Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jpm1
i don't agree against one personel yes but i let you imagine how a massacre like Columbine's would be difficult to achieve with a hunting rifle
|
They used a hunting shotgun instead. No military rifle was involved. So what is your point?
On top of this, every shot fired from a hunting rifle would have been more deadly resulting in less injuries and more deaths. Take your pick! And anyone who knows his stuff can fire a hunting rifle nearly as fast as a semi auto! I have some vid on that - good stuff!
-S |
what does take your pick mean ? concerning myself i was talking of high rate of fire weapons
(Columbine cameras)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1480
jpm1: I kind of get the jist of what you are saying. As a man that has to run towards the armed maniac, my kevlar vest will more then likely keep me alive if that armed maniac is armed with a handgun or shotgun. A hunting rifle for the most part are either bolt action or semi-automatic BUT use a military rifle round. Kevlar vests will just keep a person's intestines from pouring out of the exit wound. The second thing that scares me about long guns, the men armed with them, tend to be very proficient with them!
|
i agree long rifles are probably one of the most powerful of the weapons a personel can hold but it's the only way to hunt games "properly" . the authorities hold the excuse of their rate of fire to allow their selling more easily however i still think it's more difficult to perpetrate a massacre with a 7.65 mm long rifle which needs to extract the bullet find the other bullet reload , ream , aim than a M16 which has ready to use 20 rounds magazines (or any automatic weapon with magazines) and doesn't need a precise aiming