One needs to read the drivel Dan Small has written at
http://www.msnbc.com/news/261433.asp
My respone to this article is below. Please hammer this idiot with your opinions.
----------------------------------------
Dan Small,
I really wonder how someone who was a federal prosecutor can write such garbage.
"But for the business of murder, they turned
away from weapons of war or hunting. Those were too big, too slow, and too precise. Murder up-close requires convenience, speed and firepower. A fast spray is more likely to hit a moving target up close than a single, carefully considered bullet. For that combination of deadly efficiency, they turned to semi-automatics and sawed-off shotguns."
Fully automatic weapons have a faster rate of
fire than semi-automatics. Why did they not use those if all they wanted to do was a fast spray?
Furthermore, most police officers now carry
semi-automatics. Why this change? Ease and speed of reloading perhaps.
If memory serves me correctly, semi-automatic pitols were first used in World War 2. Therefore, the semi-automatic is a weapon of war.
"A normal pistol allows you to hold it steady, aim, and pull the trigger. It then requires you to release the trigger, and go through the process again. A semi-automatic or automatic — there are a range of styles and capabilities — removes that crucial, deliberative step. Pull the trigger once, or squeeze it repeatedly and the gun will fire a rapid succession of bullets."
Now we both should know that this is a misleading statement. You claimed the weapon of choice was a semi-automatic; yet, here you try and confuse the terms by citing the firing styles of automatic and semi-automatic.
As you should know, an automatic weapon fires
repeatedly until the trigger is released. A
semi-auotmatic, however, requires the same action to fire as a revolver, one trigger pull per shot. The differnece being that the revolver must rotate a new chamber with the next pull of the trigger. I can gurantee you that a loaded revolver when squeezed repeated will fire just as well as a semi-automatic.
"These are ugly killing machines, nothing more and nothing less. They are not tools for hunting, war, or even reasonable self-defense."
As I stated previously, the semi-automatic was used in at least one war, and most assuredly more. So therefore, they are tools not as you would have us beleive ugly killing machines.
"Without the guns, whatever trouble they got
into would not have been a massacre."
Just like the Oklahoma City bombing was not a
massacre, huh? They didn't just have guns, which must infuriate you given your anti-self defense (anti-gun) stance, they made and carried 30+ bombs into the school as well. Where is the outrage against the pipe manufacture and this deadly ugly killing material.
Perhaps you should stick to white collar crime and lecturing about information you have more knowledge in.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/261433.asp
My respone to this article is below. Please hammer this idiot with your opinions.
----------------------------------------
Dan Small,
I really wonder how someone who was a federal prosecutor can write such garbage.
"But for the business of murder, they turned
away from weapons of war or hunting. Those were too big, too slow, and too precise. Murder up-close requires convenience, speed and firepower. A fast spray is more likely to hit a moving target up close than a single, carefully considered bullet. For that combination of deadly efficiency, they turned to semi-automatics and sawed-off shotguns."
Fully automatic weapons have a faster rate of
fire than semi-automatics. Why did they not use those if all they wanted to do was a fast spray?
Furthermore, most police officers now carry
semi-automatics. Why this change? Ease and speed of reloading perhaps.
If memory serves me correctly, semi-automatic pitols were first used in World War 2. Therefore, the semi-automatic is a weapon of war.
"A normal pistol allows you to hold it steady, aim, and pull the trigger. It then requires you to release the trigger, and go through the process again. A semi-automatic or automatic — there are a range of styles and capabilities — removes that crucial, deliberative step. Pull the trigger once, or squeeze it repeatedly and the gun will fire a rapid succession of bullets."
Now we both should know that this is a misleading statement. You claimed the weapon of choice was a semi-automatic; yet, here you try and confuse the terms by citing the firing styles of automatic and semi-automatic.
As you should know, an automatic weapon fires
repeatedly until the trigger is released. A
semi-auotmatic, however, requires the same action to fire as a revolver, one trigger pull per shot. The differnece being that the revolver must rotate a new chamber with the next pull of the trigger. I can gurantee you that a loaded revolver when squeezed repeated will fire just as well as a semi-automatic.
"These are ugly killing machines, nothing more and nothing less. They are not tools for hunting, war, or even reasonable self-defense."
As I stated previously, the semi-automatic was used in at least one war, and most assuredly more. So therefore, they are tools not as you would have us beleive ugly killing machines.
"Without the guns, whatever trouble they got
into would not have been a massacre."
Just like the Oklahoma City bombing was not a
massacre, huh? They didn't just have guns, which must infuriate you given your anti-self defense (anti-gun) stance, they made and carried 30+ bombs into the school as well. Where is the outrage against the pipe manufacture and this deadly ugly killing material.
Perhaps you should stick to white collar crime and lecturing about information you have more knowledge in.