('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>From: James Rogers <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:38 -0700
>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
>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.
>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.
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