You guys have drifted off and on topic a few times since I posted earlier today... but I was workin'.... so, running back to whereI was left off:
I was not trying to argue the point of how fast or accurate you can shoot it. Nor was I talking about capacity. I was talking about effectiveness. But RP was just chomping at the bit to make a snide remark from his lofty, 'superior knowledge' position.
Haz,
What I was "chomping at the bit" for... or more precisely, what I was cynically expecting... was someone to twist the information to their own agenda. Either side could've done it, but I expected it from those negative to the 5.7, not "the other side".
Please don't take my comment as supporting the idea of the 5.7 for self defense. I was simply pointing out the flaws of your statement which focused on one aspect of the chosen gun/round and ignored the other ones. It is that kind of opinion that I detest in this forum. You can't separate caliber/capacity/recoil/energy/firearm... they are all related and all rounds/guns are compromises of those factors (and others). The point isn't "superior knowledge", the point is critical thinking skills.
If you had said
"If someone had a .45 caliber weapon that carried the same # rounds and could've shot it just as well, a lot more people would've died!" I wouldn't have said a thing... or maybe I would've said "Excellent post, Haz, that was a well thought out statement!".
Too often people want things to be simple. Things usually are not.
Anyone should feel free to start a thread praising the appropriate job performance of Munley or other aspects of this event.
-RJP
PS- Rastus' point should be well taken guys... let's worry about important things and focus on intelligent discussion that can help people make informed decisions about life & death topics.