I don't need to replace my wrenches or my bed or my kitchen knives. Manufacturers stay in business by keeping their operations modest, so they can stay in business with the sales from people changing interests, population growth, and occasional replacements.
* Beds frames can be made cheaply and if they break, you can still put your mattress on the floor (bullets don't work well if just thrown)
* You need to sharpen knives pretty often, which is wearing them out, but it is true that good knives will last a good while. (But when was the last time you heard of a knife lobbying group pushing to prevent laws from limiting the knife industry's ability to sell product)
Trigger pins can wiggle loose. Butt stocks can crack. Springs lose their springiness. Barrels wear down with normal use, and that wear is accelerated to corrosion if they aren't cared for properly. Receivers will crack if used enough.
Sure. That gun in your uncle's safe will probably still shoot fine in 50 years (assuming it was cleaned before it was put away), but competition shooters replace their arms, or major parts in their guns every couple of years or so.
I don't think either industry depends on such breakage to stay in business.
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can chronicle the use of polymer frames in firearms, which maybe really caught on in the 1990s?
Failure to improve on old designs seems like a good thing to me as a consumer, it's preferable to churn
How?
I also don't know whether the statistics about how many fatal accidents were caused by distracted driving exists (it's kinda hard to ask a person who died in a car accident whether they were texting before or not...) or is reliable. But given the ubiquity of both driving and cellphones, I wouldn't be surprised if there existed some data pointing to the way the parent post suggested. I wouldn't also make any far-reaching conclusions from it as the issues involved are of quite different nature, and the data, as I pointed, is probably very dirty anyway.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
I’m just trying to point out how silly some point of views are in the current state of national discussions.
From the point of view of a 2A supporter, people are attempting to take away what is a RIGHT, while conveniently forgetting to address what is effectively a modern convenience (it is not a RIGHT to own an iPhone) that is factually more impactful on the presumed end goal.
But it makes for better TV ratings and yet another polarizing dividing issue (which is not, as there are high school kids trying to advocate for guns in schools, whose voices are being drowned out by the media and the kids “on the other side”
Imagine what it would be like if we had a march to take away the right to love the person you love, because some people who love like you do get more frequently sick of some disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
The only possible use for this is calling lots of people quickly at close range.
I became aware of this model and cartridge when I used Google Maps to see how many gun shops are near Parkland High (3 within walking distance.) One of the shops specializes in these weapons. If the shooter could have afforded it, I would guess he would have bought this.
This is absolutely not true.
The point of the P90 is to be a compact carbine for troops in cramped quarters (think tank crew) with the capability to penetrate soft body armor.
The way it achieves this is with a high speed, low caliber pistol round and full auto operation. Even then, it is only marginally effective. Take away the full auto part (civilian use) and I can't think of a single reason someone would use it, except that it looks "cool".
To reiterate, the purpose of this gun is not to be effective at killing. It is to be as small as possible while still being marginally effective (in the military configuration).
If you want to see something more affordable, that is probably equally as, if not more deadly, look at "AR" pistols (chambered in 5.56x45) instead of the P90. (Or PS90).
Or, the SIG MPX, which while expensive, is also available.
Though, it sounds from your comment, that you and I are on very different terms in opinion.
Yes, why not base legislation on the power of a weapon measured as, say, ft*lbs delivered in 20 seconds. A 50 round drum magazine on a Ruger 10/22 rifle - no problem. But on an AR-15 style rifle - not allowed.
I think the primary use for the military full-auto version is VIP duty, where the scenario would be exactly as you describe: killing lots of threats quickly in close proximity (supposedly with minimal collateral damage due to the design of the bullet).
The primary use for the civilian PS90 is to show your friends how much you hate money by turning a questionable boutique round into noise.
it's a pretty interesting gun though, not necessarily because of the bullpup design, but because of the type of round it shoots. the 5.7 round is pretty unique - it's small but ultra high velocity and was designed to penetrate light body armor but is not very good at killing. anyway, it's unlikely someone would use one of these to shoot up a school or whatever.... they are really expensive (and the ammo is also very expensive and rare). as far as a vegas style shooting, the 5.7 round isn't long range because of its small size - it's seriously a tiny bullet. moreover, i'm pretty sure the fn five-seven (basically the complementary pistol) is illegal to carry in most places because of the armor pen - cops don't like them
I don't disagree with your point that arms manufacturers are still producing new models, but that isn't a terribly good illustration of 'new', especially since the arm you linked has been in production for ~30 years.
How many Porsche 911 Turbos or Audi R8s are used as getaway cars for bank robberies?
The 5.7x28mm would be a terrible choice for someone wanting to kill a large number of people. It's reason for existence is a tradeoff between the number of rounds one can effectively carry, armor penetration, and terminal performance. In short, it's designed for use in compact full-auto firearms - PDWs ("Person Defense Weapons"). That class of firearm has not been readily available in the US since 1934, and the P90 has never been available.
"The 5.7×28mm SS190 has a muzzle velocity of roughly 716 m/s (2,350 ft/s, Mach 2) and can penetrate the NATO CRISAT vest or a Level IIIA Kevlar vest at a range of 200m"