I just got this in triplicate in my inbox. Somebody, please look into
Joe Dees wrote:
> >From: James Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
> >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:38 -0700
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >At 02:15 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Chuck Kuecker wrote:
> >> When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, an "assault weapon" is
> >> purpose designed to WOUND, not kill, in battle, as wounded enemy
> >> take up much more of the enemy's resources than dead.
> >This oft repeated myth is just that, a myth. Like many such legends,
> >this one has been difficult to kill. The military shoots to kill, not
> >wound. I have no idea who started this because it is contrary to any
> >military doctrine I've seen, and it has since then been refuted by top
> >echelon officers in the U.S. military. Maybe some country in Europe has
> >this as a doctrine (some countries, such as Sweden, have "interesting"
> >military doctrine histories that defy explanation).
> >Joe Dees wrote:
> >>Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic hunting
> >>rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the
> >>accurate shooting of one bullet at a time. Semi-automatic assault weapons
> >>are designed to be spray-fired from the hip and are designed to maximize
> >>death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire.
> >This paragraph here marks you as grossly ignorant. You haven't the
> >faintest idea of how these weapons are actually used by the
> >military. Even fully automatic (selectable fire) weapons such as the
> >M16 or AK47 are *virtually never* used in anything but semi-auto mode
> >by the military, and *never* "spray-fired from the hip". Hell, they
> >removed the "full-auto" capability from modern M16s because the
> >feature has almost no practical use for the military. You've watched
> >*way* too many really bad Chuck Norris movies.
> >"Maximizing death and injury" as you put it "depend on accurate
> >shooting one bullet at a time", not your idiotic Hollywood notion of
> >how guns are used. If you pitted three hip-firing yahoos with
> >full-auto weapons versus one marine with a semi-auto, you would have
> >three dead yahoos with empty magazines every time.
> >Despite your supposed gun owner status, you *clearly* have no
> >experience with military arms nor does it seem likely that you know
> >anything about shooting except perhaps punching paper at the local
> >range. I've never seen so much inanity and grossly unjustified
> >opinion packed in such a small number of words.
> >Joe Dees also wrote:
> >>Assault weapons are
> >>designed with military features such as silencers, folding stocks, flash
> >>suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are ludicrously unsuited
> >>for civilian use.
> >Function, not form is important. Cosmetics are irrelevant.
> >It just so happens that one of the much maligned "assault weapons",
> >the M16/AR15, is one of the most intrinsically accurate rifle designs
> >ever produced. Go to a rifle shooting match some time, look
> >around, and tell me what you see. When it was first introduced (in
> >the '60s) a military rack M16 shooting standard ball was as accurate
> >as most "precision" weapons of the time. To this day, it is still
> >highly favored by precision and competition shooters, and has largely
> >replaced everything except custom bolt actions for anything under
> >600 meters. Grandpa's lever-action will never be able to do 1/2"
> >groups at 200 meters, but this "assault weapon" can.
> >People who actually know guns appreciate many of the so-called
> >"assault weapons" for their own strengths, not because they look
> >"evil". An SKS is a tough and reliable shooter that is popular for
> >hunting because it holds up well to field use (quite popular with boar
> >hunters in particular, probably for that quick follow-up). The AR15 is
> >the gold-standard for ergonomic design and its extreme precision makes
> >it popular for target shooters and varmint hunters. These are all
> >clearly reasonable civilian uses for which the weapons are
> >particularly well-suited.
> >As for bayonet lugs, when was the last time anyone was murdered with a
> >bayonet (outside government sponsored action, of course)?
> Proof that it's purpose is not civilian hunting, unless you wanna sneak up and knife your buck.
> > Or
> >silencers (hint: none)? Barrel shrouds don't even have a function on
> >anything a person can carry, other than to look cool. Flash suppressors
> >don't do anything that has any applicability to criminal use (if you think
> >it does, you don't know what a flash suppressor is for) and falls under the
> >same category as barrel shrouds.
> They're great for hiding the source location of snipers, especially at night. So you don't want the herd to know where you're picking them off from? It's not a (game) hunting attachment.
> >Folding/collapsible stocks are good for
> >paratroopers and small statured people that can't use a rifle that has a
> >regular stock because of length-of-pull issues.
> That's a reasonable civilian use, but a short stock will do the same.
> >(And I was trying to ignore these gun threads...)
> >It is well-intentioned and poorly educated people like yourself Mr.
> >Dees, that pave the road to hell. It is too bad you can't see that,
> >but then those people rarely do.
> To begin with, I was cut and paste quoting an issue brief on assault weapons from HCI, a fact you obviously missed, even though I clearly stated same. Your differences are with them. The URL for the entire brief is at:
> I remember the old saying. "One shot, one deer. Two shots, maybe one deer, Three shots, no deer." I'd like to append this observation: thirty shots, either no deer or a messy pulp, and maybe a dead hunter from stray spray.
> It's also well-propagandized fervent and unquestioning people who pave subterranean roads. My point was, to start, that the gun show buy without background check and mass-purchase 'private collector' loopholes should be closed. It is also true, however, that less than 1% of the weapons out there, the assault weapons, were responsible, in 1994, for 17% of the cop killings. Hunting bluebacks does little for one's freezer.
> >-James Rogers
> > email@example.com
> Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
> http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT