Hey Mr. clubber, our good friend oo7 didn't understand the point of the post. There aren't killings using fully automatic weapons because the gun control laws and restrictions making them hard to get and own is working. He's funny when he gets all worked up.
Handguns offer advantages and disadvantages. The two main disadvantages is that without a lot of training most people can't hit the side of a barn with a handgun. Many combat veterans say that their side arm is just there in case they get separated from their rifle to keep the enemy back until they can make their way back to their main weapon. The other problem is that kids love them because they are small and look like toys. It's easy for a kid to accidentally get a handgun pointed in an unsafe direction. Handguns need to have some type of secure lockup to keep them out of kids hands. This extra security can defeat their usefulness. I'm not trying to diss handguns as a self defense weapon. It's just that there are pros and cons and they are not the best alternative for all situations.
From the NY Times--- now, I am certain, had the principal been armed, many lives would hav been saved: "MARC SANTORA and JAMES BARRON The principal and another staff member at an elementary school in Connecticut rushed a gunman who had forced his way inside, an act of courage that cost both of them their lives, a school superintendent said on Saturday. In all, the gunman killed 26 people, 20 of them children, in the nationâs second-deadliest school shooting. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, 47, of Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, was running at the gunman âin order to protect her studentsâ when she was shot, Janet Robinson, the superintendent, said. The school psychologist also tried to stop the gunman and was killed, Ms. Robinson told reporters in brief remarks outside "
In many cases, yes--- but in a small very crowded space -- I would venture full auto would cause more casualties in a shorter time frame.
Lets pretend the government wanted to take over. You bring your fully automatic weapons. They'll bring their tanks and air bombers. We'll see who wins.
I don't think that is a fair analogy. It isn't like one day the gov. would show up with heavy weaponry to quell a population. The population would also have the advantage of blending in and attacking at strategic locations and claiming some heavy weapons for themselves if it got that far. For instance, you don't hear about the Taliban having anything other than rifles, explosives and RPG's. Yet, they have kept our military busy for 10 years trying to defeat them. It's not always the size of the weapon but the tactics that decide a conflict or war. However, without handguns and rifles in the hands of the civilian population there is no battle. We would be like the Palestinians throwing rocks at the Israelis and be easily put down at will.
The point of your posts is often lost in a sea of misrepresented facts, incorrect assertions, flawed assumptions and plain old fashioned dimwittedness. You were wrong about the use of automatic weapons, period. Allow me to introduce you to an internet feature they call "Google". www.google.com