...kill, but to wound. Huh? What?
Eugene Stoner created the AR-15. Can you find ANYTHING that proves he ever said he chose the .223 just to wound? Because he went around telling everyone his rifle had great killing power.
I don't believe Stoner would have sold anyone the M-16 if he told them it would only "wound."
I think somene who thinks a .223 only "wounds," has never fired one.
Would you rather have a member of your family wounded or dead?
OK, so why would a wounded soldier cause more morale problems than a dead one?
Currently, any time a young man dies in batt;le in America, it costs the American economy over a million dollars. The idea that killing a soldier is less damaging than wounding one is based on the premise that a human life in an industrialized democracy is worthless,
Stoner picked the .223. Not the government.
Perhaps none of you have considered that a wounded man can come back and fight you: that's a tall order for a dead man.
You are acting like the lack of recoil or ability to carry more ammo, or the cheapness of the ammo, or the fact that most people can't handle the blast of a 7.62mm doesn't exist.
The military did not demand a smaller round. The smaller round was Eugene Stoners idea.
A dead soldier is less painful to a nation than a wounded soldier? That is absurd on its face.
All you guys who think an M16 can't kill should actually go and fire one.
Eugene Stoner created the AR-15. Can you find ANYTHING that proves he ever said he chose the .223 just to wound? Because he went around telling everyone his rifle had great killing power.
I don't believe Stoner would have sold anyone the M-16 if he told them it would only "wound."
I think somene who thinks a .223 only "wounds," has never fired one.
Would you rather have a member of your family wounded or dead?
OK, so why would a wounded soldier cause more morale problems than a dead one?
Currently, any time a young man dies in batt;le in America, it costs the American economy over a million dollars. The idea that killing a soldier is less damaging than wounding one is based on the premise that a human life in an industrialized democracy is worthless,
Stoner picked the .223. Not the government.
Perhaps none of you have considered that a wounded man can come back and fight you: that's a tall order for a dead man.
You are acting like the lack of recoil or ability to carry more ammo, or the cheapness of the ammo, or the fact that most people can't handle the blast of a 7.62mm doesn't exist.
The military did not demand a smaller round. The smaller round was Eugene Stoners idea.
A dead soldier is less painful to a nation than a wounded soldier? That is absurd on its face.
All you guys who think an M16 can't kill should actually go and fire one.