Great catch, revellette. Glennn is giving us a perfect example of what you previously stated about how gun advocates are forever trying to make fine distinctions without any substantial difference.
Now Glennn's position is that bump stocks don't make semiautomatic rifles shoot as fast as modern automatic weapons, they only make semiautomatic rifles shoot as fast as the two men machine guns used in WWII and Korea. According to Glennn, that changes everything.
Quote:
Law enforcement officials said Tuesday at least a dozen of the 23 firearms recovered in Las Vegas were semiautomatic rifles legally modified to fire like automatic weapons, using an alteration known as a bump fire stock.
Yeah, to fire like automatic weapons, but not as automatic weapons.
From your link:
“He obviously tried this out before he was in the hotel room,” Wilson said. He added his initial conclusion from audio of the gunfire pointed to a bump modification on at least one weapon. The fire rate was inconsistent with a weapon originally designed to fire automatically, Wilson said.
___________________________________________________
Should have read your link before posting it.
Quote:
Your video could have been made from anywhere and fiddled with for all we know.
No. The video proves you were wrong, and so now you need to discredit it. However, in order to discredit it, you're going to prove that it has been altered. So, got anything?
Now Glennn's position is that bump stocks don't make semiautomatic rifles shoot as fast as modern automatic weapons
Uh, yeah, that's my position. And it's my position because it's true.
I suppose you, too, think that the video I provided has been altered to make you think that an automatic AR-15 shoots about twice as many rounds per second as an AR-15 with a bump stock. Do you have anything to validate that suspicion? Didn't think so.
By the way, did you forget that I've said that I'm not opposed to making bump stocks illegal? I thought so.
Quote:
they only make semiautomatic rifles shoot as fast as the two men machine guns used in WWII and Korea. According to Glennn, that changes everything.
No, what it does is show that some people talk out their asses, and when called out, they try to shift the error to the person who was not in error, even if they have to bring up something from 70 years ago to use as example to prove their lost case.
Are you suggesting that having kids (or not having kids) justifies the pursuit of laws that will do nothing besides violate people's rights for no reason?
Now Glennn's position is that bump stocks don't make semiautomatic rifles shoot as fast as modern automatic weapons, they only make semiautomatic rifles shoot as fast as the two men machine guns used in WWII and Korea. According to Glennn, that changes everything.
LMAO
Quote Glennn
Quote:
No, what it does is show that some people talk out their asses, and when called out, they try to shift the error to the person who was not in error, even if they have to bring up something from 70 years ago to use as example to prove their lost case.
Really, Glennn? Referring to a gun originally set to fire semiauto but now fixed up with something that allows it to fire at the same rate as WWII two man machine guns as "firing automatically" is "talking out their asses"?
Just curious, Glenn, supposed somebody somehow got hold of a WWII era tank and attacked your house with it. Blasted big holes in the side and rammed right through the walls causing collapsed floors, etc. Would you agree that the prosecutor should press for reduced charges for the perp because hell, man, he only attacked the house with a 1940's tank, it's not like the house suffered quite as much damage as it would with a new tank?
Like is good enough for me, considering how many people died with it. Or don't that matter at all to you?
What point are you trying to make here?
0 Replies
Glennn
0
Reply
Mon 28 May, 2018 11:50 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
Really, Glennn? Referring to a gun originally set to fire semiauto but now fixed up with something that allows it to fire at the same rate as WWII two man machine guns as "firing automatically" is "talking out their asses"?
You're trying to make the point that a bump stock makes an AR-15 equivalent to an automatic weapon when it comes to rate of fire. I showed you a video that proved you wrong. You then claimed that somebody manipulated the video. There is absolutely nothing to validate your suspicion, but that's your story and you're sticking to it. So when that failed, you went 70 years into the past to find an automatic weapon that doesn't match the firing rate of modern automatic weapons, and you thought that that might prove that you weren't talking out your ass. However, when you made the claim that there is no difference between an AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15, you were'nt thinking of that 70 year old Browning, were you? And you knew that no one else was thinking of that old Browning either, didn't you?
