What do we call a handheld rifle which can fire at the rate of an automatic weapon? An assault rifle.
That is incorrect. We use the term "assault rifle" to refer to ordinary rifles that merely have certain harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip.
Blickers wrote:
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.
Not having cosmetic features like a pistol grip should suffice in making a machine gun not count as an assault weapon.
Blickers wrote:
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.
No. To be an assault rifle it has to have cosmetic features like a pistol grip. Rate of fire has nothing to do with it.
0 Replies
Blickers
4
Reply
Tue 29 May, 2018 08:19 pm
@Glennn,
Give me an answer:
Did they have genuine machine guns in WWII and Korea?
Yes or No.
The true answer is yes. Since they did have genuine machine guns in WWII and Korea, a semiautomatic handheld rifle outfitted with a device which enables it to shoot as fast as a genuine machine gun in use by the US in WWII and Korea counts as the functional equivalent of an assault rifle. This is what the AR-15 outfitted with a bumpstock does. So you haven't a leg to stand on. Semiauto AR-15 + bumpstock = assault weapon. It does not have to have the same rate of fire as the AR-15 manufactured in automatic mode from the factory. It only has to achieve the same rate of fire as other automatic weapons, such as the M1919, which it does.
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
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 . . .
Yes, Cody Wilson is absolutely THE authority on this. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Cody Rutledge Wilson (born January 31, 1988) is an American crypto-anarchist, free-market anarchist, and gun-rights activist, best known as a founder/director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs, so-called "wiki weapons", suitable for 3D printing. He is a co-founder of the Dark Wallet bitcoin storage technology.
Sorry, but we are dealing with facts here. Wilson is not any recognized scientist, he's a freelance gun fan/inventor on the very fringe of political thought. Crypto-anarchist indeed. Just exactly what you'd expect the gun people to use as an "authority". Fact remains, the AR-15 comes in semiauto versions and automatic versions, the automatic is an assault weapon because of its greater rate of fire. The semiautomatic can be outfitted with a bumpstock which increases the rate of fire not quite as high as the factory automatic AR-15, but as fast as the machine guns in WWII. Which qualifies as being an automatic weapon.
Just to shame you some more, I'm going to post the video of the M1919 which the bumpstock/semiauto AR-15 shoots as fast as. We'll let the readers decide if this instrument qualifies as a real machine gun or not.
It only has to achieve the same rate of fire as other automatic weapons, such as the M1919, which it does.
No, we've talked about this. A bump-stock does not turn a semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic assault weapon. It turns it into a weapon that will fire at only half the rate of an automatic assault rifle. A 90-year old M1919 machine gun does not fire at the same rate as an automatic AR-15.
You've said that a semiautomatic AR-15 fitted with a bump-stock is capable of firing at a rate consistent with a fully automatic weapon. So I showed you that Cody Wilson, speaking to the Washington Post about the Las Vegas 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 what part of "inconsistent with a weapon originally designed to fire automatically" don't you understand?
And here you are still 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 referring to a machine gun from 1919. You know that isn't true. She wasn't thinking of a 90 year-old machine gun. The conversation concerns how the rate of fire from a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock compares to an automatic AR-15. And it's been made abundantly clear to you that they don't compare.
Quote:
Just exactly what you'd expect the gun people to use as an "authority".
Actually, if you had been paying attention, you would know that it was the Washington Post that used him as an authority on the matter of whether the rate of fire from Paddock's weapon was automatic or not. However, your confidence when it comes to judging credible authority tells me that you no doubt can cite something that contradicts Wilson's assessment, and have been waiting for just the right time to spring it on me. I would suggest that that time has come. So . . . wuddeeya got?
You have been shamed and caught lying, and still you return.
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
It turns it into a weapon that will fire at only half the rate of an automatic assault rifle.
It fires at only half the rate of the AR-15 automatic weapon, but fires at the same rate as other automatic weapons, such as the M1919.
Quote:
A 90-year old M1919 machine gun does not fire at the same rate as an automatic AR-15.
M1919 was the machine gun of choice in WWII and Korea, and was used in VietNam. Hate to break this to you, but WWII, Korea and VietNam didn't happen 90 years ago. And it is a genuine machine gun and therefore is an automatic weapon. A modified AR-15 that shoots as fast as the M1919 is an assault rifle. Period.
