Whoo FUCKING HOO!

[Spyder]

Nice red herring. No one here is advocating RPG legalisation on the basis of the fact that shooting them is fun.

Yeah, I know that

It was simply a question about Heston

Oh, OK. Possibly. Heston is becoming less sane by the day.

Hmm... Dear hunting with an Abrahms.

I'm not sure you'd want to keep the trophies.

[Alyeska]

You'll let me know when you make a point, right?

The point is civilian ownership of automatic weapons does not pose any sigificant or even minor threat to the saftey and stability of society. Making ownership of these weapons illegal does more harm.

[BoredShirtless]

Same argument can be made for automatic weapons. It's practically impossible to resist the pull in full auto, which can cause rounds to spray all over the place.

It's not the same

Argh I said same ARGUMENT can be made not that the effects of the weapons are the same.

because an RPG, unlike a round from an automatic weapon, is a dedicated anti-tank weapon designed to penetrate dense materials.

This is where you throw in a couple of applications for full automatic weapons.

When I say it cannot be safely fired, I mean the round, once launched, won't stop until it hits dense armor, the ground, or runs out of fuel. Plus, there's an exhaust wash from RPGs that can kill a man standing behind the man firing the weapon.

And when a round from an Uzi is shot, IT won't stop till it runs out of energy or hits something. Plus, if a man where to stand to the side of someone yeilding an Uzi, an ejected bullet case may hit him in the eye, causing him to trip and fall into the Uzi's path.

The effects not confined to whatever the projectile hits? Please elaborate.

An RPG round can fragment or, if it's a shaped charge, spray molten metal. A bullet will only kill or destroy what it directly touches; a grenade will kill anyone in the splash zone.

WHY are you going on and on about what will happen if an RPG isn't used safely? Same can be said for pretty much anything you can think off. Clearly if you use it safely, an RPG will not harm anyone.

Same can be said of an RPG.

No, it can't. An RPG can be fired by trained personel on a test range operated by the military.

And if I'm rich enough, I'll build my own.

The exhaust alone makes it too dangerous for private operators,

Why?

and a misfire can destroy a vehicle or a building.

True. So restrict licences to people who HAVE a firing range in a remote location, well clear of residential areas.

And if misused, you can wipe out more people with a car then an RPG. I don't see why "misuse" should be discussed.

A car can't destroy armored vehicles or punch a hole through a concrete wall.

Wanna bet? http://www.mercedes-benz.com/e/cars/mb_ ... _guard.htm

So where do you draw the line?

I'm not entirely sure, but I know damn well it's below explosives and area of effect weapons. It's a total strawman distortion of any responsible gun-rights argument to say that if semiauto or even full auto rifles should be legal, then RPGs and flamethrowers should be too.

Using your type of thinking, a responsible person who meets certain criteria can use RPGs safely. And safety was, after all, the reason why RPGs SHOULDN'T be used in any RESPONSIBLE debate on gun control.

Thanks for showing you have no idea where to draw the line.

[LordShaithis]

I'd still like to hear Bored address this:

Since the early 1980s only ONE CRIME has been commited with a legaly owned and obtained fully automatic weapon. In twenty years just ONE crime. There are hundreds of thousands of fully automatic or other banned "assault weapons" and in 20 years it was just a single crime.

With something better than "I SEE NOTHING! I HEAR NOTHING!"

If full-auto weapons are so dangerous, how come they've killed fewer people than... say... baseball bats over the years?

[MKSheppard]

Thanks for harping on your nitpick again Shep.

Hey, if you're too fucking stupid to discern between BAN = (No One Can Own
One) and Restricted (jump thru hoops), then be my guest.

[RedImperator]

Argh I said same ARGUMENT can be made not that the effects of the weapons are the same.

The same argument CANNOT be made because the weapons DO NOT HAVE THE SAME EFFECTS. Or, to be more accurate, the same argument can be made for automatic weapons, but it becomes stupid. I can make the same arguments against Ferraris, too, but that doesn't mean it's particularly good when applied to them.

This is where you throw in a couple of applications for full automatic weapons.

Belt fed heavy machine guns might be anti-vehicle weapons, but not AK-47s, Uzis, and M-16s. If you want to make an argument against letting private citizens own heavy machine guns, you have my attention, but an automatic rifle is not comparable to an RPG.

And when a round from an Uzi is shot, IT won't stop till it runs out of energy or hits something.

