Oblivion437 |
05-08-2004 01:03 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
Why don't soldiers fight with sturdy automotive vehicles instead of those shooty things? Could it be that those shooty things are more efficient?
|
First, we're talking about an urban situation, or a village square, some crowded area that everyone imagines when we talk about urban shootings and you get the knee-jerk "OMFGZ! Teh baby killing gunz can kill 20 peeple in a minute!" type arguments, in those situations, an automobile would be FAR more dangerous, as it's 2 tons (or more, in the case of trucks and SUVs) of steel and rubber crashing into people who crumble like silt under a shoe. While someone is in the vehicle, and they don't crash into anything too sturdy, and people are in front of them, people will continue to die, across a matter of 5 or 6 seconds, in a crowded throroughfare, a dozen could be killed, quite reasonably.
Then you move into Combat, a far more diverse and complicated SERIES of scenarios, not just one incident. Combat is not, has never been, and for the good of mankind I hope it never becomes a purely mathematical or clinical affair. The weapon you depend upon for use must be capable of use in a very broad range of scenarios and possibilities... Given that, the rifle is the best choice for the individual soldier (though some would contend in favor of light machineguns) in most situations.[/quote]
[ 05-08-2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]
|