You need to think these things through before you go out on a limb.
I've already mentioned twice now that I'm not opposed to banning bump-stocks. You're trying to vilify the AR-15 by permanently attaching the bump-stock to it. But the fact is that only one person has used a bump-stock to commit a mass shooting.
Stores have stop selling guns, who is selling bump stocks that you know of?
I never got a answer from Revelette1. See if you have any luck.
0 Replies
Blickers
4
Reply
Mon 28 May, 2018 10:29 pm
@Glennn,
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
You're trying to make the point that a bump stock makes an AR-15 equivalent to an automatic weapon when it comes to rate of fire. I showed you a video that proved you wrong
No, you did not. The video only proved that the AR-15, when used in semiauto with a bump stock, has a fire rate one half that of the AR-15 used in automatic mode. However, there are other automatic rifles which the semiauto/bump stock combo does fire as fast as. Therefore, your video does not prove that the bump stock renders a semiautomatic rifle as fast-firing as an automatic weapon.
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
So when that failed,
[/color]I'm sorry, Glennn, the only thing failing here is your claim that your video proves the bump stock does not enable a semiauto rifle to fire as fast as an automatic weapon, which the bump stock does.
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
you went 70 years into the past to find an automatic weapon that doesn't match the firing rate of modern automatic weapons, and you thought that that might prove that you weren't talking out your ass.
It wasn't I who said a bump stock made the semiauto into the equivalent of an automatic, but the fact remains, the bump stock does increase the rate of fire of a semiauto rifle to that of an automatic weapon, such as the M1919.
Amazingly, you seem to not think of the M1919 as not being an automatic weapon. Allow me to correct that. Here is a video of the M1919 in use. Anyone who doesn't think this instrument is not an automatic weapon needs his head examined.
your video does not prove that the bump stock renders a semiautomatic rifle as fast-firing as an automatic weapon.
It took you a while, but you got it right this time. Or was that a freudian slip?
You said that a bump-stock turns an AR-15 into an automatic rifle. However, an automatic AR-15 fires 15 rounds per second, whereas a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock fires 7.5 rounds per second. I showed you a video that confirmed that fact. But you didn't like that fact because it proved you wrong, so you did some hunting and you found an automatic weapon from 70 years ago whose rate of fire is also only half that of modern automatic weapons. And you used that 70 year old weapon to make a comparison that would show that an AR-15 with a bump-stock fires as fast as an automatic weapon, when in reality, it fires only half as fast as an automatic rifle. That is a fact. It is also a fact that you're not taking it very well. I'm sorry, but I can't help you with that; nor do I care to.
Quote:
It wasn't I who said a bump stock made the semiauto into the equivalent of an automatic
Well I'm sure that the one who said it appreciates you taking the heat for it.
No. I suggest that people without kids (or more generally, people with no significant relationship with any kid) cannot understand what is at stake here.
As my previous post was written past midnight prior to retiring for the night, I would like to correct the following errors I made in the post.
A. Original quote:
Quote:
Therefore, your video does not prove that the bump stock renders a semiautomatic rifle as fast-firing as an automatic weapon.
Should read: Therefore, your video does not prove that the bump stock doesn't render a semiautomatic rifle as fast-firing as an automatic weapon.
B.
Quote:
Here is a video of the M1919 in use. Anyone who doesn't think this instrument is not an automatic weapon needs his head examined.
Should read: Here is a video of the M1919 in use. Anyone who doesn't think this instrument is an automatic weapon needs his head examined.
Now that my tendency to commit typos late at night have been discussed, there is still the original issue remaining: The fact that a bump stock does render a semiauto AR-15 capable of firing at the rate of an automatic rifle. Lest you have forgotten, allow me to post again the YouTube video of the M1919 machine gun of WWII and Korea fame showing its stuff:
It remains as true as ever that anyone who thinks the M1919 is not an automatic weapon needs his head examined. And a bump stock on a semiauto AR-15 fires as fast as an M1919.
One more matter. I freely admitted my late-night typos in my previous post, although the video I posted clearly illustrated my original intent. However, quite wilfully, you made the following statement in a previous post yourself:
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
However, when you made the claim that there is no difference between an AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15,
We already know that you can't keep myself and revellette straight in your posts, but the fact is that neither revellette nor myself, nor anyone else in this thread, made that claim. The only claim made was that the semiauto AR-15 + bumpstock could fire as rapidly as an automatic weapon, and my video and citation proved it could.
While my mistakes were clearly typos which did not prevent the truthful meaning of my post from being realized by the reader, your statement is a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader into thinking that a poster opposing your view said something they did not. Putting aside the fact that you got which opposing poster wrong, it is your misleading of the reader about what was stated that is far more important.
I admitted to my late night typos. Do you have the character to admit you deliberately claimed that an opposing poster said something, when they clearly did not?
Do you have the character to admit you deliberately claimed that an opposing poster said something, when they clearly did not?
Revelette posted a video that supposedly shows how to turn a modern sporting rifle into an assault rifle. The video showed no such thing. And the rifle in the video was not fitted with a bump-stock. When asked to explain the process of converting the semiautomatic rifle to an automatic rifle according to the video, he folded.
I asked: How many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle are you aware of?
Revelette replied: The Las Vegas shooter was one of them. He used a bumper stock to turn a legal semi-automatic riffle into a automatic assault weapon.
The truth is that the bump-stock did not turn his semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic assault weapon. It turned it into a weapon that would fire at only half the rate of an automatic assault rifle.
Do you honestly believe that he wasn't talking about modern automatic rifles when he was comparing bump-stock fire rate to automatic fire rate? It was only after he was proven wrong that you decided to go back 70 years to come up with an automatic weapon that is capable of only half the firing rate of modern automatic weapons.
From your link:
On Tuesday, Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said he couldn't say whether any of the weapons were automatic or not, but confirmed a device known as a "bump stock" was used by the gunman.
"We are aware of a device, called a bump stock, and that enables an individual to speed up the discharge of ammunition," Lombardo said.
As you can see, the good sheriff did not exaggerate the rate of fire from the rifle with the bump-stock by calling it automatic rifle fire. He knew better.
So the question is: do you have the character to admit that both you and revelette knew full well that when the rate of fire of a rifle with a bump-stock was being compared to the rate of fire of an automatic rifle, no one was thinking of a machine gun from 70 years ago, and that the only reason it was brought up is because it helped make your incorrect statement not look so incorrect?
__________________________________________________
So now that we've all agreed that the bump-stock will be banned, what's the next thing on your list?
I asked: How many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle are you aware of?
Revelette replied: The Las Vegas shooter was one of them. He used a bumper stock to turn a legal semi-automatic riffle into a automatic assault weapon.
So? She never said that a bumper stock turned an AR-15 semiauto into an AR-15 automatic assault weapon. She said that it turned a semiauto assault weapon into an automatic assault weapon. Since the distinguishing characteristics of an assault weapon is that it is hand held and fires at a rate consistent with a fully automatic weapon, the statement is basically true.
Is a semiautomatic AR-15 fitted with a bumpstock hand held? Yes.
Is a semiautomatic AR-15 fitted with a bumpstock capable of firing at a rate consistent with a fully automatic weapon? Yes.
So what's the problem?
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
The truth is that the bump-stock did not turn his semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic assault weapon. It turned it into a weapon that would fire at only half the rate of an automatic assault rifle.
Ahh, now we see the problem. Your ability to completely and utterly deny reality. Once again, I present the M1919 machine gun, an automatic weapon by anyone's definition. This machine gun fires at between 6.7 and 10 rounds per second, which is what the AR-15 fitted with a bumpstock fires at.
So, now that it has been established that the semiauto AR-15 + bumpstock remains handheld and shoots as rapidly as a fully automatic weapon-a machine gun actually-we can say with truth that the AR-15 + bumpstock is roughly the utilitarian equivalent of an assault weapon. Oh, another issue:
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
From your link:
On Tuesday, Clark County.....
