Slashdot Mirror
Mikhail Kalashnikov: Inventor of AK-47 Dies At 94
necro81 writes "Lt. Gen. Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, an arms designer for the Soviet Union, creator of the AK-47, passed away today at age 94. Kalashnikov was born a peasant and entered the Soviet Army as a conscript. However, the self-taught tinkerer had an aptitude that took him far. The AK-47, his best-known creation, was praised for its reliability and low cost; attributes that have made it the most successful firearm ever, seeing use in homeland defense, rebellion, terrorism, and untold massacres. The inventor was himself ambivalent about the uses his creation had seen, but was nevertheless proud of his contribution to his country, where he is praised as a hero."
You can bury an AK-47 for a long period of time and it'll continue to remain operation after you dig it up.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
BUILD YOUR OWN!
This is a steampunk variant.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Politics aside, Kalashnikov was something of a genius. Or at least a commonsense visionary.
He only had access to relatively crude manufacturing processes and a basic idea of what he wanted.
And he managed to turn out a product that is, by any stretch of the imagination, RIDICULOUSLY successful.
Things that'd be considered weaknesses or defects in other weapons systems are some of the very things that are considered strengths in the Kalashnikov rifles.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I absolutely loved him in Opus 19: The Dreamer while at the New York City Ballet. What a talent.
bringing down 72 helicopters, ten planes, and falling lead took out 200 weddings.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
By your logic, perhaps the inventors of black powder and smokeless powder should be castigated as well? After all, without bullets the AK would simply be another bludgeoning tool. Or how about whoever created the humble machete, which has been used in countless massacres across Africa?
So should the number of despotic regimes overthrown with it. And the number of people died in car crashes should be on Henry Ford's tombstone.
Things can be used for good and bad. Don't just focus on what you perceive as bad.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
For inventing the most used murdering tool?!?
It was developed during and immediately after WW2. He created a tool for his fellow soldiers to defend their country, lands and friends and families.
How politicians and criminals MISUSE a tool is not the responsibility of a soldier/designer who does not want to go into battle again with inferior weapons.
"Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer ... I always wanted to construct agriculture machinery."
--Mikhail Kalashnikov
If not for the Nazis, he might have invented an inexpensive, reliable machine that helps feed people around the world. Russia in particular seems to frequently have issues with wheat due to drought and/or wildfires, and this has an impact on global food prices. But coming from a rural area he might never have been exposed to the resources needed to achieve his inventions. He might not have been in a position where anyone with those resources would take him seriously. Sometimes bad things happen and deflect our lives in directions other than those we intended, but sometimes that results in putting us right where we need to be. His conscription exposed him to complex machines he might never have worked with otherwise. His war wounds landed him in the hospital where he overheard others talking about what was wrong with the existing Russian rifles. His hospital stay gave him time away from his job as a tank commander to work on his designs. His first attempts at small arms design were rejected, but they got him noticed, and got him transferred out of the tank division to work on rifle design.
I saw a bumper sticker on the freeway the other day that read: "Remember who you wanted to be." Kalashnikov was haunted by the fact that his design had become a symbol of war and terrorism, but the real tragedy of Kalashnikov's life is that AFAIK he never used his success in his unintended profession to go back and do what he really wanted.
Some time ago, I watched a documentary that included parts of an interview with him and was greatly impressed by his design principle of favoring "slop" over designs requiring tight tolerances, which yielded high robustness and reliability. One might think of it as the mechanical analogue of Postel's principle but pre-dating it by many years. I think of his words whenever I see my smartphone crashing or other software failures and try to prefer robustness to excessive elegance myself when designing systems.
Rest in peace, fellow engineer.
You can kill people with a Ford, but it wasn't designed for it- intentionally running people down in a car is something the designer would be horrified at. The AK-47 was designed exclusively for killing people- it has no other serious use; the designer intended to make the best killing implement possible, with the intention of killing as many "people my nation doesn't like" as possible, as efficiently as possible. There's a big ethical difference.
I'm only saying this in fairness to the OP- I'm not really naive enough to make an argument against weapon designers in that way. But I am serious that it is a legitimate ethical choice. I can't see myself working in weapons design, because the ethical consequences of my actions would bother me.
In a way, it's an argument related to the old debunked Nazi death camp soldier "just following orders" defence (albeit it much less extreme). If every talented engineer refused to be involved with weapon design, weapons would be considerably less effective that they are today. Therefore, every talented engineer who gets involved in weapon design has to take personal responsibility for what they're enabling.
It was designed to kill soldiers of a technologically superior and well trained army who were invading the designer's country. Personally, I think he should get at least a little slack because of that.
Interesting you choose Ford as an example. Ford made its own share of death-dealing devices during WWII.
The Kalashnikov was born out of the USSR's life and death struggle with the German Reich. Don't see why anybody would have a problem with the designer.
The AK-47's only purpose is to assist in killing people so it certainly raises the question whether designing something like that is ethical or not. But I guess someone could also make the counter-argument that if a gun is used for only defense purposes, it might avoid even more violence being happening. I dunno.
It's also used for:
intimidating leaders,
intimidating civilians,
morale,
patroling,
generally letting others know you belong to an armed cadre.
I would argue that these are all very important uses for AKs.
ANY rifle is far superior to the sort of "scatter gun" that idiots from the Blue contingent like to advocate.
Most of the mystique surrounding these weapons is driven by fundemental misunderstandings of how they are used by professionals. Such professionals do not employ them as if they are recreating a scene out of some gangster movie or an A-Team episode.
Rifles are intended to be controlled precision weapons. Their advantage is range and accuracy. This is something that the AK-47 gets knocked for.
Beyond the magazine, "weapons of war" aren't terribly impressive. Some like the M-16 are actually a little underpowered when it comes to larger game.
The hysteria surrounding infantry rifles is mostly driven by willful ignorance.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, ARs are universally "cheap." Their ownership needs to be "justified." They're "SHIT unless you need to kill people," which naturally makes them a terrible choice for "self defence." You either don't know what "semi-automatic" means, or you're appallingly ignorant of gun regulations.
