semi-auto is deadlier than fully automatic fire when it comes to mass shootings
hear me out here
1. on full auto the attacker isn't really going to be aiming; target placement becomes harder
2. more rounds will be wasted on the same target
3. the attacker will burn through ammunition faster; shorting the time the spree lasts
semi-auto tends to lead to deliberate shot placement and conservation of ammunition
why don't policymakers realize this?
>>30466037
>why don't policymakers realize this?
Because they pander for votes rather than actually fixing issues.
>>30466037
Mass shootings are talking points, they don't make up much of gun violence.
Gang violence is a much larger problem, and full auto excels when it comes to drive bys.
>>30466037
Full auto would arguably be deadlier against a packed mass of civilians, like at a club or a crowded event.
In most other situations, like an office or school shooting where the shooter is quickly going from place to place and shooting one or two individuals at a time, yes, it'd be better he he burned through a mag on each stop.
>>30466037
>why don't policymakers realize this?
Policymakers don't legislate rationally. Butterfly knives and switchblades are still b& for carry in VA because they are so deadly...or maybe it's because they looked scary in some movies.
this is obvious to people who are hasgunz.
money-pit giggle guns should be legal, but it isn't right at the moment, tactically, to push for it.
people only want FA to be legal because its fun and muh rights. non-gun enthusiasts see it as something destructive and pointless in civilian use.
good luck ever trying to convince people that it should be legal.
>>30466126
eventually, we can push for it as some sort of "museum" law where people can get giggle guns for "educational, scientific, or historical" purposes, and include a line that having a C&R or something qualifies for that.
>>30466116
>but it isn't right at the moment, tactically, to push for it.
It'll probably never happen because most shooters don't really give a fuck for the reasons OP described above. We aren't laying down suppressing fire in a firefight and don't foresee the need to, so most people just aren't passionate about it and never will be.
>>30466161
>Need
And what if I'm a history buff and want to collect automatic weapons? Not to mention that burst firing would allow better hit probability when on a helicopter and removing pests. I would like it to either make full auto legal pr at leadt lighten the restrictions. I shouldn't be registering my automatics or even fingerprinting and getting I.D. by the Feds just because I have a hobby.
>>30466209
Lighten up, francis. My point was that most shooters don't care much for the right to brrrrr because going full fun isn't something they see as relevant to their wants and needs. I get that it's relevant to you, but that wasn't my point.
>>30466247
would you make the same argument against suppressors?
speaking of them, it's understandable there's a tax on them because the ATF wants your shekels, but they shouldn't also make you jump through hoops and wait so fucking long for them
just flat tax it and maybe put some 4473 like paperwork with it. if you can buy a gun in the first fucking place you should be allowed to own a suppressor with it automatically
>>30466583
>argument against suppressors
I am not fucking arguing against anything. I am observing why there is little popular demand for full auto rights.
I would expect there to be more popular support for the right to own a suppressor since there is more practical use for a suppressor.
>>30466161
It'll probably never happen because stamp collectors have shit tons of sheckles to give and would fight tooth and nail to keep their old macs and aks worth stupid money.
It'd be fucking sick to have a gun that went full retard. But it'll never happen. Best you can do is save up the skrilla and buys some old shit.
>Glock18 is only like 500 bucks.
>csnt own one cause gubbmint says so.
>mfw