Are you deliberately missing my point here? I said DENSE ARMOR. A 9mm round will not punch through a cinderblock wall or set a building on fire. Nor will it destroy a vehicle, even if it hits the gas tank.

Plus, if a man where to stand to the side of someone yeilding an Uzi, an ejected bullet case may hit him in the eye, causing him to trip and fall into the Uzi's path.

Insanely unlikely hypohetical sequences of events do not constitute an argument to restrict the rights of free men.

An RPG round can fragment or, if it's a shaped charge, spray molten metal. A bullet will only kill or destroy what it directly touches; a grenade will kill anyone in the splash zone.

WHY are you going on and on about what will happen if an RPG isn't used safely? Same can be said for pretty much anything you can think off. Clearly if you use it safely, an RPG will not harm anyone.

What the fuck are you talking about? That's what RPG rounds DO--they fragment or they spray molten metal all over the place. That's why they're different from bullets, and not as safe. Yes, it's possible to safely fire an RPG--the Army does it in training all the time (or, more specifically, they fire anti-tank weapons similar in concept, if not design, to RPGs). It's possible to safely detonate a nuclear weapon, too. I've drawn the line between weapons that fire bullets, which have limited pentrating power and can only damage objects in their flight path, and explosive weapons that have area of effect damage. The explosive effect is too unpredictable, the potential damage too great, and the weapon too dangerous to be entrusted to private hands. An automatic weapon is not, and unless you can prove that it is, you have no case. If you'd like to make the argument that RPGs are, in fact, safe enough for private ownership, then by my guest.

No, it can't. An RPG can be fired by trained personel on a test range operated by the military.

And if I'm rich enough, I'll build my own.

Is English not your native tongue? Did you miss "trained personnel" and "operated by the military"?

Why?

Because an RPG is a rocket, it produces hot exhaust gases. When the rocket is launched, those gases are confined by the tube into a concentrated jet that can blind or kill a man standing behind the operator, or the operator himself if he doesn't know what he's doing.

True. So restrict licences to people who HAVE a firing range in a remote location, well clear of residential areas.

No way to ensure the weapon will be used in that location, and unlike guns that may be used in unsafe locations, the potential damage is too great to risk.

And if misused, you can wipe out more people with a car then an RPG. I don't see why "misuse" should be discussed.

A car can't destroy armored vehicles or punch a hole through a concrete wall.

Wanna bet? http://www.mercedes-benz.com/e/cars/mb_ ... _guard.htm

I have no fucking idea why you posted that link. I say a car can't destroy an armored vehicle, you post me a link to a bulletproof car.

So where do you draw the line?

I'm not entirely sure, but I know damn well it's below explosives and area of effect weapons. It's a total strawman distortion of any responsible gun-rights argument to say that if semiauto or even full auto rifles should be legal, then RPGs and flamethrowers should be too.

Using your type of thinking, a responsible person who meets certain criteria can use RPGs safely. And safety was, after all, the reason why RPGs SHOULDN'T be used in any RESPONSIBLE debate on gun control.

Thanks for showing you have no idea where to draw the line.

Thank you once again for demonstrating your mastery of the strawman. I said RPGs and other explosive weapons are inherently too dangerous for private ownership and use. I then argued why they were too dangerous, based on enormous differences in potential damage, difficulty of operation, destructive mechanism, and area of effect. You respond with, "You said any responsible person who meets certain criteria can use an RPG safely," which may well be true (is true, in fact, since military personnel do it all the time), but I argued that RPGs are dangerous enough that keeping them out of private hands drastically improves public safety, something you haven't proven for automatic weapons.

[Nathan F]

BoredShirtless, or BS, may I call you BS? It is such a fitting name. You haven't been even been attempting to counter the arguments stated, just throwing out the same crap over and over, even after it has been struck down with logical arguments. Because of you, nothing new or worthwhile has been put into this argument because you are so thick headed as to not even recognize a logical statement, and apparently are as tactful and as good of a debator as a dictating machine. Simply throwing out the same thing over and over, never changing the argument.