What made you think you're "part of the gun crowd," or even qualified to have an opinion? If you actually do own a firearm, you should be ashamed of not knowing the laws you're supposed to be following.
DATABASE WOW WOW
For inventing the most used murdering tool?!?
Are you sure about that? I know reliable numbers would be hard to get, but I suspect that swords and arrows still hold a bit of a lead. The did have several thousand years head start after all.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
The AK-47 is designed to win wars, not specifically to kill people. Read some Sun Tzu. With the normal military ammo (not the East German one) if the bullet doesn't hit a vital organ and with medical assistance there are very good chances of a full recovery. Can't say the same about many other firearms.
The only TRUE reason for a civilian to own those things is because you want to own them for the sake of owning them.
I am not a fan of guns at all, but I am a believer in the constitution. I would suggest that the only constitutionally protected reason for a civilian to own a gun should be to be capable of mounting a militia that could defend against a corrupt government. That would clearly include guns like an AK.
The right to bear arms in my opinion has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting...
Wow. Just wow. So the fact that he wanted to have the means to arm his own countryfolk with a cheap and reliable weapon after watching the sieges and slaughters that happened to the Soviets during WWII makes him a monster?
I wonder what you would do if you lived through that... throw your hands up and wait to be cut down with a Nazi machine gun?
I wonder if you blame people like Tim Berners-Lee for child pornography?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I hear that, instead of the usual 21 gun salute, the crowd will just fire in the air on full automatic.
Too soon?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I am either religious not terribly spiritual, but one can only hope that a man whose invention was responsible for the deaths of so many millions does not go into a peaceful afterlife.
Hold on here. He was a patriot for his country. He developed an arm that could be produced in mass quantities because that is what his government needed at that time. He didn't set out to arm terrorists, just to make an arm for the foot soldier in the USSR, to be used in horrible field conditions by mostly uneducated soldiers.
That his country decided to cover the earth with the weapon and license it's manufacture world wide was none of his doing. You might as well blame the Wright Brothers for the fire bombing of Berlin.
As he said himself:
"I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists."
"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work – for example a lawnmower."
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
... or promoting self defense or plinking tin cans.
While your point has merit, I have to point out that the
Nazis had been defeated 5 years before that AK-47 was invented.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The only purpose of Little Boy was identical to AK-47s single purpose, or Sarin for that matter. If designing one was ethical, then the other one was as well.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Ok, so, not to bring up the old bathtub trope, but I suspect there are a lot of objects that have been responsible for more deaths than hiroshima and nagasaki combined. This reminds me of the "number of minutes to skeletonize a cow" metric that Gary Larson found so curious.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Kalashnikov started working on what would become AK in 1944, while in a hospital, where he got after being wounded on the front. The design was complete in 1947 (hence the common but incorrect AK-47 designation), production started in 1948, and it was officially adopted as the new army rifle in 1949.
And it was not like Nazis were the only enemy the Soviet Union had, especially five years after WW2.
Sir (or ma'am), if I had any mod points I would give them to you. I think an argument could be made for a "right to bear arms for food-gathering purposes" (a right to not be reliant on others for food, when you could go hunt it yourself), but the US Constitution specifies as justification of the right to bear arms the equipping of a militia, in order to maintain a free state.
They are over priced crap that uses crap rounds: .223 and that funky 7.62 that the AK uses. SHIT unless you need to kill people.
I would strongly disagree about 7.62x39. It is actually a very fine round for medium-sized game such as deer: in terms of terminal ballistics, it is very similar to .30-30, which is an extremely popular hunting cartridge, but 7.62x39 has superior ballistics and a flatter shooting trajectory. And SKS, chambered in it, is still one of the cheapest rifles on the market, cheaper than most American made bolt actions.
the accuracy of the weapon would suggest the hind quarter is what you would probably hit if you were aiming for a heart shot.
... what?
ironic that the Nobel Peace Prize is named for the inventor of dynamite. Another thing that is used to great effect in killing people.
But hey, don't let that stop your rant. Carry on.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Effective combat range for ANY rifle is 100 meters or less. In Vietnam, 'combat range' tended to be under 50 meters.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
There was never an assault riffle called "AK 47". There was only "AK" ( ). The suffix "47" (having nothing to do with either invention, or introduction to the red army) was given to it later on, when AK-74 (and that's their proper name) were introduced- they were, most significantly, using the smaller caliber ammo (5.45 mm vs 7.62 used by the older generation). And no, so callled "AK47" wasn't really good riffle- heavy, with a crap accuracy. It was (relatively) quickly replaced by AKM and AKMS.
Try as you might, your attempt to come across as a "gun person" fails miserably.
AR15s make wonderful hunting weapons. Many companies make AR15s with specific features chosen for hunting. Here are a couple:
http://rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=552
http://www.dpmsinc.com/KINGS-DEAERT-SHADOW_ep_146-1.html
Typically they include a flattop upper receiver, a low profile gas block, skeletonized stocks, and a free-float hand guard.
The standard .223 round is more than sufficient for North American animals up to moose-size when using the proper loading: a 75grain BTHP. And many ammunition manufacturers offer .223 loadings specifically for hunting with an AR15. This is one of many fine examples:
http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-75-gr-BTHP-Match/
Additionally, anyone with more than a passing knowledge of guns and AR15s would know that the platform does not only come in .223. In the last 5 years there has been a surge in popularity of upper receivers chambered in calibers such as 6.5 Grendal, 6.8 SPC and 300 Blackout. Additionally, the venerable .308 has been an option for AR-style guns for almost 50 years. While not being a necessity for using an AR15 to hunt with, these other optional calibers provide longer range hunting options.
