Semi-weapons in trained hands are every bit as effective for self-defense as an F/A one so the self-defense issue really doesn't justify the need right? Or does it?
I don't believe in the government telling me what is or is not effective for self-defense. I'd rather decide that for myself.
My local government officials at the university are telling me carrying my car keys in my hands for self defense and carrying a whistle to blow is more likely to save my life than granting me the right to carry a firearm.
If I believe I would be better served by a suppressed full auto MP5 with a 10 inch barrel in my house than a semi-auto Ruger PC9, I should be able to choose the MP5.
If semi-auto weapons are just as useful, why is that SWAT teams use submachineguns? I think they use submachineguns because they know in close quarters battle, the ability to put as many rounds as possible as fast as possible into an opponent armed with a gun can make the difference between them being shot by the person or the person being neutralized before they get shot.
I know I'm going to get blasted by people telling me full auto is useless and what not, and I don't care. I should be able to choose. If I want to use something you consider useless, I should be able to.
If full autos are illegal, why are shotguns legal? Only because the hunters would cry out in horror if the politicians went for their bird guns.
A 12 gauge shotgun with 3" magnum shells can fire 15 .32 acp sized projectiles, each with the same amount of energy as a .32 auto projectile, in a single pull of the trigger.
Yet, I cannot easily own a Vz 61 Skorpion Submachinegun in .32 auto? I could put more projectiles down range faster with a shotgun.
The "full auto guns are evil uncontrollable bullet hoses" argument is useless unless you want to ban shotguns too.
A lot of people think shotguns are great for self-defense. But I would rather have A Vz 61 skorpion with a suppressor because I want to save my ears and I don't care much for the massive recoil of the shotgun. Also, the skorpion would be much shorter and handier.
I fail to see how short bursts with a subgun are supposedly useless when something equivalent to firing an entire magazine with a single boom is considered useful.
On another comparison, consider a bad guy wearing armor. Your shotgun won't penetrate his armor. If you had something like an M16 set to 3 shot burst mode, the rounds would go through the armor like it wasn't there. Another potential win for full autos over shotguns for self defense.
As always, the military guys will jump on me saying I never shot a full auto and therefore I am wrong. Once again, it basically boils down to the argument that people should not be able to decide for themselves what is best and should have to rely on the wisdom of the government. If full autos are so useless, give me one so I can try it out for myself and decide for myself if they are useless. I won't take your word for it, especially as you continue to use your full auto gun because you claim you needed it for suppressive fire (while at the same time claiming regular civilians would never benefit from suppressive fire.)
Obviously a villain armed with a F/A weapon would pose a larger threat to LEO lives than with a semi auto weapon.
I don't understand how full auto weapons could possibly be more dangerous to a police officer yet at the same time less dangerous to a criminal trying to kill me.