06-16-2016, 01:15 AM
(06-15-2016, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Firstly, because he is ignorant of what he is talking about. Secondly, because he wants folks to think that these "assault rifles" are much more deadly than hand guns.
What did he mention about an AR-15 which might make someone believe they are more deadly than a hand gun? Did me mention AR-15s fire rounds the size of Volkswagons that kill 20 people at a time? No, so it wasn't the caliber. Did he mention the rounds travel really, really, super duper fast penetrating everything in their path so they are able kill about 20 people per round? No, so it wasn't muzzle velocity. Did he mention they fire HE rounds that explode in midair creating multiple fragments killing about 20 people? No, so it wasn't the ammunition. He did mention something though . . . what was it? He mentioned the weapon could fire 700 rounds per minute. What do we call the number of rounds a weapon fires in a given time period? We call that a rate of fire. So the only characteristic he mentioned was the enormously high rate of fire of 700 rpm, but you don't think he was talking about the rate of fire even though that was the only characteristic he mentioned?
Hint: Title of the article reads, "Democrat Grayson: AR-15 Can Fire 700 Rounds a Minute." After reading that title, is there anything that jumps out at you? Anything at all? Take your time. Think. If you heard him mention another characteristic of that weapon, please feel free to share.
You've got to be shittin' me right now.
Quote:You didn't answer which rate of fire he was using when he said the glock could kill 2-3 per minute. He was comparing rates of fire remember.
Yes, I did. But, even if I didn't it only takes a lick of common sense to figure it out. So I'm going to explain how to figure it out for yourself one more time so afterwards you can claim you weren't spoon fed the answer. Ya ready?
Okay, if we are comparing lethality (which we are) what rate of fire do you think would be the most lethal rate of fire? Would it be the fastest or maximum rate of fire possible yet still allow you to effectively engage targets simultaneously? What do you think we would call that rate of fire?
M_X_M_M _FF_CT_V_ R_T_
Now, do you wanna try taking a stab at solving the puzzle or do you wanna buy a vowel?
For my next trick, I'm going to pull a previously mention rate of fire out of my ass . . . which you claim I didn't specify.
ABRACADABRA!
POOF
(06-15-2016, 04:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Next he compared the cyclic rate for an AR-15 to the (implied) max effective rate for a Glock.
HOLY SHITBALLS!!! MAGIC!!!!
If you don't understand I was talking about the maximum effective rate for the Glock after I wrote "max effective rate for a Glock" I'm not surprised you don't understand any of the other shit. I don't know how much more explicit I can make it for you to understand. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. You're gonna need to meet me halfway.
Why does almost every conversation with you feel like I've unlocked a secret circle of Hell from Dante's Inferno?