But if you still believe that it's impossible to hunt with an AR15, please, whatever you do, don't tell the hundreds of people who posted pictures of their hunting ARs along with trophies in these two threads:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_23/605991_Show_us_your_AR15__and_other__deer_kills___and_60___retitled.html&page=1
http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=10&f=3&t=618206
They would be devastated to find out that what they were doing was impossible.
As far as target shooting goes, the annual National Matches, held at Camp Perry, Ohio every summer since 1907, and widely seen as the Olympics of the shooting sports world, uses.... you guessed it: AR15s. And it's not hard to understand why: they're light weight, ergonomic, light recoiling, and cheap to train with (compared to other competition rifles).
And your claim that an AR15 is worse at self defense than all other things you think it's bad at.... get real! Nearly every SWAT team in the US, and NATO-allied special forces group in the world has moved to the AR platform, and those guys have the money and latitude to choose anything they want. After a brief love affair with various pistol-caliber carbines and bullpups in the late 90's and early 00's, they have almost all gone to the AR15.
There are plenty of semi automatic rifles that are much better suited for civilians - and even military use too but they're too expensive for outfitting an army.
The US Army could replace all of its rifles for the cost of about a dozen F-35s. Cost is not an issue that would hold the army back if there were a better rifle available.
The only reason they are so expensive now is because of the demand from stupid people who think Obama is going to ban them.
AR15s are cheaper today than they have ever been. There are over 100 companies in the US producing them, and a nice mid-grade AR can be had for under $600 today.
The next time you want to appear to be an expert on guns, and then denounce the most popular, most capable, most flexible gun ever made, for reasons that don't stand up to even casual examination, stick to the comment sections at Moth
If you think 7.62x39 is "funky" you're not part of the "gun crowd." If you think 7.62x39 is a "crap round" you're also not part of the "gun crowd." It's a versatile round that's been around a long time, and packs enough power to take down a dear or something without having quite the weight or shoulder-killing punch of a .308 (7.62x51) or the older Russian 7.62x54R. I think you'll find quite a few people using an SKS chambered in 7.62x39 as a deer rifle, in places where it's legal to do so. As far as cheaply made, the base model AKs (such as WASR-10), yes. Some of the better ARs on the market are anything but "cheaply made shit," however. Also, the prices now are not significantly higher than when Bush was in office... prices spiked for a few months a year ago, but they're back to about where they've always been, maybe even a little lower.
The true reason for a civilian to own "those things" is because they love freedom, and a balance of power between a government and its citizenry is the only way to ensure the continuation of freedom (hence the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution).
The AK-46 (fourty six) was presented for official military trials in 1946, it had been in design since 1945. It was never officially adopted nor manufactured in quantity.
Work on the AK-47 didn't begin till the next year, and it was NOT an instant success, contrary to popular belief.
It wasn't till 1949 that the AK-47 was officially accepted by the Soviet Armed Forces, after many years of refinement and field trials.
Your knowledge of weapons is pathetic. Educate yourself.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The AK-47 is basically a ripped off MP42 which was invented and manufactured by Germany during WW2. Kalashnikov didn't invent anything.
Ever taken the two apart? Considerable differences in the internals.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The AK was designed as a primary infantry weapon for an army of a country that was just invaded and brutally occupied with a death toll of 12 million civilians.
what would become AK in 1944,
You don't get to call some early failed weapon "what would become" any more than you get to call the Sopwith Camel what would become the Spitfire.
The AK46 is very different from the AK-47. It was a learning exercise at best, and never put into production on any scale.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
AK-47s can be used both defensively and offensively, and indeed one could say that at the time it was designed its role was more defensive than offensive, whereas neither Little Boy nor Sarin are a defensive weapon - Only a lunatic would use one in their homeland, whereas an AK is useful for police forces, militaries driving out invaders, etc.
So, their purposes are not at all identical. Also, their scope is not even in the same ballpark - Sarin and Little Boy are indiscriminate killers (WMDs), while an AK can be used to take out individual combatants. Your simile is no more valid than saying the space shuttle and a 747 serve an identical purpose to my Honda Civic, that being the transport of persons and goods.
So, are you of the persuasion that "Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs"?
The AK has very little in common with StG 44 (for which MP 42 was a prototype), which is evident to anyone who knows the basics of firearm operations, and looks at their diagrams, or even photos of disassembly.
"I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists."
"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work – for example a lawnmower."
Russian farmers used lawnmowers?
No wonder the 5 year plans never worked out.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"Hold on here. He was a patriot for his country. He developed an arm that could be produced in mass quantities because that is what his government needed at that time. He didn't set out to arm terrorists, just to make an arm for the foot soldier in the USSR, to be used in horrible field conditions by mostly uneducated soldiers."
That might very well be the case, but nonetheless, why the fuck is this 'news for nerds'?
Your next kickstarter project.
Come on, use some imagination.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"Our three weapons are accuracy, range and ... ummm .... . I'll come back in."
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Even so, the design with all the key features of the final AK was already available by the end of 1946 - that's less than two years after the war was over. And, of course, the very experience of that war did not suddenly evaporate as soon as the victory flag was hoisted above Reichstag. For four years, Soviet military industry was focusing on mass production of outdated but cheap infantry weapons to provide supply - Mosins, PPSh/PPS etc. They knew full well that they needed to upgrade if the arsenal was to have any relevance in any future war. And in the final year of the war and in early postwar years, another large conflict was considered quite likely by the Soviets - the prevailing fear being that US would decide to "keep pushing" in Europe, in hopes of steamrolling over the battle-weary Red Army.
That combat in Vietnam (heavy vegetation) rarely approached the limits of effective combat range for rifles (500-1000 yards, highly dependent on cartridge) isn't really relevant. Under 50 meters, you're looking at effective combat range for shotguns.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I don't know where I heard it but I think there is a saying in regards to the AK. "Its like a hammer, you pick it up, it works"
It would have been far better had he been plugged by his own killing machine. If there has ever been an antithesis to the Nobel Peace Prize, the AK-47* is it. * given that it has a far larger body count than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Didn't Nobel invent ballistite, which was later modified to create various versions of cordite, which was used to create the ammunition for the guns and rifles that killed so many people? And before he died, didn't he establish a lot of armament factories?
