Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)

I said: "That's why SWAT teams don't use pistols-- despite their high
level of training."

Apparently I should have been more precise in my word choice, because
instead of taking my obvious point and moving on, you word police
decided to take the statement literally-- even though I think it's
obvious what I meant. Let me put in all the worldly qualifiers to
satisfy your purist sensibilities.

Most SWAT teams don't use pistols as a primary weapon. And it's
because they can generally engage more targets more accurately and with
greater potential lethality using long guns and submachineguns.

A rock can kill someone. That makes it lethal. When thrown, one
lethality per throw. A .22 can kill someone. When thrown, one
lethality per throw. When shot, maybe one lethality per shot.
Depending on the round, the weapon and the shooter sometimes not lethal
at all. Magazine size-- the equivalent of picking up another rock--
obviously variable. A Springfield M1A1 can kill someone. It's
alittle heavy to throw at someone on level ground. Potentially lethal
then, but not greatly so. When shot, a great probability of one
lethality per shot-- possiby more than one lethality per shot. And the
Magazine size-- a standard magazine is like a pile of 20 rocks....

Most handguns are not as potentially death-dealing as most long guns.

That was my point. It isn't controversial. The only reason anyone
would stop to counter it is to engage in personal
nah-nee-nah-nee-nah-nah. I listen to Jeff Dege because generally he's
articulate and doesn't attempt to nit-pick my choice of words. He gets
the point and focuses on the point. He doesn't try to exploit a
statement that if taken literally may appear imprecise.

Scout turned a post on rights not being absolute-- in which I replied
to someone by too quickly and imprecisely referring to the limitations
on sawed-off shotguns. My point is that there are a number of weapons
that are regulated by federal law. IF YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
WAS ABSOLUTE, THEN NO PAPERWORK WOULD BE NEEDED.

I'm not going to keep going on and on on the point of rights not being
absolute.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Apparently I should have been more precise in my word choice, ... greater potential lethality using long guns and submachineguns. ... When shot, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Apparently I should have been more precise in my word choice, ... greater potential lethality using long guns and submachineguns. ... When shot, ... Most handguns are not as potentially death-dealing as most long guns. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Every SWAT team member I've know (and that's a'plenty, trust me, much qualify WITH HIS DUTY PISTOL, and CARRY SAME, or equivalent, upon deployment. ... greater potential lethality using long guns and submachineguns. ... When shot, ... that indicate two things: you ignorant of guns and; you are a gun grabber pretending otherwise. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... greater potential lethality using long guns and submachineguns. ... When shot, ... but infringements of our rights does NOT establish the extent of our ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... Again,to wound,not kill. ... But it's a pretty common urban myth. ... Conventional military tactics hold that it is better to put an ... Actually it was, because if you mandate a reduction in the cartridge as was done, lethality goes down, wounding goes up, and thus is very much part of the design criteria put forth. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)