It has been stated numerous times as to why an RPG is so much more dangerous than, say, an AR-15, even in the hands of a trained user. You can't blow up a building, or even a car for that matter, with an M-16 (or other full auto weapon), no matter what you might have seen in the latest action flick you saw at the theatre, as apparently that is your source of information on firearms. And your statement about being able to control a weapon while on fully automatic fire is another example of your continual and unending ignorance. Any person who knows the least bit about firearms knows that to keep from melting down your barrel, you can't fire for more than a couple seconds. You apparently haven't gotten the idea of the difference between 'restricted' and 'banned' either. Let's see what ol' webster has to say about these two:

BAN-
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>

RESTRICT-
1 : to confine within bounds : RESTRAIN
2 : to place under restrictions as to use or distribution

Note the differences. Ban refers to something being completely prohibited, as in, illegal to own. Restrict simply means to be simply confined to certain people, in this case, people who have possibly taken a safety course.

I could see these being restricted, as in having to maybe get some sort of a license and training to own a fully automatic weapon, no problem here with that. Also, another little tidbit. In Switzerland, a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD, almost every male has some sort of automatic weapon due to the fact of conscription. I am not sure of the current status of this, but, it was true only a very few years ago. Now, is that a correllation between violent crime and fully automatic weapons?

[BoredShirtless]

I'd still like to hear Bored address this:

Since the early 1980s only ONE CRIME has been commited with a legaly owned and obtained fully automatic weapon. In twenty years just ONE crime. There are hundreds of thousands of fully automatic or other banned "assault weapons" and in 20 years it was just a single crime.

With something better than "I SEE NOTHING! I HEAR NOTHING!"

If full-auto weapons are so dangerous, how come they've killed fewer people than... say... baseball bats over the years?

This little fact TOTALLY convinced me that the ban on Uzi's should be lifted!

Convince me. WHY do you want full automatic weapons? What would you use them for? For hunting, it's overkill. For home security, it's overkill. For personal protection, it's overkill. All these applications can be filled by current weaponry, so why should I tolerate an even MORE LETHAL weapon? It's like hammering a nail with a sledgehammer. But unlike a sledgehammer, a full auto weapon has the potential to destroy the surronding environment to an extent which makes currently legal weaponry seem like pea shooters.

[BoredShirtless]

Thanks for harping on your nitpick again Shep.

Hey, if you're too fucking stupid to discern between BAN = (No One Can Own
One) and Restricted (jump thru hoops), then be my guest.

Don't be a smart arse Shep. We both know that full auto weapons are completely BANNED in some states. Uzi's are ABSOLUTELY BANNED IN ALL STATES according to your second post in this very thread. So don't be a little smart arse and nit pick what is a discussion on whether full autos should be legalised to the same standard as other weapons.

[BoredShirtless]

Argh I said same ARGUMENT can be made not that the effects of the weapons are the same.

The same argument CANNOT be made because the weapons DO NOT HAVE THE SAME EFFECTS. Or, to be more accurate, the same argument can be made for automatic weapons, but it becomes stupid. I can make the same arguments against Ferraris, too, but that doesn't mean it's particularly good when applied to them.

Now you're catching on.

This is where you throw in a couple of applications for full automatic weapons.

Belt fed heavy machine guns might be anti-vehicle weapons, but not AK-47s, Uzis, and M-16s. If you want to make an argument against letting private citizens own heavy machine guns, you have my attention, but an automatic rifle is not comparable to an RPG.

You absolutely danced around my request. I repeat. Please list applications for full automatic weapons.

And when a round from an Uzi is shot, IT won't stop till it runs out of energy or hits something.

Are you deliberately missing my point here? I said DENSE ARMOR. A 9mm round will not punch through a cinderblock wall or set a building on fire. Nor will it destroy a vehicle, even if it hits the gas tank.

I got your point, but looks like you missed mine. Uzi's damage things, just like RPGs. To the same degree? No. But your argument considers "safety" only, and I'm showing you why that is simply not enough. Used safely, an RPG is just as safe as an Uzi. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Plus, if a man where to stand to the side of someone yeilding an Uzi, an ejected bullet case may hit him in the eye, causing him to trip and fall into the Uzi's path.

Insanely unlikely hypohetical sequences of events do not constitute an argument to restrict the rights of free men.

Anymore insane then standing behind an RPG?

Free men. Interesting thing you just said. Let me ask you something. Why would a "free man" bother to pull over for a cop?

An RPG round can fragment or, if it's a shaped charge, spray molten metal. A bullet will only kill or destroy what it directly touches; a grenade will kill anyone in the splash zone.

WHY are you going on and on about what will happen if an RPG isn't used safely? Same can be said for pretty much anything you can think off. Clearly if you use it safely, an RPG will not harm anyone.

