The argument can go both ways in wars and battles won or lost If you looked at it that way you have to also look into accounts of where they did save the day or lost it because they did not have it, and even though it was not considered a machine gun gatling guns not being a far step from them did either save the day or loose it. Take Custers last stand for instance had he brought his he may have been able to psychologically defeat the Indians by mowing down shear numbers with the 6 or so Gatlings he left behind. Teddy's charge up Kettle hill the suppressive fire he gained from him gatlings kept the Spanish troops down will he advanced up the hill and eventually won the day. Marines in the Pacific took to old dauntless avengers that were no longer air worthy and robbed the .30 cals from the rear gunner position's (due to the guns having a very high rate of fire)and made AKA "stingers" that they used to repulse the Japanese banzai attacks. Anytime you have a determined enemy and you need to deter them automatics prevail. It ends a message to the enemy that one of these bullets (or more) will have you name as well as others. Limiting your options is like limiting your resources. Is it for every application of course not that is why most have selective fire. It is a option that I would want to have in my tool box because I can promise you the enemy will have it in theirs.
and AMP you nailed it with this right here
Therefore, it is a desirable thing. Very desirable, in many circumstances, and since it helps us, and we can, why not have it?
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man and brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Last edited by TNT; June 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM.