New York Gun Owners

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

You omitted:

Matthew 5, 5
Matthew 5, 7
Matthew 5, 38-39
Matthew 5, 43-44
Matthew 6, 14-15
Matthew 7, 1-5
Matthew 7, 28-29

5:5 - There is nothing in the definition of "meek" that would preclude one from owning a gun or using it in self defense.

5:7 - Being "merciful" does not mean letting some criminal kill or harm you or your family. If I pull my gun out in self defense, and the criminal stops his attack, and runs the other way, then he'll get "mercy" by escaping without being shot.

5:38 - The "eye for an eye" philosophy seems to apply to using deadly force with a firearm in defense against a deadly attack by a criminal.

Quote

but in 5:39 (which you carefully omitted) Jesus says that is wrong!

5:43 - "love they neighbor and hate thy enemy". No problem. Criminals are the enemy.

5:44 - "love your enemies". That kind of contraducts the previous sentence, don't you think so?

Quote

Well, did Jesus contradict Himself, or did you misquote? Misquoting Jesus is probably a deadly sin. You LEFT OUT His connecting phrase that gives meaning and context to the two verses.

6:14-15 - "forgiving trespasses". Okay with me, after they've served their jail time.

7:1-5 - "Judge not lest ye be judged". So we should let all the criminals go without punishment, and empty the prisons?

Quote

They're not my words, they're Jesus's words. Apparently you disagree with Jesus. OK.

7:28-29 - I don't see any relevance...

Quote

Surprise surprise. Did you read the part about hypocrisy?

If you offered those quotes as counters to what I provided, I would say that they fail miserably to prove anything to the contrary.

Quote

Oh, I thought the words of Jesus were quite unambiguous.

Oh, and it was really ironic how you accused me of "cherry picking", and then turned around and did the same thing in reply. That's one of those pot-kettle, goose-gander things.

And how about providing an answer to my previous question:

"Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?"

Now I know "The Truth". I am so grateful that you deign to reveal the Truth to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Handgun Control Inc Dictionary

*** HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. DICTIONARY ***
AMAZING FIREPOWER - a) holding more than two shots; b) makes a loud 'boom' which could hurt the ears of a child.

ARMOR-PIERCING AMMO - Any round capable of penetrating 5 layers of aluminum foil, or a heavy sweater. Must be banned.

ASNER, Edward - An actor world renowned for his brilliant portrayal of a major metropolitan newspaper editor; truthful, handsome, virile yet kindly and honest spokesman whose veracity is unassailable when he speaks of the need for gun control.

BILL OF RIGHTS - A piece of parchment written by dead white males, that is either worthless or sacred, depending on whether the portion under consideration agrees with us.

BRADY, SARAH - Saintly daughter of FBI agent, who grew up with guns, then decided they are wrong for the rest of us. Similarity of philosophy to that of Adolf Hitler has been exaggerated.

CANNON, HOWITZER, ELEPHANT GUN - Any weapon having "amazing firepower" (above), eg, any firearm more powerful than a .22 blank starters Pistol. Must be banned.

CIVILIZATION - Those parts of the world where guns are outlawed (like New York City, or Northern Ireland).

COP-KILLER BULLET - Either a hard, non-expanding bullet, or a soft, expanding bullet, depending on which isn't banned yet.

CSGV / HCI - Socially responsible organizations of honest, concerned, truthful citizens of the highest integrity who only want to keep Saturday Night Specials out of the hands of criminals.

CRIMINAL - Anyone possessing a gun, if we get our way...

CULTURE OF GUNS - Those Americans still capable of original or independent thought. Must be reeducated to understand that we, not they, know what's best for them. (We haven't ruled out "camps"...)

DEADLY ASSAULT RIFLE - Any open-sighted firearm that will fire two or more consecutive rounds without major inconvenience to the user. Must be banned.

DEADLY SNIPER WEAPON - Any weapon capable of accepting an optical sighting device. Must be banned.

DEADLY "STEALTH" WEAPON - Any gun with a quiet or muffled report, e.g. air guns. Must be banned.

DEADLY ASSAULT PISTOL - Aww, hell, even we don't know what this is.

Better ban 'em all, just to be sure...