It might be possible that Kalashnikov invented the AK-47 to help his fellow countrymen and not for evil purposes. A firearm is merely a tool that can be used for either good or evil. If an opposing power is using firearms against you, then you have to defend yourself with firearms. And Russia did have to deal with a lot of opposing powers with firearms.
I would say that organizations that promote violence against peaceful entities would be more of an antithesis to the Nobel Peace Prize.
It might be distasteful to think so, but most technological developments are created by and for the war machine.
You were never actually in the military were you? Where did you get your information? The internet? A firing range? TV? Because it's obviously not from actual combat or military training.
The effective combat range (against point targets = individuals) of the m16 is 550m, The AK's range is only slightly less at 400m. Those ranges aren't "how far will the round go," numbers, but "how far can the AVERAGE trained soldier hit human sized targets with this rifle." The AK's 7.62 round is more than enough to kill a human at those distances.
In my military carreer, I had more than enough chances to test both rifles at those distances, and both worked reliably out to those ranges with ease.
As far as your "any rifle" comment goes, what about the light .50's? They regularly reach out a mile or more in combat.
Unplug your xbox, it hasn't taught you shit. If you want to learn about firearms, raise your right hand and let Uncle Sam teach you about them. (Don't worry, you can still be a janitor in the military. You just can't live in your mom's house unless you go Nasty Gash and join the guard.
Of course, one would then be presented with the image of men in ski masks with flags depicting cars behind them as they read their demands.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
And even more appropriate ballistite, smokeless powder, which led to the cordite used in all modern firearms.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Perhaps you have heard of the term "weapons of mass destruction"? A nuke or a chemical weapon is a WMD, a firearm is not.
That's not to argue that designing one or the other is or is not ethical, but the arguments about designing a singular weapon operated by a human being -- a rifle or handgun or sword or knife or club -- are not the same as the arguments about designing WMD.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"weapons of mass destruction"? - AK-47s have definitely killed people en masse, no ? By any definition it would fit the bill.
Where does "mass destruction" start anyway ? Destablising entire countries, genocide ? AK-47 has been instrumental in all of them.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Nukes have been most effective as deterrents, not as offensive weapons. There are no "offensive" and "defensive" weapons, there are just weapons.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Different AC here ... The GP is somewhat correct. The U.S. Army's own post-WW2 analysis found that soldiers rarely, if ever, fired at a target more than 100 yards away. I forget the number but rarely as in a very low single digit number. And when they did the target was usually an area target (a group being suppressed) not an individual target (a soldier being aimed at). This scientific data and analysis was part of the design rationale of the Armalite AR-15, allowing a much smaller round to be used, trading reliable 500 yard hits for 3 times the amount of ammo for the weight.
The U.S. Army's shift from M-16 to M-4 supports this notion that long range targeting of an individual soldier is just not a high priority and something to be compromised in favor of reduced weight and easier handling.
By 1949 they were facing a considerably scarier enemy than the Germans, and right up until the fall of the Soviet Union they were quite worried that the US would nuke and then invade them. Not a fear born by paranoia as much as by the regular pronouncements of politicians and generals in the US and NATO nations.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Kalishnikov is not horrified at the use of his weapon to kill people. That is because he realizes that the deaths were not caused by his design, they were caused by the wielder. Firearms are used to kill people, most often to kill those that intend to murder. I'd rather more people be able to explain to the police why the gun in their hand is warm and the invader to their home is not than have police come to find no home invaders, just the death and destruction they left behind.
As a military veteran and someone that worked in making weapons I have no problems with what I did. My job was not to die for my country but to make the other guy die for his, to paraphrase General Patton.
I take full responsibility for what I was enabling. I took a small part in enabling the people that are willing to do great violence on your behalf so that you are able to speak freely on how evil you believe they are.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work – for example a lawnmower."
The Kalashnikov Lawnmower. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to cut every motherf***ing blade of grass in the garden, accept no substitutes.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
How is an AK-47 any defense against Nuclear weapons?
Invasion was never a contemplated option among US and NATO forces. NATO was always aligned on a defensive basis against a Soviet tank attack, against witch NATO did not expect to prevail without Nuclear response. This was common knowledge, as far back as the 50s and 60s.
Russia, post 1949 was never in danger of invasion by the US. China? maybe.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The AK-47's only purpose is to assist in killing people
Primary purpose is killing, that's what an assault rifle is designed for, but it is not the only purpose.
One purpose is: to be able to kill people, often in the hope that it will not be necessary, indeed with the hope that having a credible ability will avoid needing to actually do it.
Yet another purpose is to just have fun with target practice, without killing anyone.
And technically speaking, suppressive fire is not really intended for killing the enemy, it is intended for making it harder for the enemy to shoot and kill you.
> When you absolutely, positively got to cut every motherf***ing blade of grass
These things exist. They are called "Bat Wing Mowers", and are powered by farm tractors:
http://www.purplewaveauction.com/a/2010/20100427oktx/6732.JPG
Pretty much any task you can think of for the yard or garden, there is a farm implement that is bigger and scarier.
People who actually have used it tell me different, but perhaps I mix that up with the G3.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Fascinating. Rather odd that most people were expecting quite the opposite.
Especially after the French, British and Americans blockaded East Berlin.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Had he been shot by a kraut armed with an MP44, by any chance?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Oddly enough, living through that time in the US, I cannot remember any regular pronouncements by the generals and politicians about the US and NATO invading the Soviet Union.
American farmers use 'lawnmowers'. Examples are brush hogs and hay bailers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In other words: You don't know what you are talking about, but will post anyhow.
A deers heart is in line with the fold of skin at the back of their front legs. Centered in their body.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
WTF?
I hope you don't own any firearms. You're fucking dangerous.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why would you be using shot if you're in combat?
Also, you'd be surprised by the effective range for some loads of shot.
If you look at a magnum load of 00 shot, you can get in the ballpark of 1450 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle (depending on barrel length, etc.).
That works out to 1025 fps at 75 yards (at normal atmospheric conditions). 1025 fps 00 buckshot will penetrate 12" in 10% gel. That's pretty fatal. Of course, the spread at 75 yards is comical, so it would make for a piss-poor choice of combat weapon.
Slugs, though, will be deadly at much longer ranges. Granted, most shotguns and ammunition types are not well-suited to targets beyond 50 yards (and no, you don't need to aim "really, really high"; on the order of 4" drop at that range), but it's not unusual to see setups that are capable of reliable kills out to 200 yards.
Your perception of buckshot is dangerously at odds with reality, and I seriously hope it doesn't inform your notion of shooting safety.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Actually the 2nd Amendment was written in a deliberately vague manner because "the town hall cannon" was not an ornament at the time. Ports cities had cannon and rocket batteries to protect against pirates and Spaniards. Many merchantmen were better armed than many naval vessels. Frontier settlements had cannon, mortars and multi-barrel guns because of the threat of brigands and Indian uprisings. Larger cities have wide boulevards so that cannons could fire down them at looters and rioters. Even in the late 19th century my great great grandparents and their neighbors had to band together against the threat of Mormon raiders from Beaver Island.
So, don't think of it as the "right to bear arms for food-gathering purposes," because that wasn't the point. Nor was it "to maintain a free state," as that wasn't ever going to be the primary function of militias. In the case of an actual war the states would organize their own troops (as they did in 1812). It was the sort of "common sense" stipulation that made sense to the Founders in the cultural milleau they lived in.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
My friends in Moscow do, vividly. Ronnie Raygun deliberately generated the impression internationally of being a bit unbalanced so that the Soviets would stay frightened. The US has never renounced First Use of nuclear weapons to this day (which the Soviets did decades ago), and still refuse to clarify the conditions under which they would consider launching. If you ever ride the Moscow subway, about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way down the (really, really long) descent to the platforms there are blast doors that can be closed, and the Soviets stored enough food and water to supply the population of the city for (IIRC) a month because they were so sure that the US would attack. If you look at the weaponry that the US developed during the Cold War you'll find that most of it was offensive rather than defensive.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
This isn't Zardoz. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.
Every military rifle I'm aware of has a butt plate. Those are steel plates on the ends of the stock designed to cave in skulls.
Kalishnikov was not unique in that understanding.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Are you sure about 4 inches? I've only fired a few 16 gauge slugs (and most of those because they were getting old and we needed to get rid of them), but I seem to remember seeing a lot more drop than that.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Did you miss the part of the sentence that said "and then invade"?
The B-52, F-111, cruise missile, Abrams tank, intermediate range ballistic missile, stealth aircraft, stealth nuclear missile-carrying submarine, etc. are **not** defensive weapons. Your "common knowledge" was never actually that outside of the US.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
How is an AK-47 any defense against Nuclear weapons?
Invasion was never a contemplated option among US and NATO forces. NATO was always aligned on a defensive basis against a Soviet tank attack, against witch NATO did not expect to prevail without Nuclear response. This was common knowledge, as far back as the 50s and 60s.
Russia, post 1949 was never in danger of invasion by the US. China? maybe.
For your perusal:
The difficulty in understanding the Russians is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them, except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other Asiatic characteristics, the Russian have no regard for human life and is an all out son of bitch, barbarian, and chronic drunk.
Statement (8 August 1945), as quoted in General Patton : A Soldier's Life (2002) by Stanley P. Hirshson, p. 650
And yeah, the Russians DO pay attention to what's going on around them!
There was of course an urban legend about Patton saying to Eisenhower that he wanted just 10 days to start a war with the Russians and make it look like they started it. He figured that since we already had tons of troops in Europe, might as well go for it now rather than send everybody home and have to come back in 10 years anyways.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
If by developed you mean stole from Schmeisser with effectively slave labor then yes.
AK-46 was significantly different from AK-47, and - bluntly speaking - utter crap.
AK-47 was a fine weapon but the machining process was rather expensive, complex and slow, making it unsuitable for mass production and deployment in army.
AKM - an AK-47 variant that used stamped sheet metal instead of machined parts, became the instant hit, possessing all the advantages of the original, slightly lower mass, and being very cheap and simple to manufacture in bulk.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Do you think that if the US told Russia "We don't intend to invade you" they would just believe and cease arming themselves? Did you think the massive military forces in Germany - INVASION FORCES (meant to push the frontline by some 100km in case of attack, and keep it there so that tactical nukes wouldn't fall on allied territory, but technically not much different from forces meant to reach Moscow) made Russian less jumpy?
What NATO intended, what NATO wished Russians to believe, and what Russians believed were three different things.
Post-1945 USA didn't have nearly sufficient nuclear weapons production capacity to make them completely sway the balance of power. Back then still a definitely superior rifle could win the war.
Sure, 5-10 years later the situation was different. But 1947, AK-47 was very relevant.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Modern (i.e. WW II and later) military small arms are mainly designed to WOUND. Yes, they sometimes kill. But wounding is better for winning battles, wars, and avoiding their resumption.
Kill a soldier and the enemy loses one effective soldier. Wound him and he loses, for a time, SEVERAL effectives and a lot of other resources, hauling the wounded warrior off the field, treating him, feeding him, etc.
More survivors also means fewer vendettas and an easier time making and maintaining peace, rebuilding both sides once the disagreement is over, and forming alliances and trading partnerships with former enemy countries.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oh, but they actually were defensive weapons. You must have not been paying attention.
They seemed to have worked, as did the Russian equivalent weapons.
No attack on either side by either side.
