BTW, one interesting statistic I heard approximated Mao's killings to be anywhere from 50-100 million, yet few people today even know who he was. Too bad Hitler kept such good records of killing people.

__________________
_____________________________________________

2000 Honda Accord V6 137k miles

1972 300SEL 4.5 98k miles

_____________________________________________

Indeed,the Germans were nothing if not well organised,as were the Soviets under Stalin who ordered the mass slaughter and starvation of the Kulacks,and other"racially inferior" minorities,perhaps equalling Herr Hitler's alleged genocides.

While we're here let's also give a tip'O the 'ol chapeau to the Turks under Sultan Abdul Hamid who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the late 1800's,or the recent,dimly recalled "ethnic cleansing"{what a clean,inoffensive term,reminds one of ridding their toilet of germs}in Serbia/Croatia.

Aren't humans so kind and compassionate? God love us all,working toward a common goal of peace and coexistence

Cheers,Happy Thanksgiving to all........................

The AK47 is not a close-range weapon any more than our M16 is. The reason that our forces went to the M16 was not for range, but for ammo weight and cost. You can carry 50% more M16 rounds for the same weight as the earlier US weapon rounds. The only thing that may make the M16 more accurate at longer range shots is the three-shot group available in most of the military rifles. Full-auto with a hand-held rifle is not accurate. If you're sniping, you'll be on semi-auto mode with either (or of course, with a rifle more suited to the task).

It is true that the larger AK47 round is a better killer than the M16 round, but killing isn't what matters on the battlefield. In fact, it's counterproductive. Wounding the enemy is just as effective at removing the immediate threat, and you tie up his friends who have to remove him from the battlefield. Having to leave wounded soldiers is much more demoralizing than seeing them dead.

More than a few. One of the earlier schoolyard shootings here in Cal. about 10 - 15 years ago (not a student doing the shooting) was with an AK.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Hadn't thought of it that way but it makes sense. I think the radio piece I heard said that the AK was not highly accurate but that it was very effective at spraying bullets at closer range.

I dunno, I've never fired one.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

No crime anywhere on Earth has ever been committed by an AK 47.

A teenie-weenie number of crimes have been committed by perps wielding any so-called "assault rifle." I wouldn't say inconsequential as no crime is without consequence. But the whole assault rifle thing was a P.R. assault on facts.

It allows politicians to lay blame on something that sounds just awful, make a big noise about having passed Important New Legislation, and not having to do anything meaningful to combat those factors that lead to crime. It's a typical stupid-assed politician's shell-game.

B

I go out to the range about once a week and am always amazed that hardly anybody is there vs. the numbers of weapons that are sold around here. The average person has never dealt with the effect of the adrenalin rush that they'd experience in a situation where they'd be needing a defensive weapon and it's very hard to justify the need as a practical matter. The guy on offense on the other hand may be at the same shaky disadvantage, but the advantage of surprise is so great that having something handy at the ready seems silly, and a way to more insure a bad result.
Then again six bears have been shot two miles from here in the last year.

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

"Spraying" bullets is effective in two places. First, to lay down a cover by a group of men. Second, close-range shooting. Close-range shooting is better with a sidearm anyway.

You simply can't expect to have good accuracy on the second or subsequent shot of any hand-held machinegun. They're best when you just don't care who you hit.

I don't recall many news reports of crimes committed with machineguns in the US, other than unregistered possession. They really aren't a problem. Perhaps it's the fact that they've been controlled for a very long time, but perhaps there's not a real advantage in the real world. I vote for the second; criminals can get whatever they want.

There's a kit on the market to convert some Glock pistols into machineguns. It consists of a small insert to replace the rear cover on the slide - there are pictures on the BATFE's website. It's a scary thought that people are running around with these things, but I'm sure they are. And they're not the law-abiding sort.