Weapons' purpose is saving lives.
Target shooting, haunting are secondary uses, IMO. For the most relevant opinion of why a person would need a machine gun or a mortar or a nuke, ask the guy on www.ar15.com list who survived concentration camp, then the war of 1948 that resulted in independence for Israel.
He will likely tell you that Jewish civilians with revolvers did better in 1943 Warsaw than their relatives with bare hands. Those who picked up Sten submachine guns in '48 Palestine did better yet. Do you know that in 1973 Israel was just about overrun again, great military or not. People in the path of Egyptian and Syrian advance fought to buy time for the armor committed elsewhere....with personal weapons.
Now tell me, if enemy is advancing on you with all they have, would you rather have your .38 or an Uzi/Galil/M16? The enemy could be equally easily regular foreign infantry, rogue (are there any other?) government agency or half-dozen drunk locals with entertainment/rapine in mind...
I own an AR15 because I cannot get an MG3 or Mag58 medium machine gun...not do I have extra people for the fire team. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are a good stop-gap on the way of acquiring rockets, grenades and other useful combat tools.
Will I ever need to use them? Not likely, but likely enough that I'd get VERY nervous if I had no decent weapons. My likelyhood of using them - or needing to use them but lacking the ability - would be greater if the likely opposition would try to disarm me first.
Ask Afghanis why they preferred "evil" AKMs to politically-correct blackpowder Henri-Martinis and "modern" bolt-action SMLEs. We, Americans, simply have the luxury of being able to own our own from the start and skipping that unpleasant step of ambushing on opponent and trying to learn captured tools in a hurry.
In other words, your personal revolver might protect you from a single untrained rapist...my semi-automatic rifle would help me protect myself from multiple trained threats (not perfectly, but appreciably better than other available methods).
Someday we would no longer need such weapons...but I don't think replacement rayguns will be available all that soon
Last question: if it is your family that you would like to protect from a physical threat, what would *you* prefer? I know that my choice would be the most effective, powerful and controllable tool possible. I suspect that you would agree. If someone does not agree, that's their choice...let them use harsh words and pepper spray. It isn't their right to put my life in even more danger my forbidding ownership of medications, fire extinguishers, weapons and all other tools that help trained users save their own lifes and lives of dependents.
------------------
Oleg
http://dd-b.net/RKBA
[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]
Target shooting, haunting are secondary uses, IMO. For the most relevant opinion of why a person would need a machine gun or a mortar or a nuke, ask the guy on www.ar15.com list who survived concentration camp, then the war of 1948 that resulted in independence for Israel.
He will likely tell you that Jewish civilians with revolvers did better in 1943 Warsaw than their relatives with bare hands. Those who picked up Sten submachine guns in '48 Palestine did better yet. Do you know that in 1973 Israel was just about overrun again, great military or not. People in the path of Egyptian and Syrian advance fought to buy time for the armor committed elsewhere....with personal weapons.
Now tell me, if enemy is advancing on you with all they have, would you rather have your .38 or an Uzi/Galil/M16? The enemy could be equally easily regular foreign infantry, rogue (are there any other?) government agency or half-dozen drunk locals with entertainment/rapine in mind...
I own an AR15 because I cannot get an MG3 or Mag58 medium machine gun...not do I have extra people for the fire team. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are a good stop-gap on the way of acquiring rockets, grenades and other useful combat tools.
Will I ever need to use them? Not likely, but likely enough that I'd get VERY nervous if I had no decent weapons. My likelyhood of using them - or needing to use them but lacking the ability - would be greater if the likely opposition would try to disarm me first.
Ask Afghanis why they preferred "evil" AKMs to politically-correct blackpowder Henri-Martinis and "modern" bolt-action SMLEs. We, Americans, simply have the luxury of being able to own our own from the start and skipping that unpleasant step of ambushing on opponent and trying to learn captured tools in a hurry.
In other words, your personal revolver might protect you from a single untrained rapist...my semi-automatic rifle would help me protect myself from multiple trained threats (not perfectly, but appreciably better than other available methods).
Someday we would no longer need such weapons...but I don't think replacement rayguns will be available all that soon
Last question: if it is your family that you would like to protect from a physical threat, what would *you* prefer? I know that my choice would be the most effective, powerful and controllable tool possible. I suspect that you would agree. If someone does not agree, that's their choice...let them use harsh words and pepper spray. It isn't their right to put my life in even more danger my forbidding ownership of medications, fire extinguishers, weapons and all other tools that help trained users save their own lifes and lives of dependents.
------------------
Oleg
http://dd-b.net/RKBA
[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]