million new gun owners that bought guns.  From the same article:

Who bought these guns? CBS News pointed out that over 5 million people were first-time gun buyers last year. CNN reported a sharp rise in sales to Black Americans and women. "Sales to women are also up 40% through September when compared with the same period last year," the news network pointed out.

It appears people are arming themselves because they don’t feel safe.

I haven’t bought a gun in years other than to collect.  The President’s push for gun sales with his talk about banning has no affect on me.

 

 

Wonder why they don’t feel safe with right wingers arming themselves to the teeth and excitedly talking about civil war?