In the interests of debate, and not to make this a one way shock horror thread consider the following:
1. What's the difference between this and a gat with 0 debounce, it's going to fire nearly as or as fast, and your going to be hopper speed, air recharge etc etc etc limited anyway, yep your gat may cycle faster, turn the eyes off and your going to shoot soup so upping to the gats theoretical cycling limits is about as much good as a chocolate tea pot. Some Pro's can probably shoot "hopper" fast with a semi, with even mild debounce anyway. I took 10+ in a mugging at Campaign, would it have been worse full auto, debatable.
2. Banning a player for a full auto bouncy gat, isn't much of a threat is it. OK so a player gets banned form the NXL for a naughty rail gun (not that that's going to happen), where's he going to turn up like 30 seconds later, NPPL anyone. Same with the more "parochial" tournament series around. No core governing body, how you going to enforce said ban?. I mean even the bans for fighting are like a joke. So is a gat that bounces more heinous than bottle whipping your opponent now?
I agree there probably is a safety issue with "sustained" full-auto, however is it any more dangerous than somebody who can go "hopper fast" semi? If hopper fast semi is deemed dangerous, then you gotta limit gat cycling speed period (then maybe allow F.A).
And another thing, if it is viewed as acceptable to have bouncy rail guns at the top level, shouldn't we allow them everywhere?. It is conceivable (due to it being a small "sport"), that you may at some point end up looking down Monsieur Lassoya's gat at some point. What you going to do refuse to play, or would you rather go out at least as technically well equipped?
Maybe I've taken too many head shots, but I do think this is overly alarmist. I have an issue with ramping guns fo'sho, but if someone can explain the real dangers of full auto over fast fingers (and they do exist even at Novice level), I'd be happy. I think a lot of people are like "ooooohhh full auto burn kill pillage" when the danger may not be manifest and if making the point to cosy up to UK laws on firearms etc, attracting unwarranted attention.
Ah well anybody else want to think "outside the box" on this one (in the interests of debate).