What the fuck are you talking about? That's what RPG rounds DO--they fragment or they spray molten metal all over the place. That's why they're different from bullets, and not as safe. Yes, it's possible to safely fire an RPG--the Army does it in training all the time (or, more specifically, they fire anti-tank weapons similar in concept, if not design, to RPGs). It's possible to safely detonate a nuclear weapon, too. I've drawn the line between weapons that fire bullets, which have limited pentrating power and can only damage objects in their flight path, and explosive weapons that have area of effect damage.

The line you drew is absolutely not acceptable, more so because of the way you drew it. In order to draw a line on weapons like these, you not only must consider safety [which you're at least doing thank God] but USE! UNLESS you can find applications for full automatic weapons, they should NOT be allowed! I don't give a flying motherfucker if this impinges on your freedom. We live in a society with unpredictable people. I will NOT tolerate the possibility that my child be killed in a hail of automatic fire because the cops were outgunned. I will NOT accept hunting accidents, where some inexperienced teenager tried tracking an animal but instead knocked out a couple of his friends. FUCK that shit and FUCK your selfish attitude!

The explosive effect is too unpredictable, the potential damage too great, and the weapon too dangerous to be entrusted to private hands. An automatic weapon is not,

Give me a fucking BREAK! POTENTIAL damage of a full auto is MUCH greater then every other legal weapon! You're just arguing degrees here. Who gives a fuck if an RPG is even deadlier then a full auto. If used SAFELY an RPG is just as safe, remember?

BTW, when you spray a target in full auto, I guarantee unless you're Rambo accuracy is no where NEAR that of an RPG. So in essence, you can predict what the RPG will hit. However with rounds flying all over the place, you cannot accurately predict WHAT a full auto will hit!

and unless you can prove that it is, you have no case. If you'd like to make the argument that RPGs are, in fact, safe enough for private ownership, then by my guest.

Already have. If the private owners have some remote firing range, they can safely operate RPGs [provided there wives aren't peering into the exhaust port ]

No, it can't. An RPG can be fired by trained personel on a test range operated by the military.

And if I'm rich enough, I'll build my own.

Is English not your native tongue? Did you miss "trained personnel" and "operated by the military"?

No, it actually isn't. "Build my own" test range of course. Also, I'll go hire some retired weapons training instructor to train me.

Why?

Because an RPG is a rocket, it produces hot exhaust gases. When the rocket is launched, those gases are confined by the tube into a concentrated jet that can blind or kill a man standing behind the operator, or the operator himself if he doesn't know what he's doing.

I dare say anybody standing directly behind an RPG is a candidate for a Darwin Award, and any death as such should NOT be used to restrict the rights of free men

True. So restrict licences to people who HAVE a firing range in a remote location, well clear of residential areas.

No way to ensure the weapon will be used in that location, and unlike guns that may be used in unsafe locations, the potential damage is too great to risk.

Define "potential damage".

A car can't destroy armored vehicles or punch a hole through a concrete wall.

Wanna bet? http://www.mercedes-benz.com/e/cars/mb_ ... _guard.htm

I have no fucking idea why you posted that link. I say a car can't destroy an armored vehicle, you post me a link to a bulletproof car.

You also said "a concrete wall". It's really besides the point, but I just wanted to show you there are cars out there which can go through walls.

I'm not entirely sure, but I know damn well it's below explosives and area of effect weapons. It's a total strawman distortion of any responsible gun-rights argument to say that if semiauto or even full auto rifles should be legal, then RPGs and flamethrowers should be too.

Using your type of thinking, a responsible person who meets certain criteria can use RPGs safely. And safety was, after all, the reason why RPGs SHOULDN'T be used in any RESPONSIBLE debate on gun control.

Thanks for showing you have no idea where to draw the line.

Thank you once again for demonstrating your mastery of the strawman. I said RPGs and other explosive weapons are inherently too dangerous for private ownership and use. I then argued why they were too dangerous, based on enormous differences in potential damage, difficulty of operation, destructive mechanism, and area of effect. You respond with, "You said any responsible person who meets certain criteria can use an RPG safely," which may well be true (is true, in fact, since military personnel do it all the time), but I argued that RPGs are dangerous enough that keeping them out of private hands drastically improves public safety, something you haven't proven for automatic weapons.

Like I mentioned earlier, your entire argument rests on "safety". That's ok, but I'm sorry it just isn't enough. Show an application for these weapons, and I'll reconsider my stance.

[BoredShirtless]

BoredShirtless, or BS, may I call you BS?