Denial, denial denial because your narrative just fell on its face. The semiauto AR-15 + bumpstock shoots as fast as this M1919, and that M1919 is an automatic weapon, and therefore so is the bumpstock + AR-15 combo.
Revellete certainly saw you coming a mile away when she said that all the gun defenders seek to find distinctions without a difference and just repeat them over and over. Our nation's school children are being shot in school by deranged people who mostly got their hands on semiauto versions of assault weapons and all you can do is argue that a semiauto modified so that it can shoot as fast as a WWII and Korean War era machine gun is not really an assault weapon, so the kids have nothing to be concerned about.
Semiautomatic versions of assault weapons have got to go, period. No other developed country has them, and no other developed country has our school shootings.
You have been shamed and caught lying, and still you return.
That's odd. I was going to say the same thing to you.
Quote:
It fires at only half the rate of the AR-15 automatic weapon, but fires at the same rate as other automatic weapons, such as the M1919.
More dishonesty. You're speaking for revelette. Let me show you again what my question to her was, and what her answer was.
I asked: How many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle are you aware of?
The operative word there is "rifle."
Revelette replied: The Las Vegas shooter was one of them.
That turned out to be untrue. Perhaps this would be a good time to ask revelette if she had an M1919 machine gun in mind when she was considering the comparison. Of course, you and I both know that she did not have that in mind. More dishonesty from you.
Quote:
Hate to break this to you, but WWII, Korea and VietNam didn't happen 90 years ago.
Never said otherwise. I said it has been around for 90 years. But you knew that. More dishonesty from you.
Browning M1919A4:
Technical Specifications
Total length
0.9 m
Empty weight
14 kg
Caliber
.30-06 Springfield
Magazine
250 round belt
Range
1,400 m
Usage
Year introduced 1919
____________________________________________________
Did you catch the year there?
Quote:
all you can do is argue that a semiauto modified so that it can shoot as fast as a WWII and Korean War era machine gun is not really an assault weapon
Yet more dishonesty from you. I have not argued that a modified assault weapon can't shoot as fast as an M1919 machine gun. I said that neither fire as fast as an automatic AR-15. And you've shown nothing to prove otherwise. Your only point here is that they're still deadly.
The initial model year is unimportant, as the machine guns used in WWII, Korea and VietNam were NOT left over from 1919. They were freshly made, produced into the late 1950s. These are genuine machine guns, as this video has illustrated over and over. You dodge, you dance, you outright prevaricate, but you can't get past this video illustrating real machine gun power and firing rate.
The AR-15 + bumpstock shoots as fast as this machine gun. I'll leave it to the readers to decide if a semiauto rifle which can shoot this fast qualifies as an assault rifle-you clearly will try to deny the obvious answer, which is yes. Meaning revellete was correct, and you are wrong.c
Incidentally, you made the following untrue statement:
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,
As you waltz around this conversation trying to avoid the many pitfalls you've built for yourself, you still refuse to own up to the fact that you posted this, and it is wrong. You had your chance to come clean, but you squandered it.
Of course, revellette was right again when she said that all the gun defenders have a main strategy of trying to make distinctions without a difference and waste time denying the obvious. You are a perfect example of that. And here you go again, our schoolchildren are getting shot by deranged kids who got their hands on their parents' semiauto version of assault rifles, and all you can do is argue that a semiautomatic version of an AR-15, if outfitted with a bump stock so it fires as fast as a WWII, Korea and VietNam era machine gun, still doesn't qualify as an assault rifle.
Assault rifles manufactured in semiauto mode but convertible afterward to automatic rates of fire, (legally or illegally), should be banned. Too many dead schoolchildren already, too many dead schoolchildren to come if we don't get rid of these semiauto versions of assault weapons.
Another design for a rifle which would be a good candidate for upgrading to use as an assault rifle would be the ordinary little Ruger 10/22.
0 Replies
Glennn
0
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 08:57 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
The initial model year is unimportant, as the machine guns used in WWII, Korea and VietNam were NOT left over from 1919.
Correct. The important thing is the firing rate. So, the onus is on you to cite something to show that the firing rate changed over time. Got anything?
Quote:
but you can't get past this video illustrating real machine gun power and firing rate.
I don't recall me denying the fire power of the M1919 machine gun, and you don't either.
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
Yeah, I said that. And I said it because the issue being discussed was the Las Vegas shooting. Revelette made the point that the rifles Paddock used had bump-stocks attached to them which turned them into automatic weapons. But the fact is that they didn't. You are of the opinion that revelette had an M1919 machine gun when she was making firing rate comparisons. But we both know that that isn't true. We were talking about the AR-15s that Paddock used in Las Vegas. And when I showed her comparison to be wrong, you entered the picture to tell us all what weapon she really had in mind when she was making her firing rate comparison.
So, let's recap . . . again. I told revelette that a bump-stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle (this time, please note that I said "rifle"). I then asked her if she was aware of any instance in which someone turned a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle (again, pleas note that I said "rifle"). She replied that "the Las Vegas shooter was one of them." But the truth is that the bump-stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle.
Though you understood well that I was talking about rifles, you decided to bring up a machine gun from 90 years ago and to compare the firing rate of that to the firing rate of a semiautomatic rifle with a bump-stock. Your problem is that the M1919 machine gun is not a rifle, and even if it were, it is not what revelette had in mind. So what you did was move the goal post in order to make her incorrect statement concerning firing rates seem correct. Revelette has chosen to not come forward to defend your opinion of what she had in mind when she made her firing rate comparison. That should tell you something . . . but probably won't. It's nice that you tried to help out your friend and all, but you were being deceptive in the process. Not good.
Quote:
And here you go again, our schoolchildren are getting shot by deranged kids who got their hands on their parents' semiauto version of assault rifles, and all you can do is argue that a semiautomatic version of an AR-15, if outfitted with a bump stock so it fires as fast as a WWII, Korea and VietNam era machine gun, still doesn't qualify as an assault rifle.
Well, in case you didn't notice, you're kinda sitting here arguing, too. But I've already said that the parents who are responsible for their kids getting hold of their guns should per punished. I've also said that I am not opposed to safe storage laws, or of banning bump-stocks. I've also said that law enforcement personnel who are guilty of criminal negligence when it comes to responding to blatant threats to shoot up schools should be prosecuted. But you have an incessant need to create monsters, and so now you're somehow indirectly blaming me for the school shootings.
However, when you made the claim that there is no difference between an AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
Yeah, I said that. And I said it because the issue being discussed was the Las Vegas shooting.
And you were wrong. And you were given opportunities to apologize for being wrong, and you turned them all down in favor of posting paragraphs of prattle postulating that you were wrong but not really wrong, or you were wrong but it doesn't really matter, or that might you might have been sort of wrong but at the same time you were really right, blah, blah, blah.
And what you are left with is that the AR-15 the Las Vegas shooter used was a semiautomatic rifle fitted with a device which enables the rifle to shoot at the same rate as the machine guns of WWII, Korea and VietNam.
You desire to make the claim that nobody has ever modified a semiauto rifle up to automatic fire rate and performed mass murder with it, but the fact that the modification enabled the rifle to shoot as fast as those machine guns knocks out your claim. So for the last few pages you have tried to say that the gun still doesn't shoot as fast as an automatic AR-15 from the factory, which is true, but the fact that the Las Vegas shooter's gun with a bumpstock was still equipped to shoot as fast as a WWII and Korean War machine gun negates that.
But the overarching reason that these automatic assault weapons sold in semiauto mode need to be banned is that they have become the gun of choice for the deranged shooter who has convinced himself that the only way to end the pain is to go out and blast as many people as possible. And that image of the hero waving his assault rifle around they see in the movies is what they're copying. Sane people want to put as many steps as possible between the deranged shooter and his attempt to turn his violent fantasies into reality as possible, and that means getting rid of the assault rifles in the country, even those sold in semiauto mode.
Other advanced countries don't have assault rifles for sale to the public in automatic or semiautomatic mode. Surprise, other advanced countries don't have people walking into schools and other public places and blasting away anywhere near as much as we do. It is your intention to distract people from thinking about that.
Quote Glennn: Yeah, I said that. And I said it because the issue being discussed was the Las Vegas shooting.
Quote:
And you were wrong.
Um, no, I wasn't wrong. You're experiencing some cognitive dissonance or some such thing. The issue that was being discussed was the Las Vegas shooting. I'll walk you through this . . . again.
