Liberal politician embarrasses self in "gun quote"

[SunsetBengal]

Now, I'm no gun expert, and not really even can be classified as a gun "enthusiast". However, even I know that it is physically impossible for a human being to squeeze a trigger 12 times per second...

http://greatvocalmajority.com/democrat-grayson-ar-15-can-fire-700-rounds-a-minute/

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 09:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Now, I'm no gun expert, and not really even can be classified as a gun "enthusiast".  However, even I know that it is physically impossible for a human being to squeeze a trigger 12 times per second...

http://greatvocalmajority.com/democrat-grayson-ar-15-can-fire-700-rounds-a-minute/

Hell someone in another post feigned outrage that a gun was used for the largest mass shooting in our country instead of a sword, car, or hammer.

Not only would you need a finger that could squeeze of 12 rounds per second; you would also have to be able to do 24 magazine changes and re-chamber after every reload within that minute. But somewhere there is some liberal saying "700 rds per minute? That's outrageous!"

[GMDino]

(06-14-2016, 09:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell someone in another post feigned outrage that a gun was used for the largest mass shooting in our country instead of a sword, car, or hammer.

Not only would you need a finger that could squeeze of 12 rounds per second; you would also have to be able to do 14 magazine changes and re-chamber after every reload within that minute. But somewhere there is some liberal saying "700 rds per minute? That's outrageous!"

Oh no...someone didn't word something exactly right but still made his point?

Good thing you were there to catch it or a thread might gone astray over a word or two.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-14-2016, 09:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh no...someone didn't word something exactly right but still made his point?

Good thing you were there to catch it or a thread might gone astray over a word or two.

Uh, that politician's quote goes way, way past "not wording something correctly".  In fact, it jumps straight to "I'm speaking about something that I have exactly 0 knowledge of".  Chances are, he should have just stuck with the customary "Why do we need to settle our scores with guns?".

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 10:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Uh, that politician's quote goes way, way past "not wording something correctly".  In fact, it jumps straight to "I'm speaking about something that I have exactly 0 knowledge of".  Chances are, he should have just stuck with the customary "Why do we need to settle our scores with guns?".

IF you could modify an AR-15 sear release to make it fully automatic and designed it to be belt-fed, and manage to link together a 700 round belt of ammo, then technically it could most likely fire 700 rounds per minute. In fact it could probably do so about twice before the barrel became too deformed too compromised firing.

This in no way take away from the ridiculous statement the Politician made about the gun used it this terror attack, just pointing it out before someone says "well technically it can".

Fred was most likely talking about the quote from the board member; however that board member's and this politician's motoves were the same and equally humorous. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2016, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF you could modify an AR-15 sear release to make it fully automatic and designed it to be belt-fed, and manage to link together a 700 round belt of ammo, then technically it could most likely fire 700 rounds per minute. In fact it could probably do so about twice before the barrel became too deformed too compromised firing.

This in no way take away from the ridiculous statement the Politician made about the gun used it this terror attack, just pointing it out before someone says "well technically it can".

Fred was most likely talking about the quote from the board member; however that board member's and this politician's motoves were the same and equally humorous. 

The Army has these things called TMs. Technical manuals. They contain technical information like cyclical rate of fire, sustained rate of fire, max effective ranges, muzzle velocity, etc, etc. Surprised you seem to be unaware. Why don't you look in the TM for the M4 and tell us what cyclical rate of fire is listed in the TM? Then tell us the max effective rate of fire and the sustained rate of fire. Finally, explain the difference. Thanks in advance.

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred was most likely talking about the quote from the board member; however that board member's and this politician's motoves were the same and equally humorous. 

Jesus Pete.  You know damn well I'm that "board member" who made a point that you eagerly dodged on a grammatical technicality, and (on the off chance that you actually care to know) I'm a card carring Libertarian who believes we should be 100% free to own guns BUT that belief doesn't mean I choose to delude myself into thinking some implements aren't capable of killing people more efficiently than others.

So I don't think I'm exactly the same as this dolt politician BUT I think it's interesting how people who support the 2nd Amendment (and who aren't me) do all they can to blame everything BUT the gun and our access to guns when stuff like this happens.  Guilty conscience, much?

