Just curious on different points of view

ak-47, 9mm girl's friend

I own a semi-auto ak-47 the sear isn't hard to find, or make into a full auto config. It's the responsibility of the owner as a law abiding individual not to do so. Has your friend ever compared an ak-47 to a cetme sporter?, a wasr hi-cap, tommy gun, even a glock pistol converted to full auto? Or does she only recognize the number and letters of ak-47? The ak is the most widely known full auto wpn of course, then the mp5's and rpk's etc etc. Your friend sounds like she hasn't ever fired a gun, but wants to input her opinions to sound like she knows wtf she's talking about, when in reality, she doesn't have a clue. Ak-47's are a "pray and spray" weapon, like most full auto's. I'd be more afraid of a criminal with a good position firing at me from a concealed area, with a bolt action, or pistol, standard firearm, even a blackpowder firearm, than from the same running at me with a full auto.
 
I guess the problem is that criminals always have guns that are available to civilians. Some of them have guns that are only available to civilians that can blow thousands of dollars. Others have guns that are completely illegal. Why cant I open carry a pair of silenced micro UZIs? Would that make things even?
 
My own definition of "self defense", in the context of this argument, includes attempting to throw off oppressive regimes. However, the reality of the world I see leads me to believe that with the capabilities of modern weaponry the days of uprising to throw off oppressive regimes is over. Having armed citizens can deter some the aggressive tendencies of evil regimes; but even if we allowed citizens to have military quality equipment, including WMDs, the best an uprising could hope for is mutually assured destruction. Armed citizens merely provide economic incentive for people in power to keep their word and not breech their oaths to the people. I do not think an uprising could really work, especially in the US.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute, here.

At once, you are saying that the weapons that modern oppressive regimes make civilian uprising doomed to failure, but also that they are what keep those regimes from breaching their oaths to the people?

How can they be simultaneously responsible for keeping officials in line, and impotent??


-blackmind
 
I think that full auto weapons, especially submachine guns in close quarters, provide an aggressor with a large tactical advantage that is not balanced out by the defender having a similar weapon. Generally attackers have the advantage of being able to pick their location of opportunity and shoot first. A weapon that throws out tons of lead and requires minimal accuracy simply exacerbates the problem.
Click to expand...
Scope,
I'm thinking you got it kinda backwards..........
An attacker who picks his location ahead of time and shoots first will be just as effective with a semi-auto rifle. A full auto gun gives a defender the chance of repelling an unexpected attack. A holed up defender has the advantage of location, not an attacker. Even though full auto has value as a fire suppressor, that use is limited by ammo quantity. To persevere in a conflict, a person must still hit his attacker, whether he is using full auto or a bolt action.

The reality of all this is your average Joe could not afford to shoot full auto regularly, nor fuel up a tank and drive it around on a weekly basis. This stuff costs money to do, and the financial drain would cause most people to give their fantasy toys up in short order.
 
At once, you are saying that the weapons that modern oppressive regimes make civilian uprising doomed to failure, but also that they are what keep those regimes from breaching their oaths to the people?

How can they be simultaneously responsible for keeping officials in line, and impotent??
Click to expand...

I didn't say that armed citizens would keep regimes from breaking their oaths, only that it provides incentive not too. Your statement is stronger than mine. Try this analogy: if somebody really wants to steal your car they probably will, but properly using the locks on your car doors will deter most criminals from stealing it. Likewise having armed citizens will deter most would-be tyrants from trying anything, but if a real evil bastard was willing to pay the price and had the backing of the military he could force his will on the public.

A holed up defender has the advantage of location, not an attacker.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this statement. It seems to me if two sides have equal weaponry but one is pinned down and the other can maneuver, the advantage goes to him who can maneuver.

The reality of all this is your average Joe could not afford to shoot full auto regularly, nor fuel up a tank and drive it around on a weekly basis. This stuff costs money to do, and the financial drain would cause most people to give their fantasy toys up in short order.
Click to expand...