GUN - Any oblong metallic object capable of harming a child, even if he drops it on his foot. Must be banned IMMEDIATELY.

HESTON, Charlton - An obscure, little-known actor who once had a minor role in a movie about the Bible; has been known to espouse the pro-gun propaganda of the NRA. Probably a student of Soviet disinformation techniques.

HUNTERS - Sadistic uncivilized cretins who wantonly massacre morally superior peace-loving woodland creatures with assault rifles and elephant guns, then leave the carcasses to rot while they (the hunters) drink beer. Many seem to worship severed heads. Must be taxed to clean up their contribution to urban violence (the current $75 Million in fees stupidly goes to husband more animals for them to shoot).

JUSTIFIABLE OUTPOURING OF RAGE BY VICTIMS OF 12 YEARS OF ECONOMIC VIOLENCE - Riot.

LEAD - Toxic substance used to make bullets that kill children ... (what, they're not buying that? ... well, how about ...) - Toxic substance that contaminates drinking water when mistakenly used in pipe solder (yeah, that's the ticket!). Must be taxed out of existence to pay for "cleanup".

LIES - Anything the National Rifle Association says.

LOBBYIST - 1) An HCI representative who tells the truth to Congress about gun control. 2) An NRA representative who lies to the Congress about gun control.

MACHINE GUN - (old) Any firearm capable of firing more than one round without having to ram powder, patch, and ball down the barrel. (current) Any gun containing parts made with machines.

MERCENARY - Anyone who owns an assault rifle.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN. - An organization made up of ultra right-wing redneck, beer-swilling, roadsign-shooting bumkins, who believe everyone should be forced to own a machine gun loaded with cop-killer bullets, and skinheads should each own two.

POLITE SOCIETY - Hate-filled "code-word" for racist, sexist, gay-bashing slaughterhouse that would result if unwashed masses were not restrained by big government, with us in charge.

POLLS - 1) A random sampling of good & decent people that proves a majority want gun control. 2) A biased sampling of NRA members that NRA uses to claim people don't want gun control.

RANGE - Place where homicidal maniacs are encouraged by the NRA to practice killing women and children.

RELOADING - The black art of manufacturing cop-killer bullets clandestinely by the dark of night in one's basement. Probably involves witchcraft.

SAFE STORAGE LAWS - It's 3 am, do you know where your guns are? We do, and just to make sure, we're going to come in and look around. Smart off, and you're under arrest. Resist, and we'll take your house.

SABOT - Bullet which only kills police. Somehow it knows.

SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL - Any weapon affordable to working people. Won't sleep until these are banned.

SCHUMER, CHARLES - may already be a wiener. (see Opportunists, shameless).

SEETHING CAULDRON OF HOMICIDAL RAGE - holder of concealed carry permit.

SEMI-AUTO - Weapon capable of pumping bullet after bullet into your daughter's dead body. The NRA wants everyone to have one.

SPORTSMAN - Anyone who doesn't use a firearm in recreational or outdoor activity.

STATISTICS - 1) A series of numbers that prove our point. 2) A series of numbers the NRA lies about, which proves our point.

THROWING OFF THE SHACKLES OF ENSLAVEMENT - Armed Robbery.

TOOLS OF SICK PARA-MILITARY FANTASY - Paint guns, starters pistols, camo gear, combat boots, etc. Must all be banned.

TRUTH - Anything Handgun Control, Inc. says (see "Pravda"). Call us, we'll tell you what to think. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut and just send more money.

TWELVE YEARS OF REAGAN-BUSH - (a) Why I did it; (b) Why it's not my fault.

WAITING PERIOD - Will either break the back of crime, or be completely insufficient and ineffective, depending on the date of the HCI press release relative to passage of the Brady Act.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

boy, you two are fun to watch when you get under each other's skin.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Oooh, I really like this site: http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/

I'm particularly fond of the part about the SNiVeL. That's a classic.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Zenister 0]

Guns and Religion...

think can you guys tie wingloading and RSLs into the debate too???

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Kennedy 0]

Aren't they fun to watch? Normally one side is just so far above the other in these debates/arguments/rants, but these two are like title fighters. And not that Holyfield-Tyson crap, I mean a real fight!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

"Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?"

