Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[HoreTore]

It's pretty powerful when "downrange" is the length of a school hallway.

As stated previously, I have only fired 7.62, so I don't have personal experience here. Still, judging from MRD's replies, I'm guessing it's not that different from 5.56.

Given that assumption, I'd still want semi-auto if I was a loony shooting kids down a hallway. I'm not going to play a numbers game, but I'm betting the number of dead kids will be significantly less with full auto than with semi auto.

The target(man-sized) I shot at when I tried full auto was at 30 meters. I don't remember the number of hits I got, but I seriously doubt it was more than 3(and I squeezed two times as opposed to holding it in the entire time). So, you can probably hit a few kids clustered together. There's no way you're going to hit the cluster of kids next to them, however. You won't be able to direct fire at them while shooting, and your clip will be spent in an instant. With semi-auto, they'll all be dead in 15 seconds.

[Major Robert Dump]

Full auto is for suppression and mowing down tight groups of people in close proximity. I would agree with Hore that from a marksmanship and ammo use standpoint, semi is going to be more effective. However, for people in a movie theater or people mobbed against a locked fire escape, a full auto weapon has the potential to kill/maim 30 or more people in a matter of 10 seconds. Another thing about full auto is that it makes it far more difficult to escape, hence, suppression.

But really, the ammo point is irrelevant since most of the time these guys have plenty of excess rounds. Perhaps they would have to reload faster, but very rarely do we hear or read about people who actually take down a guy while he is reloading. I believe it happened at the giffords shooting. don't think full auto would have made any difference at sandy hook, and I believe that he could have done just as much damage with a couple of pistols.

@Hore: 556 kicks less than a 762 no matter what the gun IMO. Full auto kicks more than semi no matter what the gun. The 249 can be accurately fired on full auto, even with one hand if u are a big guy. Of course by accurate I am using machine gunner tersm and mean at close range. 762 will also pierce and keep going. The 556 varies, but 556 nato does not pierce, it bounces around inside the victim. I saw a guy shot in the lower left bicep from the front with a 556, the round turned left and hollowed out his chest cavity. He was my friend. He was trying to get sent home early by having an "accident" in the latrine and shooting himself in the arm. didn't work out for him, and it was odd seeing a guy with an entry would in the front of his arm and a giant exit wound in his center chest.

Magazine limits are pointless unless we simply make everyone carry revolvers. None of the "assault weapons ban" type rules address things that are really overly functional. It is all cosmetic. A 22 original rifle can kill just as many people as a 22 with a fancy muzzle, a shortened stock and cool guy grips. That is how they are defining assault rifles. Full auto has not had anything to do with any of the legitimate arguments since the mcdonalds shooting in the 80s. I recall the branch davidians having illegal machine guns, but I don't think they used them and I don't believe anything the
Fed says about that anyway,

[HoreTore]

Full auto is for suppression and mowing down tight groups of people in close proximity. I would agree with Hore that from a marksmanship and ammo use standpoint, semi is going to be more effective. However, for people in a movie theater or people mobbed against a locked fire escape, a full auto weapon has the potential to kill/maim 30 or more people in a matter of 10 seconds. Another thing about full auto is that it makes it far more difficult to escape, hence, suppression.

....but wouldn't a person using semi-auto still be able to whack those 30 people, just that he will use 20 seconds instead of 10? You can say that they'll have 10 more seconds to get away, but the semi shooter will have the ability to direct his fire after their movements... And then focusing on the "dangers of full auto" becomes rather irrelevant, doesn't it?

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.


ABB used a semi-automatic hunting rifle, by the way. 69 deaths, 66 wounded.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It sounds like we should be pushing to legalize new full auto production. It will be less dangerous, even in a crowded room and force a shooter to go through rounds faster, right horetore?

Soon people will be able to 3d print lower receivers with auto-seers, so who cares what the law says. People will just have them and that will be the end of it

[HoreTore]

It sounds like we should be pushing to legalize new full auto production. It will be less dangerous, even in a crowded room and force a shooter to go through rounds faster, right horetore?

Basically.

The only sense I see in a ban on fully automatic, is if it's a just the first step of an eventual ban on all weapons. Ie the slippery slope. But even then, I don't consider "slippery slope"-bans to be an effective way of establishing complete bans. If you want to ban something completely, I believe you need to take rather big steps, ones which will have a real impact on day to day life.

[HopAlongBunny]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/043...ith-jim-carrey

[drone]

My point:
If you allow semi-automatic weapons, I see no reason to ban fully automatic weapons. If the image of a loon walking around with a machine gun killing hundreds of people is what upsets you, wouldn't it be more productive to look at the type of weapon, rather than its mode of fire? Ie., propose a ban on "military weapons", and allow "civilian weapons"(though good luck defining those)? Or just scrap weapon differentiating all together and look for alternative solutions.

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about.

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

[Lemur]

Oooooh, I could finally get that M2 I've been dreaming about.

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

[drone]

Why sell yourself short? Go for an M1.

It won't fit in the garage. And the mileage is atrocious.

[HoreTore]

I still think any restrictions they make should also apply to LEOs.

The police should also be unarmed.

[drone]

The police should also be unarmed.

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

[Husar]

If you are going to banhammer all guns, then yes, but that's not going to happen. There is no reason why the po-po gets to keep their ARs with 30 round mags if regular citizens cannot. LEOs are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ, why should they get access to the cool toys.

They are not cool toys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence