Now according to military studies, 3-4 round bursts are extremely effective and usually just as accurate on-target as three or four individually fired rounds in a semi-auto. Are you saying that an AR-15 set to 3-round burst would be an irresponsible weapon to use in a self defense scenario? I don't think it is.
Sorry, but this ain't true. No "burst" of automatic fire is as accurate as a single, aimed shot. That's a FACT! Period. That's not debatable. The reason military weapons, the M-16 and now the M-4, and other weapons were converted from fully automatic to burst fire weapons was exactly because soldiers were wasting ammo on full auto by simply spraying the fully auto fire across an area, rather than "aiming" it. The purpose of any automatic fire, (full, or burst), is NOT to make a perfectly "aimed shot", but to lay down suppressive fire over an "area" and if in the process you hit a target, great. Such as firing as you enter a room just to "cover" the room so that you can enter it. Firing to give "covering fire", (keeping the bad guy's head down), while other soldiers maneuver. Taking a "snap shot" at a moving target with a burst, in the hopes that one of the 3 rounds finds the target. Nope. Auto fire, burst fire, was never intended to be precision firing.
Can some people shoot burst fire well? Sure. You seem to be an expert at it. I can do it pretty well, when I AIM my burst, I even shoot full auto pretty well, when I AIM it as I have described earlier. But, it is not as accurate as single aimed shots, I don't care who's doing it.
Therefore, FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms are not well suited for "normal self defense" applications as they can not be CONTROLLED well enough to meet the RESPONSIBLE gun owner's need to not be NEGLIGENT in using his fire arm!
You may, (and WILL), disagree with my assessment, but I have REPEATED this dozens of times in this thread and for everyone's benefit here, I am not going to repeat this again!
If you disagree with me and still think that YOU have the ability to safely employ a fully automatic weapon in a PUBLIC self defense situation, then so be it. we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Stop bringing up landmines. They are not even remotely comparable. If you want to debate those then make a thread. I'm debating the regulation fully automatic firearms. Not explosives.
The only reason I have brought that up, is to make the point that the use of any weapon which you can not RESPONSIBLY ensure is going to injure ONLY your intended target, is a weapon that is not well suited for most "normal" self defense situations. Some here, have suggested that they should be allowed to use any weapon of their choosing for self defense, including claymores, and I assume any other type of weapon, or explosive, that THEY "think" they can reasonably employ against the bad guys!
Can you honestly tell me that you can fire any weapon into a crowd at Wal-Mart with out endangering bystanders?
As a trained, and RESPONSIBLE gun owner, I believe I could RESPONSIBLY, (I have been lambasted for use the caps and YELLING my points, but this idea of RESPONSIBILITY is the KEY to my argument!), use my semi automatic pistol, making an aimed shot and an aimed follow up shot if necessary, and fulfill my responsibility of not needlessly and negligently endanger others.
You keep mentioning shotguns too. Do we ban those as well?
I have only mentioned shotguns as a comparison to the "spraying" of automatic fire to demonstrate my point that "most" responsible gun owners wouldn't employ a shotgun in a self defense situation where an aimed shot is needed to lessen the danger to innocent bystanders. NO! I do not think shotguns should be "banned" I have also repeatedly stated that I don't think fully automatic weapons should be banned, either! Just regulated as they are now.
Joe from TN, even if you are correct about using FA in public. What about home defense? If some guy is high on drugs I'd much rather give him a burst from a grease gun then keep blasting with a 1911.
I would much rather the guy not even be in my house and if he was, I would much rather he get blown up by my claymore and I not even have to confront him! Come on, let's get real here. If you can stop the guy with a "burst" from your grease gun, you can stop him with a 1911!
I actually don't see why you're arguing against any of this.
RESPONSIBILITY is in the employment of the tool, not the tool itself. If I responsibly set up a Claymore killing zone for home defense, and ensure that only someone who has evil intent gets into that zone, is that irresponsible?
You will never see "why" I believe that fully automatic firearms should be regulated because you do not believe they should be. As for the claymore? The answer to the question, as you have framed it, is no. IF you can 100% ensure that no one "innocent" can be harmed by it, then, no, that's not irresponsible. But, I seriously doubt that could be done. For every case in which you present a scenario where you "think" you could RESPONSIBLY employ a claymore, I could give an exception that would be just as absurd about how an innocent person could be harmed by use of the claymore.
Also you're adding your perception to the tools employed. By your evaluation our Military is irresponsibly employing burst or fully automatic fire in areas of civilians regularly. I do not think that they're acting irresponsibly at all, and I also think that one of the primary focuses they have is civilian safety.
It's not my "perception", I'm speaking from my experience. Having "been there and done that", I agree with you about our military employing burst and automatic fire as responsibly as possible, but then they are engaged in "COMBAT", not "self defense", totally different situations. In combat, although civilian casualties are a concern, collateral damage is an acceptable consequence of battle. That is not so in a civilian self defense use.
Restricting the tool, does not stop someone from recreating the tool, or obtaining it illegally.
Gansta types have em', why not us???
This is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! I AGREE, 100% with that statement. And this is the argument we use to defend ourselves every time an anti gunner wants to restrict any of our 2nd Amendment rights. I have used this very same argument myself. However, atomic bombs could be "gotten" by terrorists, so should we civilians be allowed to have them ourselves, for self defense?
Of course not!
Here's something I have said earlier, I'll say it again and for the last time;
ALL of our Constitutional "rights" come with some restrictions. The same is true for our 2nd Amendment. The argument is, what is a "reasonable" restriction? I believe that line can be drawn between "military weapons" and "ordinary arms".
I believe that FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms should be REGULATED as they are now. I do not believe that is unreasonable.
Unless someone comes up with a "new" attack on me, y'all have worn me out with the same old tired arguments, I'm outta here!