A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

Not wrong

 

I just explained the operation of a Sten to you. Explain how I was wrong.

 

No auto sear, no auto fire.

 

I just showed you wrong. In the context to my post, prove your assertion as you have been asked many times. I know you won’t but I would be interested in how you try to wiggle it considering there is no such thing in a Sten, but the initiating arguement was how an auto sear controls ROF.

 

Repeatedly done so.

 

OK, make it illegal to commit suicide with a gun.

Problem solved?

 

We can do better

 

wrong. blowback open bolt guns don't need a sear

 

meaning doing better to harass legal gun ownership

 

Aside from not understanding the mechanics, the dishonesty of saying He’s proven the natative of neededing a Full Auto sear for fill auto functionality is the assertion he’s proven it controls the ROF but won’t show the posts where he’s done that. If he could show that he’s actually proven me wrong, I’d have no problem admitting it and appologizing, but I won’t admit to his false statement. I have never minded honest debate and differences of opinion, but fail to understand the need to lie to somehow figures that will win an arguement, but it seems to be a SOP among a few here. Unfortunately it also prevents an even earlier assertion about ROF with bump fire.
I haven’t decided if he’s operating from willful ignorance to playing a game, but leaning toward the latter. Well, no real consequence inbdiscussion with him considering the level of credibility he established and lends doubt to his claims of gun ownership and working at a gun shop.
Funny though, I and my friends knew more about gun design at 14 in the 60’s than he does even given he has access to Google. But, the game isn’t about knowledge.
Well, more cards in my deck to play, and for autos to be inherently dangereous, it’s obvious he hasn’t shot a Sten, M3, HK or a modern Kriss all of which are amazingly controlable in full auto mode at combat distances.
Sort of a thing with the anti gun clack, we need waiting periods but can’t say what is optimum, can’t fire too fast because it’s dangereous to our welfare but can’t say when the ROF becomes dangereous, and we need manditory training but never define what that entails. Such is fuzzy circular logic.

 

It's about saving lives

 

Such statements revel a horrifying level of ignorance regarding the subject.

 

Training is what makes a shooter with a gun more dangerous. An experienced 3 Gun shooter will be much more capable of delivering fire on multiple targets with a semiautomatic rifle with 30 round magazines than an inexperience shooter with a fully automatic rifle with a 100 round drum.

 

this is why people think gun owners are so crazy. You guys make the rest of us gun owners look bad.

 

the inherent danger in a full auto is it's ROF, and inherent lack of accuracy due to the recoil.

 

faith based nonsense. its about harassing gun owners, Lol!

 

so tell us why hasn't there been any murders with such weapons? and at what rate of fire does the firearm become too dangerous

what we are dealing with is a blanket faith based belief that full auto should be banned. No reason, no logic, no rational thought but the proponents will continually shift the reasons to avoid telling us their actual reason

 

Why you think lack of accuracy adds to inherent danger is beyond me. If that were the case, the military wouldn't train their soldiers on marksmanship nor would any full auto weapon bother with sights or optics. As that is not the case, your position holds no water.

 

ah the Neville Chamberlain approach to dealing with gun confiscators and gun banners. appeasement in our time

 

They're very limited to the general public, and cost prohibitive.

 

Adds potential collateral damage.

Comparing trained military personnel, with your average criminal is just silly. And the majority of soldiers do not fire in full auto.

 

no, just pointing out that you guys make the rest of us look bad, with the crazy opinions you hold.

 

Shooting at intended targets adds to the victim toll.

You've just contradicted yourself and proven my point. If the intent of the military is to maximize enemy casualties, why don't all soldiers fire in full auto?

 

no need to ban them.

 

I think Chamberlain said that about Churchill