At 2/21/13 11:25 AM, Saen wrote:
In my opinion, the sport of hunting involves a certain amount of risk, patience, precision, and tracking. When using an Ak-47 two of those skills are immediately thrown out, precision and risk. That is if you fire one shot with a semi auto and miss, you can just instantly fire again, allowing less time for your target to escape. As for risk, well any dangerous animal that gets close to you can be shot at over and over until it's dead.
Saen...in the past you have admitted that you are not much of a hunter. You have a low opinion of it, as well as demonstrated a degree of ignorance on the topic. Now, engaged in a conversation with a hunter...why do you think your opinion is all that relevant? Not trying to be rude...but if hunting is just a thought experiment to you...just how valid is it compared to an actual hunter? Afterall you reveal one erroneous foundation to your opinion as well as one that is just plain silly:
* The rate of fire between a semi-auto is not all that different from a lever action or pump. I shoot skeet with a pump and it is just fine for hitting two moving targets (double barrel even better). Lever action is about the same as a pump. Yes a semi-auto is faster...but the limiting factor on rate of aimed fire is reacquring your target...which is the same irregardless of action. And I can operate a pump/level in about the time it takes to reacquire the target. Bolt...not enough to really make it more sporting. Furthermore...as I point out the semi-auto is less accurate than bolt or lever actions requiring more marksmanship. :) But in the end...not as significant a difference as you think.
* Risk: Dude...this is just silly. It reminds me of those guys who come on here talking about using swords and martial arts instead of guns for self-defense.
So you the invention of semi automatic rifles required hunters and soldiers to be even more accurate with their shots? You've got it backwards dude.
Again...step back and analyze the situation. You're talking to a guy who is a hunter and has military training. Of the two of us...who would be the more likely to have it backwards?
* the military does not use spray and pray...waste of ammo and soldiers simply could not carry enough rounds to sustain a firefight on full-auto.
* regardless of action...you still have to hit your target. Bolt actions are more accurate than autos (semi, full, or selective) because:
- The actions on autos fit more loosely which siphons energy away from the bullet.
- The cycle of firing a bullet, especially in autos that operate on the blowback principle, siphons energy from the bullet.
-- less energy means a trajectory that is less flat which, by definition, means less accurate
- The movement of the action as it cycles reduces accuracy
So...sorry Saen...you are only revealing your lack of knowledge and authority to speak on this subject.
... Magazine size is my concern, but I'm pretty tiered of saying this over and over. So I'll just leave you with this thought.
Just because you say something over and over does not make it right. You have failed to back up your argument with supporting facts...just suppositions.
Do you research on shootings that were a result of a semi-auto pistol versus a revolver. Both are handguns and are easy to conceal, however a semi-auto pistol has a much higher rate of fire, faster reload rate, and magazine capacities over twice the amount of revolvers. It seems the decreased reliability of a magazine doesn't seem to deter the majority of criminals from making it their gun of choice.
I'm very well versed in the research. When you look at the factors involving why a criminal chooses the gun he chooses you see the following trends:
* Criminals go for cheap and available over functionality and design features such as LCM (lg cap mags), reload/fire rates, accuracy, etc.
* When criminals do choose a gun based upon its characteristics...they favor larger calibur hanguns. Larger calibur handguns tend to be .
* Since criminals go for cheap and available...this is a market ruled by supply not the demand of the customers. In this case, the supply of guns follow popular trends with legitimate shooters which is subject to change. Consider:
- 1970s-1990: .357 and .38 revolvers each accounted for more than double the 9mm pistols made for the civilian market.
- 1990s: The market changed and people started buying semi-auto handguns.
* Crimes in which the criminal fired more than 10 shots: 2%...accounting for 5% of gunshot wounded. These mostly invovled pistols since 'assault rifles' are very rarely used in crime. Also, despite the fact that in only 2% of shoot-outs does the bad guy utilize the high rate of fire (how fast it shoots) and/or the high volume of fire (how many bullets are fired)...LCMs are involved in upto 26% of gun crimes. So this capability is largely superfulous and not utilized by crooks.
So once you actually look at the reasons why bad guys choose the gun they use...it is not about choice but market forces that are skewed towards supply not demand. Also, LCMs are not responsible for gun crimes. Nor is their impact, at 2% and 5%.