Revelette posted a video alegedly showing how easy it is to turn what looks like an AR-15 into an assault weapon. However, the video showed no such thing. And the rifle had no bump-stock attached to it. Therefore, it was an automatic AR-15, not a semiautomatic AR-15. Since she said that her video was supposed to show how the guy firing the weapon had turned an aleged semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault weapon--but which didn't--I asked her to tell me what I was missing. She realized her mistake and did not respond to my request except to accuse me of attempting to bait her. But that didn't stop her. She then said that if a regular rifle can be made into an assault weapon, then clearly those parts which make up the parts that make an assault weapon out of a rifle should be discontinued and banned.
Now, since her video did not show a gun with a bump-stock, that leaves only one alternative, which is that she believed that her video showed how to do something to the gun to make it fire in a manner consistent with automatic fire. So I asked her how many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle she was aware of? She said that the Las Vegas shooter was one instance. Now I want you to look at the highlighted portion of my question to her. I asked her how many instances she is aware of in which someone turned a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle. So she mentioned a case--the only case--of someone using a bump-stock. So I posted a video showing the difference in firing rate between a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an actual automatic AR-15 to show her that the Las Vegas shooter did not turn his AR-15 into an automatic rifle.
And that's when you jumped in and said that she was technically right since the rate of fire from a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock was equal to a machine gun from 1919. For some reason, you quibbled about the date as if that had any bearing on the issue. So I asked you to cite something that would show that the rate of fire of that machine gun had changed in all those years. You failed to provide anything to that effect. Instead, you accused me of not believing in the fire power of that machine gun, which was a lie.
You could have conceded the point that revelette's comparison of firing rates was faulty. But instead, you dug around on the internet to find an example that would spare revelette's feelings, I guess; some kind of knight-in-shining-armor moment for you. And you found a machine gun manufactured a few years short of a century ago. When I criticized your offering, you said that it's not the same gun as was manufactured all those years ago. But then you failed to respond to my request for you to show something to indicate that the firing rate of that particular machine gun has changed in all those years, which was telling, wouldn't you agree?
Gun zealots violate thousands of people's civil rights for fun by killing them every year.
Thousands? Last time I checked, it was our urban area's who have the highest rates of gun crime and murder. Do you really think so gang banger is a gun rights activist? I'm pretty sure not a single one of those people follow any of our gun laws. On the contrary, I would like you to point out how many mass murders are committed by NRA members?
Quote:
That sure as **** doesn't save lives.
What proposed gun laws would stop the majority of the gun crimes in the US, murders average at about 11,000 per year. The guns you want banned are not the guns responsible for the thousands of murders each year. Where do most of the murders in the US take place? Major cities, they are mostly gang/drug related. How many people die each year from drug overdose? Many thousands more than die from guns.
Quote:
Vote anti-NRA in November. If they take the NRA's blood money, vote em out.
Remove the pro-2nd Amendment politicians, and there will be no more 2nd Amendment. We won't let that happen, I plan on voting for the most pro-gun politicians I can this Nov, you anti-gun wackos scare me.
Once again, how many murders are committed by NRA members? Left leaning gang members and don't forget the lefts new favorites, MS-13!
0 Replies
Baldimo
-2
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 05:18 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Probably a much lower percentage than the gun zealots who murder, due to the obvious fact that most knives are sold to cut food and open boxes and everyone in the world has a fist.
How many murders are committed by NRA members, those are the gun zealots you refer to.
Quote:
To obtain a gun, however, you have to go out and buy an instrument built specifically to shoot something.
A knife is used to cut and stab things, they only have that purpose. What someone does with it, that is the difference. Guns are purchased for different reasons, self-defense, target shooting, hunting. Not many people purchase a legal gun just to use it for a murder, that is your anti-gun bias posing as logic.
Your false logic is proven false by the # of guns in the us, 250-350 million and the fact that about 11,000 people are murdered per year. Stats don't back your claim.
Quote:
It's not like you just happen to have a gun around the house because you like carpentry and just use it to make dowel holes.
The majority of the murders in the US take place in major cities and are committed by gang members, not legal gun owners.
Quote:
Now think hard. Do you understand where I'm coming from now?
