Spoofe, that’s the shittiest argument I’ve heard in years. I can think of something highly fucking dangerous about a device that can fire several bullets a second which may not hit what the user is aiming at.[sup]1[/sup]
Pro-gun arguer says something a bit daft, anti-gun arguer points.[sup]2[/sup] It looks a lot better if we concede the obvious errors, rather than just disagreeing with anything the other side says.
[sup]1[/sup][sub]As an aside, can anyone tell me why some countries issue their airport police with fully automatic weapons, for example HK’s in Britain? Yup, great choice of weapon to pick off terrorists running through a crowded hall.[/sub]
[sup]2[/sup][sub]Whilst not trying to label any individuals as pro or anti, if any are playing devils advocate for arguments they disagree with.[/sub]
Gary, you mean the MP5. Have you ever seen one fired? They are highly accurate for a submachinegun. Also, their short design allows them to be used in confined spaces, such as airplanes. There is that beautiful scare factor of having armed guards with 30 round clips of 9mm ball waiting to perforate terrorists. A high rate of fire coupled with the relative accuracy in bursts (considering the barrel moving from gas venting and the bolt) make it a good all-around weapon. It can also be silenced or even rebarreled in 10mm for more punch.
Heavy machine guns such as the M249 are quite inaccurate at a distance. However, the 100 round clip makes it easy to lay down supporting fire while troops advance.
I wouldn’t trust John Q Public with one, because they require training and safe handling to use. Also, I don’t know of many states that allow machinegun hunting. The use of the gun would be limited to target shooting(which is not to say that target shooting is bad).
It might be interesting to note that the Germans considered their MP40 “Machine Pistol” to be a long bayonet.
Yup, seen 'em, even fired one. The key phrase from your quote has to be
I mean, in single shot mode they were splendidly accurate, easily better than a pistol as you’d expect a carbine. But in auto than, even with 9mm, you still get enough recoil to knock you noticeably off target. Hmm, suppose that would be the (glaringly obvious) answer - leave them in single shot, unless the situation demands. Oh well, question answered. Carry on.
And, jeezum crow, that’s the most poopooriffic rebuttle to any argument I’ve ever seen. You ninny-head! You stinky-puss! You rattle-trapped dinky-doddling-doofus! I’m right 'cuz I made up more insults that you! Ha! Take that!
Anyway…
red_dragon60, MP-5’s are made by H&K (check out their website sometimes… it’s very informative). And any automatic weapon, even in three-bullet burst mode, results in that many more projectiles flying around. Nope, in a crowded situation, with lots of innocents around, semi-auto fire is best. Full-auto should be limited to situations where the likelihood of an innocent getting in the line of fire is almost nil.
However, I agree with your comments about the intimidation factor. If I were a terrorist (and, God willing, one day I will be :D), I’d think twice before messing with someone equipped with the best SMG on the planet. And besides… Gary, the MP-5 can be set to semi-auto fire. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Brits have this setting in effect.
The accuracy of a fully-automatic weapon (Like a machinegun) depends entirely upon the skill of the user. Someone inexperienced with firearms would probably spray a huge area with bullets (Sure, can hit a lot of people that way, you say… But with “bullet density” being that low, it’s questionable if you could hit -anything-). A highly-trained soldier (Special-ops unit, for example) can get extremely tight groupings even from standing possitions (Watched a video with a SEAL team member - granted, not the best source for info, but it’s the best I’ve been able to get - firing a M60E3 at 50 yards, standing, and hitting every round in the size of a person… Just one long ~50-round burst). For the average person? Well, volume of fire would come in handy if you’re firing into a dense crowd, but semi-auto would be better for hitting anything at a range of more than a dozen or two yards, and you’d have a much higher hit-per-shot.
Couple corrections; The M249 SAW is a light machinegun, not a heavy machinegun. It’s also more accurate than the M16A2, despite being the same caliber, and has a longer effective range; Longer barrel and sight radius, plus being heavier, it’s more stable when firing.
Overall, I don’t think it’s the accuracy or inacuracy of fully-automatic weapons that make them more or less dangerous. I think the fact that only one lawfully-owned automatic weapon has been used for a crime in the past 60-some years demonstrates their degree of threat.
Additionally, Pheonix, it’s been touted that “criminals prefer smaller guns”. That phrase has been the basis for the banning of small guns (“pocket rockets”) here in L.A.
I guess a heavy machinegun (or a light one, for that matter) doesn’t fit well under your shirt…
Politicians care about one thing: maintaining their position and gaining a higher position. Enforcing laws does not keep them in the public eye. Also, it’s a lot easier and cheaper to make new laws than it is to enforce the laws we already have (I heard there are 40,000 gun laws in this country). Enforcing laws is just too hard.
Of course there is a way to end the debate. Round up all of the anti-gun politicians and their supporters (including HCI, or whatever they’re calling themselves now) and all of the pro-Civil Rights politicians and their supporters (including the NRA). (Note: The Second Amendment and what it stands for is a Civil Right.) Take them all out to a safe area. The pro-gun group may have guns. The anti-gun group may not have guns or any other “dangerous weapon” (these are often the same people who say that civilians shouldn’t own AH-1 Cobras because they are assault helicopters – even if they are unarmed). Then we have a little war. It can be on pay-per-view. Whichever group is still alive wins the debate.
The background check can’t be TOO extensive, you’d think - former Guns-n-Roses guitarist Slash has the license and owns several fully automatic weapons.
Excuse ME, kniz! I never said machine guns weren’t dangerous! Shit, even a dull pencil is dangerous if you’re running around the house in your diapers holding one (it’s all good fun until someone gets an eye put out!:D).
I just said the they are LESS dangerous than some would have us believe!
