Ban full and semi autos now!!!

[Diesel_tke]

I have never understood, and I still don't, how not having access to guns that can be modified to have a higher rate of fire with a conversion kit, while still having access to a less efficient gun infringes upon the second amendment.

I think because it is a slippery slope. Most people just figure that if we start down that road, then it gets more and more limiting. So people just figure that if you keep your hands off my gun rights, then we don't have to worry about it. Full auto, then semi, then high capacity mags, then we can just get down to revolvers or single shot pistols. Do I think that auto or semi-auto guns are needed for hunting, no. But they sure are fun to shoot.

[huge]

Curious, how many fully automatic weapons have you fired? What qualifies you to make this analysis?

Nothing really. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't deny I could be wrong as this is pure speculation.

Comparing knife to gun, attacking a group of unarmed people in a building:

• With a knife I have to put myself much closer to a victim, increasing my risk of counter attack.
• Just switching targets is a longer process if I have to take much more than a step to get to the next one.
• If a potential victim is a faster runner than me, they have an increased chance of getting away.
• Having never fires a fully automatic weapon I cannot speak to the amount of fatigue caused by carrying, firing, and reloading of one vs. (possibly) chasing down a target, and stabbing them.

Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.

[huge]

My point is flying right over your head isn't it?? The argument you are making is the same one I can make, just to a different extent of stupidity.

Yes it is. That's why I'm asking you to explain. Tell me how a man with a big heavy rock can do the same amount of damage with the same amount of work as a man with an automatic weapon.

[submessenger]

Nothing really. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't deny I could be wrong as this is pure speculation.

Comparing knife to gun, attacking a group of unarmed people in a building:

• With a knife I have to put myself much closer to a victim, increasing my risk of counter attack.
• Just switching targets is a longer process if I have to take much more than a step to get to the next one.
• If a potential victim is a faster runner than me, they have an increased chance of getting away.
• Having never fires a fully automatic weapon I cannot speak to the amount of fatigue caused by carrying, firing, and reloading of one vs. (possibly) chasing down a target, and stabbing them.

Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.

Problem number 1: You've accepted the debate about gun control in terms of a mass-assailant in a building. This scenario accounts for a mere fraction of all gun related deaths in America. Furthermore, you seem to have drawn your tactical understanding of the situation from OMGnews and movies, not actual events.

Problem number 2: You seem to have accepted that just having a rapid-fire weapon, of whatever configuration, is more deadly. While this might be true in the case of a trained individual, again, it's a battle of fractions. Most people do not have the requisite training to improve their accuracy with any weapon, let alone a fully automatic one.

[Diesel_tke]

Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.

Then lets not. Lets be more realistic and compare say, semi auto vs revolver. I can shoot a revolver and reload with a speed loader almost as fast as you can shoot a semi-auto, eject the mag, reload and fire. Depending on the size of the mag. When I cary a revolver it is usually with two speed loaders as well. So that is 18 shots, pretty quickly.

[Bneterasedmynam]

Yes it is. That's why I'm asking you to explain. Tell me how a man with a big heavy rock can do the same amount of damage with the same amount of work as a man with an automatic weapon.

My point is that it doesn't matter what weapon you use dead is dead. Weather it's a gun, a knife, or just raw strength. And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun. Do you really think a classroom with gradeschool kids would fare any better against someone who could toss them 20 feet in the air?? You see any weapon or advantage can be demonized.

[huge]

Problem number 1: You've accepted the debate about gun control in terms of a mass-assailant in a building. This scenario accounts for a mere fraction of all gun related deaths in America. Furthermore, you seem to have drawn your tactical understanding of the situation from OMGnews and movies, not actual events.

Only because that is what spurs the debate. If it wasn't for recent events that involve mass shootings, the level of gun debate would be much lower. Again, I stated that it's speculation on my part, I claim no expertise. I am making assumptions, but I'm trying to be upfront about it.

Problem number 2: You seem to have accepted that just having a rapid-fire weapon, of whatever configuration, is more deadly. While this might be true in the case of a trained individual, again, it's a battle of fractions. Most people do not have the requisite training to improve their accuracy with any weapon, let alone a fully automatic one.

Discounting mass shootings, I agree wholeheartedly.

Then lets not. Lets be more realistic and compare say, semi auto vs revolver. I can shoot a revolver and reload with a speed loader almost as fast as you can shoot a semi-auto, eject the mag, reload and fire. Depending on the size of the mag. When I cary a revolver it is usually with two speed loaders as well. So that is 18 shots, pretty quickly.

Fair enough.

[huge]

My point is that it doesn't matter what weapon you use dead is dead. Weather it's a gun, a knife, or just raw strength. And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun. Do you really think a classroom with gradeschool kids would fare any better against someone who could toss them 20 feet in the air??

As opposed to shooting at them? Yes, I do.

[Bneterasedmynam]

Nothing really. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't deny I could be wrong as this is pure speculation.

Comparing knife to gun, attacking a group of unarmed people in a building:

• With a knife I have to put myself much closer to a victim, increasing my risk of counter attack.
• Just switching targets is a longer process if I have to take much more than a step to get to the next one.
• If a potential victim is a faster runner than me, they have an increased chance of getting away.
• Having never fires a fully automatic weapon I cannot speak to the amount of fatigue caused by carrying, firing, and reloading of one vs. (possibly) chasing down a target, and stabbing them.

Obviously, this is just off the top of my head, but I can't see how a knife could be equally compared with an automatic weapon, in terms of killing efficiency.

Ok now this one is better a weapon vs. weapon debate to support your cause, but do me favor replace "knife" with "fire" and make the same argument.

[Bneterasedmynam]

As opposed to shooting at them? Yes, I do.

Please explain how it would make a difference, either way dead is dead. Without attacking the problem of why they go nuts changing the weapon they use will make little difference.