Snicker up your sleeve all you want at MAD, but it worked through some pretty scary times.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Actually, a well-maintained, well-serviced (and possibly new) AK-47 variant is quite accurate - less than competitors but not by much. Thing is, where competitors jam and need servicing, AK-47 loses accuracy. It can withstand a lot of abuse and still keep firing, but a 40 years old AK that saw two different armed conflicts will never get anywhere near the accuracy of one that just left the production lines of IzMash.
Certainly a new, well maintained AK is perfectly suitable for all these applications. Less so than other guns, but not so much less as to make it anywhere near "unsuitable". OTOH, a backyard sale AK from Romanian armed forces surplus after surviving 10 generations of Romanian recruits is definitely on the "unsuitable" side.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Because he was not successful in the uprising.
You must kill enough to overthrow the government, only then it counts.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Nothing developed by Schmeisser even remotely resembles anything in the AK.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Wow...we went in reverse. From Nazis to "protect the children"!
Fighting a very costly defensive war on your own soil for over 3 years kinda does that to people. I don't think Western politicians ever truly understood just how strongly was that "never again" mentality ingrained into the minds of both the party elite and the people at large. Not so much Stalin and his court, but the generation of politicians that came to power after him, who were mostly veterans of that war and saw the devastation first hand.
It's actually very visible if you look at Soviet internal propaganda. Virtually everything that is related to war is presented in a context of a defensive war against a conventional invasion, with numerous WW2 allusions, and the overall message of "we must defend our soil against occupation". In contrast, Western propaganda tended to be more obsessed with the possibility of nuclear annihilation.
The Peace Price was not one of the ones founded by Nobel. The Peace and Economics prizes are "Nobel Memorial" but not Nobel Prizes.
In a way, it's an argument related to the old debunked Nazi death camp soldier "just following orders" defence (albeit it much less extreme).
I don't recall that being completely debunked. If anything, the opposite. Not that it's a good thing, but it takes a certain sort of person to willfully resist the orders of a "legitimate" authority. An unfortunate downside for those who have a respect for the rule of law...
Yes, I, (and anyone who has passed their 'hunter safety training' class as a kid) can locate the heart on those animals with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
When I was in hunters safety, one of the last things we did was to shoot at paper targets with pellet guns. These targets where a sheet of 8.5x11 paper, with an animal one one side (we did deer, elk, moose, and bear) and on the reverse, lined up with the target on the front, was a anatomy drawing of the target animal, with all the vital organs depicted. Our task was to shoot these targets at a 100 yard equivalent distance (the animal on the paper looked the size it does at 100 yards) and have our shots in the 'kill areas'
Now, I know 'hunters safety' courses vary from state to state, and are not mandatory for adults in many states, which saddens me, but my point is, that many many hunters have attended these courses as children, and are aware of the information in them. Personally, I think the sort of course I took (which was in Montana) should be required in all states, of all hunters.
Now back to the point. As for the heart, that organ is surrounded by another vital organ, the lungs, which, when penetrated by the appropriate caliber round for the size of the animal, will kill them nearly as fast as a perfect heart shot. We also where taught that, unless extreme circumstances dictate it, to avoid aiming for the head. The brain of a deer (or any decent game animal in north america) is a target no larger than the end of a soup can, and surrounded by the some of the hardest bone in the body, it is NOT a prime target. As for the neck shot, there is a fair amount of debate as to wether or not it is an 'ideal' shot. It is possible to hit an animal in the neck in such a way as to cause it to bleed into its throat/esophagus, making tracking much more difficult, while the animal drowns in its own blood, and it is also entirely possible to penetrate the muscles in the neck, miss the spine and vital arteries entirely, and simply give the animal a terrible flesh wound. Of course, all your stated results are also possible. The heart/lungs target is in the end, a larger target, and less prone to non fatal wounding.
In reality, in terms of sustenance hunting, (where you need the animal for food, not trophies) the selection of target area on the animal comes down to "which vital area am I able to see and hit and kill this animal." Sure, occasionally you may hit part of a front quarter due to slightly off shot placement, but at least you have 3 quarters and the back straps of meat, instead of going hungry. Besides, the shot quarter goes to feed the dogs, so its not really wasted anyways.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Wow, ever heard of the 3rd reich? AKA that which whom the USSR was locked in battle with? good luck fending them off with the fairy dust you're working on
> If you mean something you hunt for food, no one would use an m16 for that. The spoil radius could render an entire hind quarter inedible, and the accuracy of the weapon would suggest the hind quarter is what you would probably hit if you were aiming for a heart shot.
Wrong on all counts - although it would be insanely stupid to use a fully auto for hunting. The AR-15 would be a poor choice for larger game - for that you want the AR-10.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It might be distasteful to think so, but most technological developments are created by and for the war machine.
Quite true, but unlike many of the things we've weaponised (knives, axes, explosives) guns dont really have a non violent application.
But Kalashnikov seemed to be mature about his invention.
"I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists."
For that, I can respect the man. KMay he rest in peace.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
My understanding is it was based on the German StG44, the first assault rifle ever.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Yeah, it worked, barely. Brought humanity to the brink of extinction, more than once. A former co-worker's father was on one of the negotiating teams during the Reagan years. Did you know that during that whole period Wolfowitz and Pearle were urging Reagan to invade East Germany, on the crackpot theory that a nuclear war in Europe was "winnable"? I'm still shocked that we survived.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I would suggest that the only constitutionally protected reason for a civilian to own a gun should be to be capable of mounting a militia that could defend against a corrupt government. That would clearly include guns like an AK.
The right to bear arms in my opinion has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting...
Yeah!, why bother voting?.
The AK-47's only purpose is to assist in killing people
Primary purpose is killing, that's what an assault rifle is designed for, but it is not the only purpose.
One purpose is: to be able to kill people, often in the hope that it will not be necessary, indeed with the hope that having a credible ability will avoid needing to actually do it.
Yet another purpose is to just have fun with target practice, without killing anyone.
And technically speaking, suppressive fire is not really intended for killing the enemy, it is intended for making it harder for the enemy to shoot and kill you.