Anyways, you're pretty wrong about what I said and my stance on gun control and I wouldn't take issue with it had you been slightly less of a self-righteous d-bag about the whole thing.  Feel free to call me out by name (er, screenname) next time and I can explain my stance so your grammatical technically can be put to rest.

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 10:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Army has these things called TMs. Technical manuals. They contain technical information like cyclical rate of fire, sustained rate of fire, max effective ranges, muzzle velocity, etc, etc. Surprised you seem to be unaware. Why don't you look in the TM for the M4 and tell us what cyclical rate of fire is listed in the TM? Then tell us the max effective rate of fire and the sustained rate of fire. Finally, explain the difference. Thanks in advance.

I'm well aware of all this and know what each term you listed means. I was referring to cyclic (or cyclical as you called it) to express how fast the weapon could cycle all thing optimal.

Any thoughts on the politician's claims that the weapon the terrorist used is capable of 700 rounds per minute

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 10:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Jesus Pete.  You know damn well I'm that "board member" who made a point that you eagerly dodged on a grammatical technicality, and (on the off chance that you actually care to know) I'm a card carring Libertarian who believes we should be 100% free to own guns BUT that belief doesn't mean I choose to delude myself into thinking some implements aren't capable of killing people more efficiently than others.

So I don't think I'm exactly the same as this dolt politician BUT I think it's interesting how people who support the 2nd Amendment (and who aren't me) do all they can to blame everything BUT the gun and our access to guns when stuff like this happens.  Guilty conscience, much?

Anyways, you're pretty wrong about what I said and my stance on gun control and I wouldn't take issue with it had you been slightly less of a self-righteous d-bag about the whole thing.  Feel free to call me out by name (er, screenname) next time and I can explain my stance so your grammatical technically can be put to rest.

Really didn't think it was necessary to name names. I did not say you are exactly the same as this politician. Simply stated both comments were intended to elicit the same response. 

You might be surprised to know that I am probably as much in favor on gun control as anyone in this forum; however, this terrorist activity has zero to do with gun control. Remember the French attacks? Do you know their gun ownership policies?

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Really didn't think it was necessary to name names. I did not say you are exactly the same as this politician. Simply stated both comments were intended to elicit the same response. 

You might be surprised to know that I am probably as much in favor on gun control as anyone in this forum; however, this terrorist activity has zero to do with gun control. Remember the French attacks? Do you know their gun ownership policies?

I'm not pushing for gun control.  I point out the efficiency of assault rifles because there are people who still seem to think "motivation to be evil and a hammer" are every bit as dangerous.  If you don't think a hammer or a car is as capable of killing 50 people in a short span of time then I'm not arguing with you.

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 11:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not pushing for gun control.  I point out the efficiency of assault rifles because there are people who still seem to think "motivation to be evil and a hammer" are every bit as dangerous.  If you don't think a hammer or a car is as capable of killing 50 people in a short span of time then I'm not arguing with you.

I just posted this in another thread:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Blunt objects (hammers) are more deadly. 

[GMDino]

(06-14-2016, 10:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Uh, that politician's quote goes way, way past "not wording something correctly".  In fact, it jumps straight to "I'm speaking about something that I have exactly 0 knowledge of".  Chances are, he should have just stuck with the customary "Why do we need to settle our scores with guns?".

No I was talking about Daniels reference to a post in another thread.

It doesn't take much to convince me that  a politician said something stupid!  LOL!

[GMDino]

(06-14-2016, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF you could modify an AR-15 sear release to make it fully automatic and designed it to be belt-fed, and manage to link together a 700 round belt of ammo, then technically it could most likely fire 700 rounds per minute. In fact it could probably do so about twice before the barrel became too deformed too compromised firing.

This in no way take away from the ridiculous statement the Politician made about the gun used it this terror attack, just pointing it out before someone says "well technically it can".

Fred was most likely talking about the quote from the board member; however that board member's and this politician's motoves were the same and equally humorous. 

Ah, ah...no responding to me.  You promised.