No you may not.

[Crayz9000]

BoredShirtless, are you some kind of fucking idiot? You keep bringing rocket-propelled grenade launchers up, when this is a thread about conventional guns!

What the HELL is up with you and changing the fucking subject? You're as much of a village idiot as DarkStar was, for crying out loud!

[BoredShirtless]

Yes, I'm a fucking idiot for using RPG's to show safety isn't the only variable one must look at in legalising deadly weapons

[Vympel]

[pointless nitpick of redimperator]The RPG also self destructs after several hundred m of flight time if it doesn't hit anything[/]

[Sir Sirius]

I'll ignore all BS's refrences to RPGs as red herrings.

The line you drew is absolutely not acceptable, more so because of the way you drew it. In order to draw a line on weapons like these, you not only must consider safety [which you're at least doing thank God] but USE! UNLESS you can find applications for full automatic weapons, they should NOT be allowed!

Burden of Proof fallacy. You must prove that automatic weapons are so dangerous that they should be banned, the same as with every law prohibiting something. How many times are we going to have explain that to you before you get it?

I don't give a flying motherfucker if this impinges on your freedom. We live in a society with unpredictable people. I will NOT tolerate the possibility that my child be killed in a hail of automatic fire because the cops were outgunned. I will NOT accept hunting accidents, where some inexperienced teenager tried tracking an animal but instead knocked out a couple of his friends. FUCK that shit and FUCK your selfish attitude!

Hey BullShit, Laws should not be passed based on the irrational fears of pathetic hoplophobes such as you.

However with rounds flying all over the place, you cannot accurately predict WHAT a full auto will hit!

Provided that you are firing said automatic weapon in a proper firing range the bullets will hit the rampart. That is very easy to predict.

[Crayz9000]

Yes, I'm a fucking idiot for using RPG's to show safety isn't the only variable one must look at in legalising deadly weapons

You obviously wouldn't know a red herring if it walked up and hit you in the head with a steel I-beam.

[BoredShirtless]

Apologies to you RedImperator. "FUCK your selfish attitude" was too harsh, sorry.

[BoredShirtless]

I used RPGs as relevant suppliments to my points, not as a substitution. No red herrings.

[BoredShirtless]

I'll ignore all BS's refrences to RPGs as red herrings.

Prove they're red herrings. Do you know what a red herring is? Please post the definition, then use it to point mine out.

The line you drew is absolutely not acceptable, more so because of the way you drew it. In order to draw a line on weapons like these, you not only must consider safety [which you're at least doing thank God] but USE! UNLESS you can find applications for full automatic weapons, they should NOT be allowed!

Burden of Proof fallacy. You must prove that automatic weapons are so dangerous that they should be banned, the same as with every law prohibiting something. How many times are we going to have explain that to you before you get it?

When you define "so dangerous that they should be banned", i'll try and meet your definition. BTW, I don't have to prove shit. I'm perfectly happy with the current laws, and couldn't give two shits whether the laws were made because the government thinks they're too dangerous, or a race of elves told them too.

For me, rate of fire makes them totally unacceptable.

I don't give a flying motherfucker if this impinges on your freedom. We live in a society with unpredictable people. I will NOT tolerate the possibility that my child be killed in a hail of automatic fire because the cops were outgunned. I will NOT accept hunting accidents, where some inexperienced teenager tried tracking an animal but instead knocked out a couple of his friends. FUCK that shit and FUCK your selfish attitude!

Hey BullShit, Laws should not be passed based on the irrational fears of pathetic hoplophobes such as you.

Fuck off you little shit. You think the current laws were pushed on the back of irrational fears? Prove it.

However with rounds flying all over the place, you cannot accurately predict WHAT a full auto will hit!

Provided that you are firing said automatic weapon in a proper firing range the bullets will hit the rampart. That is very easy to predict.

No fucking shit sherlock. Same can be said for an RPG. ANY weapon can be used as designed in a controlled environment like a firing range.

[Alyeska]

Convince me. WHY do you want full automatic weapons?

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

What would you use them for? For hunting, it's overkill. For home security, it's overkill.

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

For personal protection, it's overkill. All these applications can be filled by current weaponry, so why should I tolerate an even MORE LETHAL weapon?

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

It's like hammering a nail with a sledgehammer. But unlike a sledgehammer, a full auto weapon has the potential to destroy the surronding environment to an extent which makes currently legal weaponry seem like pea shooters.