However the assault rifle doesn't really fill a civilian application. It's considerably less practical for hunting than other rifles (and with the advent of farming, hunting has pretty much been relegated to a sport anyway so a fully automatic rifle is hardly sporting).
Guns in general dont really fill non-violent applications unlike say knives, explosives or axes.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
He was shot dead?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
you forget a dude named General George Patton?
"guns don't really have a non-violent application"
tens of thousands of bulleye shooters would disagree
naw, I'm very much in the "gun crowd" and most my friends would agree .30-30 and similar are undersized for the deer or humans .308 or 30-06 or similar Russian rounds are pefect size and power for sure-killing man / deer sized animal
"assault rifle" must have selective fire option. Rifle that resembles an "assualt rifle", but only has semiauto fire, is not an assault rifle (Hitler coined the term, by the way)
Thousands of people hunt with the "military looking" rifles that resemble assuault rifles, enthusiasts find advantages to that shape over traditional rifle shape. Don't know why you would opine it's "less practical", you don't like them and wish it were true?
It is very rational because such things happen quite often in the USA. And over a million times a year, the presence of a gun prevents a violent crime.
The murders with guns, on the other hand, are mostly committed by a couple subcultures in inner cities.
Most people don't take shots from nearly that far away when hunting. If you can't be within two feet of your point of aim from normal hunting ranges the problem isn't with the rifle.
I want to shoot the messenger!
I am not a fan of guns at all, but I am a believer in the constitution. I would suggest that the only constitutionally protected reason for a civilian to own a gun should be to be capable of mounting a militia that could defend against a corrupt government.
I'm not a fan of guns at all, and I am a believer in reality. What chance do you think you would have against a corrupt US government with your stupid AK-47? Even if you get a thousand of your hick friends together and you all have AKs, and y'all think the south is gonna rise again, what do you think you're gonna do when the F-22s come for you? Go ask the Syrian rebels how well that's working out for them against a government that's only a tiny fraction as sophisticated and powerful as ours.
The only thing an AK-47 is good for is shooting up movie theatres and giving dumb country boys an expensive, false sense of security. I live in the south and I have to listen to that line of reasoning all the time, always with a touch of that good 'ole confederate spirit.
Can we please drop this line of reasoning? It's a dead end. Literally.
An AK47 is going to be pretty useless against a corrupt government. It sounds more like you are arguing for militia with say tanks and maybe some hellfire armed drones. Something that would make the government genuinely fearful of the population.
I think the constitution was a bit short sighted there. Well, to be fair it was fine for a long, long time. Now it's kinda unrealistic.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If tens of thousands of bullseye shooters use AK47s, then tens of thousands of bullseye shooters are stupid. The AK47 only has one job it can do, and it's not hitting a target accurately.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
No, his tank was destroyed by German artillery. Kalashnikov was a T-34 commander.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
My thought exactly (in 1987 when studying all the Jane's books for the Recon arms and silhouette exam).
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Plan Totality
Operation Dropshot
Operation Unthinkable
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
By 1949 they were facing a considerably scarier enemy than the Germans, and right up until the fall of the Soviet Union they were quite worried that the US would nuke and then invade them. Not a fear born by paranoia as much as by the regular pronouncements of politicians and generals in the US and NATO nations.
Except that neither Roosevelt nor Truman regarded the Soviets as adversaries. Churchill did, but he was ignored, and at the time, UK was coming unraveled, first due to the war, and also due to the colonies seceding. The only country that could have done anything to the Soviets was the US, but it wasn't until Ike that the Cold War really started.
Both the Tehran & Yalta conferences should have told the Soviets how much influence they really had on Roosevelt, as opposed to the UK. The entire Eastern Europe was pretty much gifted to them after the war, due to the US refusing to go along w/ Churchill's suggestions on them
All of whose statements were regarding the Nazis, never the Soviets
So Ronnie Raygun (sic) was rattling his sabres in 1947 so that the Soviets would stay frightened? That's funny - I recall him not being president until 1980.
Really? And how did it work for you?
There are no "offensive" and "defensive" weapons, there are just weapons.
No.
Ever hear of a pike wall? Stationary field of angled pikes, surrounding a fortification, for the purpose of defending against enemy calvary.
Want a more modern example? The Iron Dome missile defense system.
As for offensive-specific weapons, that one's harder to define... I guess you could consider a blackjack to be an offense-only weapon, since it would be pretty idiotic to try and defend yourself with one.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'd rather more people be able to explain to the police why the gun in their hand is warm and the invader to their home is not than have police come to find no home invaders, just the death and destruction they left behind.
This seems to be a common meme among Americans. I really have to wonder why you are all so terrified of this.
You really have that much trouble understanding why people would feel a compulsion to defend themselves and their homes against the violent criminals that very much do exist?
Are you some sort of armed robber or rapist? Because I really can't fathom why someone who isn't a violent criminal would try and advocate against individual people taking charge of their own safety and well-being.
Don't pretend that it is "rational concern" and not fear; firstly, they are not mutually exclusive; secondly, it is the exact definition of fear. So many Americans, especially gun owners, are terrified that a large contingent of highly dangerous people are out effectively hunting other humans like livestock and I really do not understand what makes you think that way.
Question for you: Why are you so terrified of Americans with guns, when no American with a gun has ever threatened you or anyone you care about? Because you live in some twisted fantasy world where Americans literally go hunt and murder each other on a daily basis?
Well, OK, in fairness that does happen sometimes - normally in places like Chicago, Detroit, and other large urban centers with extremely strict gun laws. Go figure.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I always wonder: what personality type, other than those common to murderers and rapists, would actually advocate against people being able to defend themselves against murderers and rapists?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I presume that OP expects to be able to call the police, no matter the circumstances, and let our tax dollars pay for cleaning up his corpse.
What, did you think I was going to say "pay for protecting him?" If so, then you don't know enough about average police response times and the fact that they have absolutely zero legal duty to protect individual citizens.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Ever heard of the word "fortification" ? Pike wall is a "weapon" as much a locked door is a weapon
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Ever heard of the word "fortification" ? Pike wall is a "weapon" as much a locked door is a weapon
You can't pull a door off it's hinges and stab an invader with it.
