Per-bullet, someone with a machinegun/smg/machinepistol is less likely to hit anything in particular. Per unit time, however, they might be nearly as likely, or even more likely, to hit someone.
The question is, do confrontations involving machineguns end with many more rounds fired than confrontations involving semi-autos? Are there any studies on point?
No matter the answer, there is no reason to ban full-auto. There will always be a "most dangerous weapon" or a "most terrifying weapon" that's readily available to criminals. It's irrelevant whether it's a nuke or ammonium nitrate or an m4 or a hijacked 747 or a tank or simply a glock. Ban it, secure it, or regulate it enough, and suddenly there's a new "most dangerous weapon" that all the liberals whine about. It never ends. The only reasonable thing to do is set a philosophical limit and stick with it no matter how many people die due to wounds inflicted by psychopaths with legal weapons.
