Liberal politician embarrasses self in "gun quote"

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 07:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You never told me the rate of fire, you wrote I could establish any rate of fire I wanted.  You could have explained everything I have.  Before I explained it.  And I gave you ample opportunity to do so.  But, you didn't.  Why?

You didn't see the rate of fire comparison?  Okay . . . 

Q:  How many rounds did he claim an AR-15 could fire a minute?
A: 700 rpm

Q:  For an AR-15, 700 rpm would be the ________ rate of fire.
A:  Cyclic

Q:  What other weapon did he compare an AR-15 to?
A:  A Glock.

Q: He claimed a Glock would kill how many people in the same scenario?
A:  Two or three.  (I might be fuzzy on that one because I only watched the video once, but I'm 99% confident I quoted the correct numbers.)

Q:  Why would a Glock only kill 2 or 3 victims compared to a rifle with a cyclic rate of fire of 700 rpm?
A:  Because he assumes a Glock's rate of fire is less than 700 rpm.

Q:  Is the effective rate of fire of an AR-15 less than the cyclic rate?
A:  Yes.

Q:  Is the effective rate of fire of a Glock less than the cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15?
A:  Yes.

Q:  If you have an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine and a Glock with an extended 15 round magazine, the effective rate of fire is going to be pretty similar because that rate is determined by the operator's skill level.  There isn't going to be a difference of more 600 rpm.  So did he compare the effective rate of fire of an AR-15 to the effective rate of fire for a Glock?
A:  Absolutely not.

Q:  Did he make a misleading comparison based upon a false equivalency of the cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15 and the effective rate of fire of a Glock?
A:  Yes.

Since you prefer spoon feeding, I answered the questions for you ahead of time.  You're welcome.

This is silly. He compared no rates of fire. If he did the tell me what rate of fire he used for the glock when he said 2-3 (unless you are suggesting that's the effective rate of a glock?).

I know the reason for his statements and I pointed it out long before you thought you had the answer. If you look at post #9 I stated his statements were to elicit a response (to fool someone into thinking how much more lethal the long rifle was compared to the pistol)

I must admit I have zero idea where you have tried to go with this; unless it was to fulfill what I said when I asserted someone will say technically he is right (post #5). Nor do I know what you have pointed out that I had not prior. And I definitely do not know what has been "spoon fed".