Full auto has its uses. When ammunition is readily available, it is used to make the enemy seek cover and not fire back....suppression if you will.
If it comes down to defending my family and home, I don’t care about what is practical for the police force.
The Second Amendment exists so that We The People will have the ability to wage war against tyrants. Full auto could have a role in that effort.
I knew a cop whose department had a couple full auto’s. He said he had no idea why they had them.
Full auto thins out a mob/crowd.
Other ways to do it? Sure. But its one way.
When government goons outnumber you 10 to 1 then full auto is a necessity.
Properly used, full auto is not used to fire at a target, but to set up a wall of fire across the path of an advancing enemy.
That is completely dependent on the weapon and caliber being fired.
M-14 firing .7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester)? Uncontrollable.
MP-5 firing 9mm Parabellum? You can write your name.
Back in the 70s before the EPA put an end to it, we deposed of spent fluorescent bulbs by throwing them overboard and shooting them up with our Thompson sub-machine gun. You really have to push down to keep the muzzle down.
Because ammo is now on back-order?
It’s not... “A Right to Keep and Bear Arms... as long as they’re practical”.
It’s fun. That’s about as much justification as anyone should need. Ever. Full stop.
Spray and pray.
I would like to have the option of setting my AR or AK for single or 3 round burst. But fully auto? Beyond doing it one time for fun, nah. Not practical and I am far too cheap to chew up money like that.
This clown is trying to force-fit the facts into his narrative.
Unless you’re giddy from the thrill of rockin’-n-rollin’, the first shot you fire will be placed every bit as precisely as if you were shooting semi-auto because it’s not full-auto until the second primer breaks. After that it’s largely a matter of how well you’re trained, your proximity to the targets, and how many basic loads of ammo you’ve brought with out.
One of the reasons the 3-round burst control on the M-4 was such a disaster is after 4 or 5 rounds you can re-establish pretty good precision, if you’ve spent the time and money to train up to it. Rounds 2 and 3 were among the worst of the lot, so the burst control in essence screws up two shots out of three.
Precise enough to drill Davis Tutt through the heart from 75 yards? Maybe not but it can be precise enough to put 6 or 8 COM.
To universally proclaim that full-auto is NEVER practical is pontifical hooey because it presumes there CAN NEVER WILL NEVER be a circumstance when that extra click on your selector switch can save your life. And I’m here to differ.
Plus it’s a great way to turn money into noise.
The drug thugs can’t hit a person standing in front of them with one or two shots. Hence the need.
Was in the National Guard many years ago and the two weapons I became most familiar with were the M16 and M60. We had M16 A2s and they had a selector of safe/single/3-round burst/full-auto. The SOP was to use either single or 3-round burst because full auto emptied out the magazine for not much of an advantage over a 3 round burst. On the other hand the M60 was belt fed and way easier to hit things far away with as well as lay down a line of fire across advancing enemies that they did not want to cross.
“The Owen was the only entirely Australian-designed and constructed service submachine gun of World War II and was used by the Australian Army from 1942 until 1971.”
“The placement of the magazine allows gravity to assist the magazine spring in pushing cartridges down to the breech, which improves feeding reliability. Another unusual feature is the separate compartment inside the receiver, which isolates the small-diameter bolt from its retracting handle by means of a small bulkhead. This prevents dirt and mud from jamming the bolt, and makes the Owen a highly reliable weapon. The top-mounted magazine meant that if mud entered the weapon, it would either fall out on its own, or be pushed out by the magazine spring. When tested, the Owen gun was able to continue firing despite being dipped in mud and drenched with sand, while a Sten gun and a Thompson also tested stopped functioning at once. In jungle warfare, where both mud and sand were frequent problems, the Owen gun was highly regarded by the soldiers.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_gun
Are their certain inefficiencies inherent in full auto? I don’t know anybody ignorant enough to claim otherwise.
But who told this asswipe that he was empowered with deciding who is worthy and who isn’t?
How about we let the collective ingenuity of American inventors work on this issue for the next 20 or 30 years.
I bet there will be some remarkable solutions devised.
IF we get the NFA out of our way.