Have you ever noticed when a team of soldier go into a situation when the military is called in they are all caring M16 so if they have to they can KILL anybody that causes a problem.
2007-03-08 16:06:51 · 18 answers · asked by ouxouigaman 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Whatever weapon is being carried is for the protection of the soldier (defensive) and for use against an armed "enemy" (offensive). Many soldiers carry both M-16's (long guns) and 9mm pistols. Killing is not always the desired goal. If you have a weapon and the other guy does not, he's not likely to cause a problem. Wounding an enemy soldier can be more effective because it takes two of them to carry the wounded one away, thus reducing the number of enemy being faced.
2007-03-08 16:19:26 · answer #1 · answered by twocheck6 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about? First, to most soldiers, the M4, what you called an M16, IS a "simple side arm." There are a variety of side arms that can be used in a variety of situations. The M4 is the standard infantry weapon and soldiers are well versed in its use. It is good for its designed purpose. If you are talking about a hostage take down, then the team will carry other weapons of choice like the MP5, HK36, SPAS12. Other member may have sniper rifles.
When you go against an enemy -- yes you are indeed always trying to kill him, whether you are using a "simple side arm", or a knife, or a tank. In armed conflict your primary goal is to kill people and break things that belong to the enemy. It is a violent and ugly thing -- but (disregarding the politics behind the conflict).you cannot win a military conflict without understanding that as a necessary evil.
2007-03-09 01:43:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are a moron. Did you even take time to consider this comment/question before posting it? A sidearm will not work in every situation that military or swat units face. What if the swat unit is confronting a group of criminals with automatic weapons? Just for arguments sake, lets say that police units should only use weapons that are equal with what the criminals are using. If a criminal has a pistol the police use pistols, the criminals have shotguns the police have shotguns etc.... Do you realize how much more money you would have to pay in taxes to outfit the officers of every police department with a set of weapons instead of one? I, personally, would feel much more comfortable being rescued or having my family rescued by a police officer that trained with the same weapon every time, instead of a cop that was using a different gun with every mission. Besides, why shouldn't the swat or military units have the power to take out the criminal if they have to? You say they have them so they can kill anyone that causes a problem. Are you forgetting that they are the people here to help us, and the criminal is the bad guy? You make it out to sound like the military or swat unit are the bad guys?
2007-03-09 00:49:13 · answer #3 · answered by Danny 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Military in the service are not generally issued side arms! Most are reserved for officers, medics and others who may have some ceremonial need! The standard issue is an M16, modified, and it is a piece of crap anyway!
2007-03-09 00:14:37 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The side arm is a weapon of last resort, only officers and higher NCOs carry them. Soldiers are trained on the M-16 and rifles have a higher psychological effect on the adversary, thereby possibly defusing a situation without confrontation.
2007-03-09 05:52:43 · answer #5 · answered by milittleguy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever served in the arm forces? I would never risk my life on a side arm. I could hit a standing target (immobile) from 100 yards away, but with a hand gun it is difficult to hit something 50 yards away. I now own a handgun for personal use (no longer in), but I would trade this any day for a rifle. My point is a hand gun has little value except as a backup to do a job.
2007-03-09 00:17:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To get technical, they now use the M4A1. It's an extremely reliable assault rifle with the ability to react to most situations from short to medium range providing soldiers or law enforcement with the preparation they need for any scenario. In a situation where the safety of civilians is in question, it is perfectly acceptable to engage hostile targets with a shoot first ask questions later attitude. It is this first strike nature that makes our forces both in the homeland and foreign affective.
2007-03-09 00:12:17 · answer #7 · answered by Mac 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The average soldier is trained with an M-16. They are not trained with traditional side arms. They are only carrying the weapon with which they are proficient. If you see an officer among the troops, they will be carrying a side arm, as will most military police.
2007-03-09 00:09:48 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin M 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First of all a 9MM has a maximum effective range of 50 meters, an M16A2 can reach out and touch somebody at 800 meters. A 9MM can hold 15 rounds, an M16A2 30 rounds. A 9MM is single action, an M16A2 will fire a 3-round burst. You figure it out. Kinda hard to fire a grenade from a 9MM too.
2007-03-09 00:18:31 · answer #9 · answered by mustangldr 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
An M-16 is an assault weapon. It is adequate to control/destroy most small arms situations. We were never trained to go into a fight with equal firepower. Always go in with a 10-1 advantage. All soldiers are trained with M-16s. Officers/pilots/MPs, etc., are trained with 45's, 9mm.
2007-03-09 00:13:34 · answer #10 · answered by Matt 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