I don't think public safety should be left to economics. Reasonable legislation will protect both peoples rights and the general public.
 
Okay, tell me why we should make it easy for them. No one needs a full auto to defend themselves. Do you think you're going to be attacked by a Polish calvary charge or something? What public benefit is there for allowing citizens to easily upgrade from semi-auto to full auto?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "public benefit". It has to do with the 2nd amendment, and the freedom it protects.
 
It seems to me if two sides have equal weaponry but one is pinned down and the other can maneuver, the advantage goes to him who can maneuver.
Click to expand...
We will probably have to agree to disagree, but in gunfight after gunfight, and battle after battle, it has been shown that man for man, the advantage goes to the person/force that has sufficient cover or has their forces entrenched. One of the more famous encounters illustrating this occured on Cemetery Ridge , July 3, 1863. This is why a commanding officer will often want a 5-6 to 1 ratio before attacking an entrenched force. Less is suicidal. A more recent example is General H. Norman Schwarzkopf waiting for months while building his forces to attack an entrenched enemy. He did not do that due to fear or politics, but because it was a good tactical decision. Maneuverability is not everything. Winning is everything.

But back to the subject at hand ;) ...........
 
It has nothing to do with "public benefit". It has to do with the 2nd amendment, and the freedom it protects.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The 2nd amendment does not, IMO, entitle citizens unrestricted access to arms. I do not think that the "right to keep and bear arms" means high power weaponry (like nerve gas) should be available to civilians.

We will probably have to agree to disagree, but in gunfight after gunfight, and battle after battle, it has been shown that man for man, the advantage goes to the person/force that has sufficient cover or has their forces entrenched.
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think your statement would only be accurate describing WWI or conflicts before it, and some instances in WWII. In Desert Shield/Storm America did not need 5-6 times the amount of ground forces of the Iraqis to win. Most credit our advanced weaponry and training with our ability smash the Iraqi forces. A part of that was the maneuverability of our forces, and our ability as aggressors to choose where the fight would occur.
 
In Desert Shield/Storm America did not need 5-6 times the amount of ground forces of the Iraqis to win. Most credit our advanced weaponry and training with our ability smash the Iraqi forces.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Schwarzkopf, who waited for months in Saudi Arabia while troops arrived, and then waited some more while air power further evened his odds. The invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq on 2 August 1990 provoked a build-up of US troops in Saudi Arabia, eventually totalling over 500,000. The UK subsequently deployed 42,000 troops, France 15,000, Egypt 20,000, and other nations smaller contingents. An air offensive lasting six weeks, in which ‘smart’ weapons came of age, destroyed about one-third of Iraqi equipment and inflicted massive casualties. A 100-hour ground war followed, which effectively destroyed the remnants of the 500,000-strong Iraqi army in or near Kuwait.

There is a group at the Pentagon led by Donald Rumsfeld by the way, who believe a smaller, manueverable and high tech force can overcome a larger low tech enemy. It's a financial and political argument they are trying to sell, not what has worked in the past. They are still trying to sell it, and still trying to prove it. That belief led to a lot of what we now see every day in Iraq.
It's fine to believe such. Making it work is another kettle of fish.

FWIW, there are many, myself included, who fought in the Gulf War who will state we did not "win." We met our objectives, but we did not "win." We left a tyrant in power. A "win" that is seen as a loss by over half the world can hardly be called a win.
 
In the case of Desert Storm I am not doubting your numbers, but your numbers (which have been backed up by some other sources) do not back up your earlier claim. By your own estimate the coalition forces should have needed 2.5 to 3 million troops, but they didn't. The ratio was almost 1:1. The fact that the Iraqi forces got decimated and the US forces did not reinforces, at least to me, that with modern weaponry the advantage goes to an aggressor who has better technology and the ability to maneuver (and the brains and skills to use it, of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top