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 11:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just posted this in another thread:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Blunt objects (hammers) are more deadly. 

Assault rifles are deadlier than hammers, plus we are discussing a situation where a single person caused the deaths of 50 people.  Show me where one person who isn't a villain from a horror movie killed 50 or more people in one place on a single spree with a hammer and we might have a debate.

The bottom line is, if you're going into battle do you take an assault rifle or a hammer?

dead·ly

ˈdedlē/
adjective

1. 1.
   causing or able to cause death.
   "a deadly weapon"
   synonyms:
   fatal, lethal, mortal, death-dealing, life-threatening; More
   

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2016, 11:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Assault rifles are deadlier than hammers, plus we are discussing a situation where a single person caused the deaths of 50 people.  Show me where one person who isn't a villain from a horror movie killed 50 or more people in one place on a single spree with a hammer and we might have a debate.

The bottom line is, if you're going into battle do you take an assault rifle or a hammer?

dead·ly

ˈdedlē/
adjective

1. 1.
   causing or able to cause death.
   "a deadly weapon"
   synonyms:
   fatal, lethal, mortal, death-dealing, life-threatening; More
   

Are we really going there?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/deadly
1.

causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal:


Blunt objects have caused more death (deadly) than assault rifles.

Of course a rifle (in this cause wrongly classified as an assault rifle) is more efficient; but banning them does what?

Here's a pretty good slide show:

http://www.assaultweapon.info

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 11:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are we really going there?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/deadly
1.

causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal:


Blunt objects have caused more death (deadly) than assault rifles.

Of course a rifle (in this cause wrongly classified as an assault rifle) is more efficient; but banning them does what?

Here's a pretty good slide show:

http://www.assaultweapon.info

So how many people do you think this guy could have killed with a hammer that night?  If he killed 50 with a high powered firearm he must be able to go through about 250 per minute with a hammer.

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 12:14 AM)Nately120 Wrote: So how many people do you think this guy could have killed with a hammer that night?  If he killed 50 with a high powered firearm he must be able to go through about 250 per minute with a hammer.

Nope, he would have killed more with the rifle. Although I am perplexed as to how one person was able to do that much damage with one rifle. The fact that banning such weapons would not have mattered. Do you know weapons were banned in that facility? What did that do? 

[*Nately120*]

(06-15-2016, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, he would have killed more with the rifle. Although I am perplexed as to how one person was able to do that much damage with one rifle. The fact that banning such weapons would not have mattered. Do you know weapons were banned in that facility? What did that do? 

Ok, so you admit that he would have killed more with the rifle...that was my point.  Nowhere did I say we should ban weapons, drugs, abortion, prostitution, so on and so forth, so for the love of Jeff, shut up about banning stuff when addressing my posts.

See, unlike you I find the victims in these shootings to be completely irrelevant because this is the USA and it's beyond clear that this country has no intention of banning anything firearm-related.  And before you pull some tear-jerker stuff on me, my sister lives in that area and has actually been to that very bar within the month.

Guess what...I'm glad she wasn't there, but complaining about shootings in this country is like complaining about snow in Canada.  It's beyond clear what goes on in this country, and it's just a matter of everyone deciding if they want to blame god, guns, Muslims, Christians, liberals, republicans, the NRA, Satan, blah blah blah for the same ol' daily crap.  If you don't like it, move to England and get bludgeoned to death with a hammer.

[Rotobeast]

(06-15-2016, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, he would have killed more with the rifle. Although I am perplexed as to how one person was able to do that much damage with one rifle. The fact that banning such weapons would not have mattered. Do you know weapons were banned in that facility? What did that do? 

I wasn't going to say much more on it, but screw it....
Don't you think M855's would go through more than one person ?
I know you get the tumble, but most of the victims seemed pretty fit and had a small amount of mass to travel through.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2016, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm well aware of all this and know what each term you listed means. I was referring to cyclic (or cyclical as you called it) to express how fast the weapon could cycle all thing optimal.

Any thoughts on the politician's claims that the weapon the terrorist used is capable of 700 rounds per minute

Good.

Let's establish the rates of fire first.  What are they?