Irrelevent. We have proven that fully automatic weapons can be legaly owned and not be overly dangerous by any extent.

BS, can you even read? Owning fully automatic weapons is no danger to your average citizen. You know that one crime I talk about having happened? That was a cop who took his private MAC-10 and wasted a drug dealer. So with the last twenty years and hundreds of thousands of legaly owned pre-ban weaponry (fully automatics included) not one innocent person was killed.

Your entire line of reasoning is irrelevent. There is no demonstratable danger and thus there is no rational reason to ban such weapons. Using your very same base line of reasoning sports cars have no use and therefor should be banned. Fact of the matter is fully automatic weapons are both fun to collect (not shoot but place in secure storage to view) and fun to shoot under safe situations. Since you can't actualy come up with a point to support your side, you've already lost the debate.

[Sir Sirius]

Prove they're red herrings. Do you know what a red herring is? Please post the definition, then use it to point mine out.

You really are one stupid mother fucker aren't you?
Nizkor.org definition of Red Herring.

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

1. We are arquing about automatic weapons.
2. You introduced RPGs under the guise of being relevant to the arqument about automatic weapons (when they infact have nothing to do with matter at hand).
3. Your attempt at sidetracking the debate is unfortunately somewhat succesfull.

Text book example of Red Herring.

When you define "so dangerous that they should be banned", i'll try and meet your definition.

Demonstrating that legaly owned automatic weapons pose threat to public safety and that banning automatic weapons will eliminate that threat would be quite sufficent.

BTW, I don't have to prove shit. I'm perfectly happy with the current laws, and couldn't give two shits whether the laws were made because the government thinks they're too dangerous, or a race of elves told them too.

Concession Accepted.

For me, rate of fire makes them totally unacceptable.

Yes, we all know that you are a hoplophobe. What is your point?

Hey BullShit, Laws should not be passed based on the irrational fears of pathetic hoplophobes such as you.

Fuck off you little shit. You think the current laws were pushed on the back of irrational fears? Prove it.

Oh, I see, you are illiterate as well as stupid. I am not surprised. Where have I ever said anything about "current laws being pushed on the back of irrational fears"? Oh, I haven't...

However with rounds flying all over the place, you cannot accurately predict WHAT a full auto will hit!

Provided that you are firing said automatic weapon in a proper firing range the bullets will hit the rampart. That is very easy to predict.

No fucking shit sherlock... <Red herring snipped> ...ANY weapon can be used as designed in a controlled environment like a firing range.

Since you agree that using automatic weapons can be used safely where they are supposed to be used, I would like to know what is exactly is your problem with them?

[MKSheppard]

Don't be a smart arse Shep. We both know that full auto weapons are completely BANNED in some states.

New Jersey for one...but then again, New Jersey counts for Jack Squat

Uzi's are ABSOLUTELY BANNED IN ALL STATES according to your second post in this very thread.

You're dumber than shit. Have they been banned? No. You just can't
import any new ones at all, leading to prices going higher and higher due
to a limited supply of Uzis that were imported before the Import ban.

[Nathan F]

I got your point, but looks like you missed mine. Uzi's damage things, just like RPGs. To the same degree? No. But your argument considers "safety" only, and I'm showing you why that is simply not enough. Used safely, an RPG is just as safe as an Uzi. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Look here, asshat, if you would actually begin to understand what you are trying to say yourself, you wouldn't be making yourself look like the total shit-for-brains moron you are. You are really proving that your initials BS really don't stand for BoredShirtless.

Listen to the damn posts and you will see that we have told you NUMEROUS times why an RPG is so much more dangerous than any kind of small non-destructive firearm. Even when used as instructed, you are taking a big risk by firing a RPG, which is, as I am sure you don't know, short for Rocket Propelled Grenade. You see, those things have a large amount of explosive in a shaped charge designed to punch through armor. The fuses are often of shoddy soviet era manufacture, and it isn't unheard of one going off right after firing, killing or seriously wounding the person firing the weapon. In short, when firing an uzi, you have a very small charge of smokeless powder (30 grains, approx.) firing inside an enclosed chamber propelling a small piece of copper coated lead in a straight direction a short distance (200 yds) in front of you. Now, tell me which is more dangerous to use, even by trained personnel.

[Nathan F]

After reading through this, I believe that this has become a 'BS Barbeque'.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

After reading through this, I believe that this has become a 'BS Barbeque'.

HAHAHAHA LMAO!!