Now I know "The Truth". I am so grateful that you deign to reveal the Truth to me.

Come on, you two play nice. Seriously, don't posture on this one, kallend. You've said it in roundabout ways, but John just wants to hear you say it [and honestly so do I]:

Are you against the Assault Weapons Ban, and hence for the 1994 AWB Sunset w/o reauthorization?

On a personal note, the sunset's only 219 days away. Sweet.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Oh, here's a good one. From the sixth Q&A:

Quote

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

You would think according to this that they would not have a problem with taking a firearm containing those horrible features, and remaking it without them, right? So why are they slandering manufacturers who have done just that? Without those dreaded features, it's just another semi-auto rifle, right?

They say something about a rapid rate of fire for the "assault weapons." Squeezing the trigger for one round for semi-auto hunting and sporting rifles, and the same for semi-auto "assault weapons," how does this create a rapid rate of fire? More to the point, how does this create a more rapid rate of fire? They act like the gun will shoot faster or be more deadly at long range because it has a pistol grip or collapsible stock.

I just don't get these people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You would think according to this that they would not have a problem with taking a firearm containing those horrible features, and remaking it without them, right? So why are they slandering manufacturers who have done just that? Without those dreaded features, it's just another semi-auto rifle, right?

They say something about a rapid rate of fire for the "assault weapons." Squeezing the trigger for one round for semi-auto hunting and sporting rifles, and the same for semi-auto "assault weapons," how does this create a rapid rate of fire? More to the point, how does this create a more rapid rate of fire? They act like the gun will shoot faster or be more deadly at long range because it has a pistol grip or collapsible stock.

I just don't get these people.

Full agreement.
Note, they say that "assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns." This wording implies that they always are found with these things. This is a blatant lie. They have not classified the Colt Match Target H-Bar (an AR-15 post-ban rifle with no flash suppressor, folding stock, bayonet lug, etc.) as a NON-assault weapon in spite of the fact that it is produced without the offending accoutrements. What so-called "assault weapons" that we could buy before the ban had SILENCERS on them?! NONE that I ever knew of. Silencers are in the same "Class III" category as full-auto machine guns, as far as difficulty in legally purchasing.

These guns are made for shooting from the hip?! Are they fucking insane?! I don't know of ANY gun that is "made" for shooting from the hip. Even full-auto M-16s are not INTENDED to be fired from the hip. My Colt H-BAR AR-15 has adjustable sights on it. Is that consistent with being made not for aimed-fire, but for shooting from the HIP?

Fuckin' lying scumbag anti-gunners. Any lie that gets people to vote anti-gun is just fine with them.

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

boy, you two are fun to watch when you get under each other's skin.

The disadvantage of quoting scripture to support your position (as John R. did) is that someone like me will ALWAYS find a verse or ten that directly contradicts that position.

That's why religion is so wonderful. It sanctions just about anything if you know the Bible well enough.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[b1jercat 0]

Don't worry Dubya will fix it, you voted for him and he's on your side. He can make the assault rifle ban go away.Or atleast he could if someone told him Halburton would make millions if he did.

blues

jerry

[Kennedy 0]

If you read the law, he doesn't have to do anything to make it go away. It will do that on its own in just 218 days.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[winsor 189]

Quote

Quote

boy, you two are fun to watch when you get under each other's skin.

The disadvantage of quoting scripture to support your position (as John R. did) is that someone like me will ALWAYS find a verse or ten that directly contradicts that position.

That's why religion is so wonderful. It sanctions just about anything if you know the Bible well enough.

Not only that, it's all THE TRUTH (tm).

[Croc 0]

I sold almost all of my many guns to pay for AFF and my rig. Have you ever shot anyone? It occurred to me that owning handguns and having a carry permit for two decades (I carried a gun in my work van for fifteen years) might eventually lead to someone getting shot. After thinking it over carefully for several months, I decided that I would rather be shot than shoot someone, and stopped carrying. You are of course correct that the bullshit piled on gun owners is excessive, similiar to the shit heaped on bikers in the form of helmet laws, except that the right to bear arms is protected by the constitution.
I have decided that any "rights" I possess have not been granted by God but by man. The hell with that. I will determine what I should or should not do, according to the dictates of my conscience at the moment. No slime-spined politician speaks for me.
Let it go is my attitude now. I belonged to the NRA for fifteen years, but now I'm through trying to change other people's minds.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

boy, you two are fun to watch when you get under each other's skin.

