This has no bearing on lethality. You don't use full automatic fire to kill crowds of people, it wastes ammunition. So what is the purpose then of banning automatic weapons?
close to full auto fire seemed to work pretty well here
This has no bearing on lethality. You don't use full automatic fire to kill crowds of people, it wastes ammunition. So what is the purpose then of banning automatic weapons?
This has no bearing on lethality. You don't use full automatic fire to kill crowds of people, it wastes ammunition. So what is the purpose then of banning automatic weapons?
close to full auto fire seemed to work pretty well here
I'm not arguing for or against gun control. I just asked what bearing banning automatic weapons has on anything when you can get better results with properly aimed semi automatic shots.
I'm not arguing for or against gun control. I just asked what bearing banning automatic weapons has on anything when you can get better results with properly aimed semi automatic shots.
I think the people in other hotels heard the echos and thought it was coming from their hotel. Just like the people at Fort Lauderdale airport thought someone was shooting from the garage, when it wasn't true.
except the pro-gun argument has nothing to do with having militias and rebelling against the government
its about an individuals rights
what the shit does banning automatic weapons do when theres still an infinite amount of other options for a lunatic mass murderer to go on his spree
It needs to decide whether its about having a militia willing and able to rebel against the tyranny of government or whether its about allowing people to shoot birds and home protection.
The latter does not need semi automatic weapons... Shotguns and rifles will do.
The former is imo both a ridiculous prospect (good luck using your awesome ARs against military drones, tanks, and f22s) and a idea that is hopelessly dated. We have found that there are better methods of dissent in order to enact political change.