Stanley McChrystal: America needs “serious” gun laws
McChrystal said some assault weapons currently legal for civilian use should be limited to only the military.
”I spent a career carrying, typically either a M16 and later, a M4 carbine,” McChrystal said. “And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. And that’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”
“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets, and particularly around the schools in America,” McChrystal continued. “I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police and we’ve got to protect our population. And I think we’ve got to take a very mature look at that.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
My deer rifle is a .270 and that’s what most people I hunt with use. A .223 is just to small.
Big Orange on January 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Could someone please explain why the Feral government should have control over one of it Restraints – the 2nd amendment?
Galt2009 on January 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Can’t we just use knives to hunt ducks, it’s how the Indians did it.
Bishop on January 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM
With all due respect, the General is talking out his ass.
Maybe he could explain, if the 5.56 round is so “devastating” to a human body, why M-16s need to fire three of them at a time and why designated marksman rifles and sniper rifles are all 7.62×51 mm or .50 BMG?
Alberta_Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Sniper Carlos Hathcock had the highest personal kills of any American soldier in Viet Nam. He racked up almost all his kills with a standard Remington 30.06 with a scope. This is the same rifle deer hunters have been using for almost 100 years.
tommyboy on January 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM
McChrystal has hung out with a lot of Neo-cons over the years and now is hanging out with careerist and progressives. Considering these are the same military geniuses who brought us Iraq and Afghanistan I can only hope they will lead the progressive army in a hypothetical 2nd American Civil War.
William Eaton on January 8, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Is this sarcasm or can’t you read the chart, or do you just know know what those pesky number thingies mean?
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Yeah, the military made a huge mistake when they went to the 5.56. The old 7.62 (.308 civilian) was a great big, heavy round. Waaay better for what it’s used for.
BierManVA on January 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Yeah, I’d heard that reasoning, too. There was an adage I remember that went something like, ‘Kill one combatant and you take one combatant out of the fight. Wound one combatant and you take three combatants out of the fight.’
I don’t know how much weight that had in their decision-making since there are many other issues to weigh.
Dusty on January 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM
well at least we now know McChrystal is in the enemy of liberty camp.
bannor on January 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM
You can hunt a deer with a .22 long rifle.
That being said, many things contribute to what a hunter might use to hunt with: locale, size of deer ((mule deer or deer in northern locales are much bigger than many here where I live), shot placement, the bullet itself, skill of the hunter with his firearms, weather, etc.
You can take a deer with a .223. You can take a deer with a .50bmg. Yeah, not the ideal caliber at either end of the spectrum, but still…
But even talking about what a hunter needs or should use for hunting is a trap. It doesn’t matter to the gun grabber. Hunting doesn’t matter to the gun grabber. It’s a deflection aimed at low information owners.
The 2nd amendment ain’t about hunting, we all know this.
Don’t get sucked into the trap.
catmman on January 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Yes, he is, on a lot of levels. He’s no con law scholar. But then neither is the Emperor Zero.
dogsoldier on January 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM
The gun-related homicide rate (per 100,000) in Wyoming is less than the overall homicide rate of Great Britain, Australia, or France, and less than the non-firearm homicide rates of Massachusetts, Vermont or Maryland. Does anyone care? Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate of any state in the country. Any policy that does not accommodate this fact is not based in reason
It isn’t just the projectile diameter. Velocity, mass, and configuration all impact kinetic energy on target. A 150 grain soft point at 2800 fps is a helluva lot more lethal than a 55 grain at 3000 fps.
Garand 30.06 vs AR-15? No contest. Different animals bred for different purposes.
a capella on January 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM
poor gun nuts, this will leave a mark.
sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Not with me. Going out drinking with your buddies and a Rolling Stones reporter in tow should give one some insight into the way he thinks. Wes Clark was also a general.
a capella on January 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM
The reasoning I read (from my research for a school report I did on Armalite back in the 80s, when it was OK to write school reports about arms companies) was that the AR-15 was originally designed to be supplied to the ARVN troops, not the US military. The reasoning was that the smaller build of your average ARVN soldier made the issuance of the M-14 impractical, so a smaller round was designed in lieu of the “full-sized” .308 or 30.06.
During the design and testing phases, the research seemed to imply that the terminal ballistics of the .223 were far superior to the .308. That came along at a time when complaints about firing the M-14 on full auto were getting serious attention from the Pentagon. The allure of a smaller round that would do as much if not more damage to the target, while allowing the infantryman to carry 3x as many as the M-14, coupled with a general decline in marksmanship emphasis in the service (Marines excepted, boo-yah!) paved the way for the Armalite Plastic Wonder Rifle to enter general service.
JohnTant on January 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Thanks for letting me know what to expect from you when innocently engage you in conversation here. I know better, now.
Dusty on January 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Our Generals don’t even understand the Second Amendment. Military education isn’t what it used to be.
Defund the military if this is what is representative of what they have become.
trs on January 8, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Because we care what a disgraced lefty General who is currently in attention-whoring mode thinks?
No mark left on this gun nut.
stvnscott on January 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM
If that was your idea of a innocent question, perhaps you should revisit the definition of “innocent”.
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Thanks for all of that, John. I still have lots of questions, but that’s more than enough for a Headlines thread.
Dusty on January 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM
Hathcocks record making distance kill was with a .50 M2 heavy machine gun that had a scope mounted to it. A record that stood until 2002 when it was broken by Canadian snipers with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, also using the .50 BMG round.
Alberta_Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM
If that was your idea of a innocent question, perhaps you should revisit the definition of “innocent”.
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Thanks for the confirmation.
Dusty on January 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Why do you want to become between a woman and her right to protect herself and family? I mean really – who in the hell do you think you are?
You think that just because some Obama voting general wants even more and useless gun control that gun owners are going to just bend over? You’ll notice the McChrystal didn’t actually make any different arguments than the typical lefty drivel about gun control. He didn’t address any of the facts of the situation.
gwelf on January 8, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Ok, so in that case I’m going to have to go with, you don’t have the slightest clue what any of those number on that chart you posted mean, otherwise, why would you have posted it and asked that question, right? Because clearly you are attempting to indicate that your question was “Innocent” regardless of the fact that the answer to your question was staring you in the face with the graph you posted.
Thanks for playing.
SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM
McChrystal’s oath of office: I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign. He seems to have overlooked that domestic part now that he is ingratiating himself into the Ivy League Yale elitists club for the big post military pay day of speeches, lectures, mainstream media talking head circuit, etc.
Tripwhipper on January 8, 2013 at 12:50 PM
With all due respect, Gunny Hathcock did not have the most sniper kills in Vietnam. Chuck Mawhinney had 103 confirmed kills to Hathcock’s 93, and there is some Army sniper that is said to have more than 150 confirmed kills.
What separated Hathcock from the others was his ability to stalk his enemy, despite overwhelming odds, and come out without a scratch.
Fazman on January 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM
As is most if the Oppressive-Left.
Galt2009 on January 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2