The disadvantage of quoting scripture to support your position (as John R. did) is that someone like me will ALWAYS find a verse or ten that directly contradicts that position.

That's why religion is so wonderful. It sanctions just about anything if you know the Bible well enough.

Not only that, it's all THE TRUTH (tm).

When you have an established church and religion in the schools, you produce much better informed atheists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I decided that I would rather be shot than shoot someone,

WHAT? Please take the time to further explain this thought. I can not imagine being willing to sacrifice my life or well being so that a criminal might succeed in a violent crime against me or those who I love, not when I am in a position to change the outcome. No way.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Croc 0]

All actions have consequences. If my number comes up, so be it; I believe in life after death. Lately I have begun to think that the defensive posture of actually carrying a loaded handgun no longer fits in with my view of life, so I stopped carrying a gun. I don't expect to find myself in a situation where I might get shot at as I no longer work in dangerous neighborhoods, so it's not that big a deal.
Alright, I was exagerating when I said that I'd rather be shot than shoot someone.. But shooting someone, even a criminal, is not the matter that I had thought it was all these years.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

shooting someone, even a criminal, is not the matter that I had thought it was all these years.

I agree, shooting anyone is not to be taken lightly. However, as I mentioned before, in a him or me, life and death situation, it's going to be him. Every time. No apologies.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

All actions have consequences. If my number comes up, so be it; I believe in life after death. Lately I have begun to think that the defensive posture of actually carrying a loaded handgun no longer fits in with my view of life, so I stopped carrying a gun. I don't expect to find myself in a situation where I might get shot at as I no longer work in dangerous neighborhoods, so it's not that big a deal.

I gotta go with Jimbo here... I can't fathom your way of thinking on this subject. Especially the "If my number comes up, so be it" part.

I can't help but think that if this were applied to just about anything else besides arming yourself for the possibility that you may need a gun to save your own life (or someone else's), you wouldn't agree with the same statement you just made.

If you were crossing the street, you could either be proactive and save your own life by looking both ways before jaunting across, or you could simply step out into traffic and "hope."

If you were going to go water-skiing, you could protect against wiping out and drowning by wearing a PFD, or you could just chance it and say, "If I'm not good enough, then surviving a wipeout just wasn't meant to be, for me."

If you were skydiving, you could protect against losing consciousness and plummeting to your death by utilizing an AAD. Or you could say, "I guess I just wasn't meant to survive that skydive."

In any of those cases, if you did not do what is simple and reasonable to protect yourself, you could simply say, "Well, if my 'number's not up,' I won't need these things to save me, because everything will just work out fine if I stay passive." That's not the case. Part of having your number NOT be up is "what did I do to make my situation safer to begin with?"

What if you look at in that way: Your number is not up BECAUSE you took steps to keep it from being drawn 'this time'? I mean, put two people on the water skis... One with and one without a vest. If they have identical wipeouts, get knocked out, one drowns because he had no vest, the other is afloat and rescued when the boat comes around. Is it really accurate to say that the former's number "was just up," but that the latter's "number simply wasn't up," or do you attribute his survival to his foresight and resultant use of sensible safety measures?

I mean, this "what are ya gonna do if your 'number's up' thing can be applied so arbitrarily as to make it meaningless. I always thought it was something that people said of a person who bought the farm because something happened that was beyond their control -- not that they just gave up any attempt at self-preservation and left their fate to chance.

You don't drive around without a seatbelt on, do you? I hope not. Because that's another area where one could just easily say, "Nah, I'm not gonna wear one because I'll be fine as long as my number's not up. And if some drunk driver out there has my name on his bumper, well, that's the way it goes." The fact remains that it just isn't true that "there's nothing I can do about it."

Plus, no one ever suggested here that we have to relish the idea of killing another person in order to find ourselves willing to do so if it's a "him or me" situation involving being the innocent victim of a criminal attack. There's no shame or immorality to killing someone in such a case.