A pike, on the other hand...
How about a vat of boiling oil down the murder hole? That one make you feel any better about the analogy?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Statist authoritarians. The biggest threat to an all-powerful government is a citizenry that has no need for it.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Statist authoritarians. The biggest threat to an all-powerful government is a citizenry that has no need for it.
So... murderers and rapists, but ones who strongly believe their harmful actions are backed by the state's monopoly on violence?
I'm gonna throw ignorant fools in there, too, for good measure.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Soldiers come from US cities and towns, and would be very reluctant to fire on ordinary people in a widespread rebellion; they could be shooting their parents or friends.
About 1 family in three has a gun in the household; to effectively fight a force like that the military would have to kill everybody. Using the military against a widespread popular rebellion would be futile. Even a psychopath like the current occupant of the White House would be unlikely to engage in such an effort, because at the end there'd be nobody left to rule over.
Not every employee of the US government is in the military, and not every member of the military is a combatant. Massive attacks on the IRS, for example, would have a great effect.
Attitudes like yours are self-defeating; you can't win if you don't try. You'd make a complacent slave.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Your ignorance about what is needed to cause the extinction of humanity is typical of the panic stricken leftist cowards of the 1950s. Grow up.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
All car manufacturers turned their production lines to making weapons during WWII. If they hadn't done so, the government would have seized the plants and done it anyway, and would have been justified in doing so.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The "therefore" [sic] is superfluous and wrong; both statements are true on their own. Every person is responsible for his every action.
I've been involved in weapons design, and I'm proud of it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I always forget: the nerds on this site completely dump all their capability of rational thought and intellect when it comes to the topic of their favorite penis supplement, the gun.
I suggest you look up"nuclear winter" first, which alone is enough to finish off civilization. Setting off half the nuclear arsenals of Pakistan and India apparently would be enough to trigger a climactic disaster that civilization would be lucky to survive at the technological level of the Middle Ages. A full scale exchange between the US and the USSR would have been very likely to have put the finish to pretty much every vertebrate higher than rats.
Think about the destructive power of the Nagasaki bomb. Now multiply that by 1000 to get the output of a medium-sized ICBM warhead. Now multiply that by the 1000 or more warheads likely to be launched by each side in a 1980s nuclear war scenario. What do YOU think the outcome would have been?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Except the one where he supposedly told Eisenhower that he needed just 10 days to get us in a war with the Soviets and make it look like THEY started it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
You were never actually in the military were you? Where did you get your information? The internet? A firing range? TV? Because it's obviously not from actual combat or military training.
Sure was. Class of '72.
The effective combat range (against point targets = individuals) of the m16 is 550m, The AK's range is only slightly less at 400m. Those ranges aren't "how far will the round go," numbers, but "how far can the AVERAGE trained soldier hit human sized targets with this rifle." The AK's 7.62 round is more than enough to kill a human at those distances.
Yeah, if you can hit your target. Or see it. My experience was, 100-150 meters was combat range. Much further than that, you shot off a lot of ammo, they shot off a lot of ammo, and everybody melted back into the bushes, minimum casualties.
In my military carreer, I had more than enough chances to test both rifles at those distances, and both worked reliably out to those ranges with ease.
I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying effective combat range is a helluva lot closer than maximum range.
As far as your "any rifle" comment goes, what about the light .50's? They regularly reach out a mile or more in combat.
So? They're sniper rifles, not something you'd hump on a patrol someplace.
Unplug your xbox, it hasn't taught you shit. If you want to learn about firearms, raise your right hand and let Uncle Sam teach you about them. (Don't worry, you can still be a janitor in the military. You just can't live in your mom's house unless you go Nasty Gash and join the guard.
Try 11B for an MOS. I did. And I don't own an X-Box.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
And presumably you've heard of Stalin? Not exactly a nice chap. History is hardly black and white.
Like I said, I'm not moralising too hard. I wouldn't want to work in weapon design because the thought of my handiwork being used in ways I object to would bother me- I'd have no control of what people did with my creations, and I'd find that unpleasant. HOWEVER, I don't think that's a universalist morale argument- other people are free to decide for themselves.
And unless you're being deliberately obtuse- the AK-47 wasn't invented until after the war (47 = 1947, two years after the war concluded. While work started on the design during 1945, that was the dying days of the war when Germany was practically defeated. The AK-47 was a weapon of the Cold War, of Communism-vs-The West, not of WW2.
Good for you, frankly.Like I said, I'm not naive about it, nor am I trying to moralise- I personally wouldn't want to be involved in weapon design, because I don't like the thought that I have no control over what is done with my work. I am enabling others to do bad (and good) things, and have absolutely no say in it after I put down my tools; considering the nature and implications of weapon design (over and above other forms of product engineering), that doesn't sit well with me. Instead, I work in a field where my work can only really be used for good, neutral, and extremely minorly bad things- and I find that more comfortable. But each to their own.
For the record, I'm not a complete pacifist- I'd be willing to change my views if the situation were other. If we were at total war, for example, I'm sure I'd change my tune.
PS: What's wrong with "therefore"? https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=therefore&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&gws_rd=cr&ei=grS8UvKKIpGThQfFwIGABw
exactly, so the horror of WWII was fresh on his mind.
That can be true for the guns themselves, but by providing cheap reliable guns, it opened up the opportunity for limited resources to be diverted from arms into other items such as food, shelter, or education.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Emphasis added).
I agree the right to bear arms for food-gathering purposes wasn't the point of the 2nd Amendment, and I implicitly said that wasn't the stated purpose. You could make an argument that being able to gather food would be a necessary ability, and that any free man must have that ability, etc., but it's not stated that way in the US Constitution. What IS stated, is that the right to keep and bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free state," which is the same thing as "to maintain a free state."