I've thought about it and I think you have a clear bias against gun owners.
I believe that gun murderers as a group have a higher interest in guns than knife murderers as a group have in knives
Which group is that, the NRA, competitive shooters, hunters, target shooters? 500,000 to 2.5 million uses of guns for self-defense prove your lie and bias.
Quote:
owing to the fact that knives have many varied everyday uses and guns don't.
Which knives would those be, the ones used to cut and stab things? The UK I think is currently having a major crisis with knife crimes. Don't get caught in public with a knife for any reason, the major says you don't need one.
0 Replies
Baldimo
-1
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 05:25 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Guns were invented to be lethal, not so knives, baseball bats or tire irons.
The only things I plan on shooting with my guns are either game animals, or people who should not be in my house and plan harm against my loved ones. You always discount the self-defense motive, more of those per year than murders or suicides combined.
0 Replies
Baldimo
-1
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 05:30 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
The Las Vegas shooter was one of them.
This Is How The Las Vegas Shooter Turned His Assault Rifles Into Automatic Weapons
He used a bumper stock to turn a legal semi-automatic riffle into a automatic assault weapon. It was done legally. It should not be done legally.
A legal item that was approved for sale by Obama's ATF...
You have one shooter that has done this, I personally think the Bump-stock is a stupid invention and I would never buy one, it's a waste of expensive ammo and you can't hit what you are shooting at, they really don't serve a purpose other than to blow off a lot of ammo for people who can afford such things.
Quote:
I know a bait when I see one. The one you refer was the first one I came across in seconds, didn't even check it out. The were plenty more where that come and more other people can easily find.
Ban the bump-stock, the NRA has no problem. Don't ban the semi-auto rifle.
0 Replies
Glennn
0
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 05:32 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Your false logic is proven false by the # of guns in the us, 250-350 million and the fact that about 11,000 people are murdered per year.
Yeah, according his logic, he would have to admit that a couple hundred million people are misusing their guns every year because they're not killing people with them.
0 Replies
Baldimo
-1
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 05:46 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Personally? I would like to see handguns banned for all but those who have a special need for them, like they are delivering large amounts of money for their job.
They are the most common gun used for self-defense. I feel bad for the average woman who can no longer carry her hand gun for protection against criminals. Some feminist you are.
Quote:
I would like to see weapons that resemble assault rifles be banned, even though they are sold only in semiautomatic mode, not automatic mode.
They look scary, are used the minority of gun crimes but get rid of them...
Quote:
I would leave the other rifles and shotguns.
Lever action, pump action, bolt action and single shot rifles and shotguns are ok? Even though the rounds used in those guns are many times more deadly than the bullet used by the AR platform? So get rid of the less deadly guns and leave the more deadly guns in place? Not sure where that logic comes from other than not knowing anything about guns or how they work.
Quote:
yes, I know the latest school shooting was by shotgun but he was mimicking actions taken using semiauto assault style weapons)
What actions are you talking about, illegally shooting his fellow classmates? It's easy to dismiss the tools when they don't fit your gun banning narrative the actions of the shooter are more important than what he used, that's what you anti-gun zealots don't understand.
Quote:
alone for hunting and personal protection.
You don't care about personal protection, if you did, you wouldn't eliminate the best tool for the job. Most women are not comfortable with shotguns, they can have a large kick and the pump action can be hard to handle at times if they don't have the upper body strength. Handguns are easy for women to shoot. A .380 auto doesn't kick a lot and the rounds, hollow points, have enough stopping power without putting a lot of strain on the shooter.
Baloney. The Browning M1919 in use during WWII and Korea, fired between 6.6 and 10 rounds per second, right in the same fire rate as the Las Vegas shooter with his bump stock.
Ban the bump stock...
Quote:
The Browning M1919 weighed 31lbs and required at least two men, (usually four), to properly operate it. So the Las Vegas shooter had a firearm capable of firing as fast as the two man machine guns of WWII and Korea.
The only reason for that many people to operate was because of how big the gun was and how large the bullets were, it was a crew served weapon, it fired 30 cal bullets and was a belt fed machine gun. Those are already illegal, you don't like scary looking guns. You don't understand the first thing about their operation or ballistics.
How many other mass shootings have taken place with these types of modifications, which are illegal to make?