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

Jim, Jeff, if that's him now, then so be it. I'm not exactly about to follow his example, but I'm not going to tell him he's wrong either.

Me, I'll feel better in the fact that I have the option should I have cause to use it.

"I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"Judge not lest ye be judged". So we should let all the criminals go without punishment, and empty the prisons?

Quote

They're not my words, they're Jesus's words.

Once again the mighty Kallend declines to stand up for his own information. If you're not willing to debate what you post, then what you post loses credibility.

Quote

Well, did Jesus contradict Himself, or did you misquote?

I did not misquote. Since I gave the biblical reference information, you could easily look it up to prove me wrong if I had misquoted. So here we have yet another unsupported assertion, designed to cast negative aspersions by mere allegation. You really should brush up on your debating techniques. These kind of cheap tactics only make you look bad.

Quote

Oh, I thought the words of Jesus were quite unambiguous.

Can you point out where I ever said that? Your failure to provide a reference, will render this comment just one more of the unsupportable assertions which you utter. Your credibility just ratcheted downward another notch.

Let's summarize these biblical quotes. I provided 19 to support my position. You countered with 7 other quotes. I rebutted those 7, and you objected to only 4 of my rebuttals. So, it looks like the score is 22 to 4 in my favor.

[kallend 1,679]

Don't make yourself look like an idiot. I provided a complete set of references - they are all found in the Gospel of Matthew, and I gave "Chapter and Verse". You just chose to omit stuff when quoting them. Hellfire and damnation for you, I think.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

And how about providing an answer to my previous question:

"Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?"

Now I know "The Truth". I am so grateful that you deign to reveal the Truth to me.

Once again you dodge a tough question. Why is it that you are so afraid of giving direct answers to direct questions? Your failure to do so, makes you an irrelevant participant in this debate.

It isn't just me that pointed out the truth to you; several others have pointed it out to you also. You seem to have accepted that truth at one point.

Yet despite that fact, you can't seem to bring yourself to answer a question that would place you on the pro-gun side of the issue. And that is quite curious, coming from someone who claims to be in favor of gun ownership.

So that leads me to believe that this is what is going on here:

You aren't really pro-gun, and you said that only to deflect criticism away from yourself. In fact, you are so anti-gun, that even when the fallacy of your position has been proven, you still can't bring yourself to admit it. Your psyche just won't allow you to admit that something is wrong with the anti-gun argument on this so-called "assault weapon" ban.

And that, yet again, makes your arguments here irrelevant and lacking in credibility. If you can't admit the truth when it stares you right in the face, then nothing you say can have any credibilty.

Here is one more opportunity for you to acknowlege the truth, from one of those independent sources you so highly prize; Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 921:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

Note definition number 30.

After reviewing that material, I'll give you one last chance to save your credibility and provide a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question:

"Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?"

Please provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer. No more game-playing, and no more deflections.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Guns and Religion...
think can you guys tie wingloading and RSLs into the debate too???

There are probably some analogies that could be made there with ballistic coefficients of bullets and with mechanical safety devices...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

Yeah, these HCI guys are goofy.

We're supposed to believe that some semi-auto rifles can be fired faster than other semi-auto rifles. Doh!

The so-called "assault weapons" do not have silencers. Those have already been illegal since 1934, and the 1994 "assault weapon" ban did nothing in that regard. They seem to be confusing flash suppressors with silencers, which are completely different things.

As for bayonet attachments, I have never heard of a single crime committed at the point of a bayonet. So there is no valid reason to fear this feature.

How about folding stocks? Even with a folding stock on a rifle, it's still too big and heavy to hide on your person. Once again, this is nonsensical.

The pistol grips, which they claim allow a rifle to be fired from the hip "with control", is baloney. You can fire any rifle from the hip, even with a conventional stock. And there is no precise aim when fired from the hip - you'll be lucky to hit anything. Those hunting rifles used from the shoulder with precise aim, would be more deadly than someone spraying from the hip.

It's all just a bunch of bogus BS, from people who have to invent reasons to ban certain classes of firearms, and then fool the public into believing it with their media dupe accomplices.