That wasn't my link. Your inability to distinguish between posters who disagree with you continues unabated. Apparently you view all posters who oppose you as one indistinguishable mass who must be beaten back by posts and statements, true or not. Self contradictory or not.
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
However, when you made the claim that there is no difference between an AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15,
Again, nobody in this thread ever made that statement. I extended the olive branch to you and gave you a chance to discharge the matter by your apology, but you passed it up. The loss is yours.
So? She never said that a bumper stock turned an AR-15 semiauto into an AR-15 automatic assault weapon. She said that it turned a semiauto assault weapon into an automatic assault weapon. Since the distinguishing characteristics of an assault weapon is that it is hand held and fires at a rate consistent with a fully automatic weapon, the statement is basically true.
No. You're refusing to remember correctly. In response to my asking her how many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle she was aware of, she said, "The Las Vegas shooter was one of them." So she was saying that the Las Vegas shooter turned his AR-15 semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle by using a bump-stock. She was wrong. The difference in firing rates between an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock and an AR-15 automatic rifle is half.
Then, in order to make this thing work out, the comparison was all of a sudden shifted to between an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock and a machine gun from 90 years ago. Nuff said?
The problem Glennn, is for most people "answering correctly" means answering in accordance with truth. While with you, "answering correctly" means agreeing with you, regardless of truth.
Quote:
I asked: How many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle are you aware of?
Revelette replied: The Las Vegas shooter was one of them. He used a bumper stock to turn a legal semi-automatic riffle into a automatic assault weapon.
And he did. The defining characteristic of an assault rifle is a rifle that fires automatically at a speed similar to an automatic weapon. The Las Vegas shooter had a semiautomatic rifle, an AR-15. He put on a bumpstock. Was the AR-15 still a handheld rifle with a bumpstock on it? Yes. Could it fire at a rate commensurate with an automatic weapon? Yes, it could fire at the same rate as the M1919, which is unquestionably an automatic weapon. What do we call a handheld rifle which can fire at the rate of an automatic weapon? An assault rifle.
Again, what is your problem? Once again, check out the M1919j video , and try to convince the readers that it is not an automatic weapon:
Now that you have rechecked the video, please try to explain how a semiauto rifle with a device that enables it to fire as fast as the M1919 is NOT an assault weapon. Remember, to be an assault rifle the originally semiauto does not have to fire as fast as the factory made automatic version of the same rifle. It only has to achieve a rate of fire equal to that of an automatic weapon.
The defining characteristic of an assault rifle is a rifle that fires automatically at a speed similar to an automatic weapon.
Sure, if the assault rifle is an automatic.
Quote:
While with you, "answering correctly" means agreeing with you, regardless of truth.
No. Answering truthfully means not resorting to digging into the 90-year old past to find an example that will make you appear as if you are telling the truth. You're trying to convince me that when revelette said that the rate of fire of an AR-15 with a bump-stock is equivalent to an automatic weapon, she was obviously referring to a machine gun from 1919. But of course she was. Sure. You'd have to be crazy to think that she was referring to anything BUT an M1919 machine gun from . . . 1919. It's so obvious that she didn't even have to mention it. Sure . . .
Quote:
Is a semiautomatic AR-15 fitted with a bumpstock capable of firing at a rate consistent with a fully automatic weapon? Yes.
Actually, no. According to a link provided by revelette, Cody Wilson, director of Defense Distributed, speaking to the Washington Post about the shooting, said, “He obviously tried this out before he was in the hotel room,” Wilson said. He added his initial conclusion from audio of the gunfire pointed to a bump modification on at least one weapon. The fire rate was inconsistent with a weapon originally designed to fire automatically, Wilson said. So . . .
Quote:
please try to explain how a semiauto rifle with a device that enables it to fire as fast as the M1919 is NOT an assault weapon.
Any weapon is an assault weapon. Haven't you heard that the semiautomatic AR-15 is an assault weapon? It's been all over the press. Where have you been?
