Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Blickers,

Quote:

No, I said the rate of fire from a semiauto AR-15/bumpstock combo was equal to a machine gun used in WWII and Korea. And it was.

Once again you're speaking for revelette. When asked if she was aware of any instance in which someone turned a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle, she said that the Las Vegas shooting was one such incident. So I showed her a video that clearly demonstrated the difference between the rate of fire of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15.

Now, if she had had a machine gun from 1919 in mind when she made her comparison, she would have said so at that point. But she didn't. She responded by claiming that someone manipulated the video. So her response clearly shows that she understood that the firing rate comparison being discussed was between a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15. But you insist that you know for a fact that she was thinking about a machine gun from 1919. You understand how crazy that sounds, right? You didn't know what she meant.

Quote:

You were the one who was crying a river post after post about how dare I use a machine gun from 70 years ago.

Telling you how silly you were to assume that revelette had a machine gun from 1919 on her mind when comparing rates of fire is not inaccurate. Showing you your error does not equal "crying a river."

Quote:

. The M1919 was a gin-yoo-wine machine gun from the first year of manufacture, it didn't need to upgrade its rate of fire to qualify. So there was no point in doing that, and I didn't. Nor will I now.

Well, after claiming that the M-1919 machine gun was what revelette had on her mind when she was comparing firing rates, you seemed to take exception to my pointing out that that gun was from 90 years ago. You then cried a river--I'm sorry--said that you weren't talking about the ones manufactured way back then. I told you it doesn't matter unless you can cite something that shows that ones manufactured more recently have a different firing rate than the old ones. You see?

Quote:

You were insinuating that the M1919, due to its age, did not qualify as an automatic firing weapon.

Wrong. I was telling you what I've been telling you all along. A bump-stock does not turn a semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic AR-15. Actually, I told revelette, and she understood. But you tried to redeem her inaccurate statement by telling me that what she really meant was that a bump-stock turns a semiautomatic AR-15 into a 1919 machine gun. But she never once mentioned such a gun. In fact, when I showed her a video of the difference in firing rates between an AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15, she didn't say, "No, Glennn, I wasn't talking about an automatic AR-15, I was talking about a machine gun from 1919. So . . .

Quote:

Bad news Glenn. Turns out the AR-15/bumpstock combo is actually faster than 7.5 rounds per second.

Uh, yeah. I don't know how to break this to you, but the argument was never about how a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock compares to a 1919 machine gun when it comes to firing rate. It was about revelette's incorrect answer to my question of how many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle that she was aware of. She said that the Las Vegas shooter was one such instance, which happened to be wrong. And that's when you decided that her statement would be ture IF she meant to use the M-1919 machine gun for comparison. But that's not what she meant. Hell, the M-1919 machine gun is not even a rifle, so what made you think that she had a machine gun in mind?

But anyway, sure, ban the bump-stock. But since you've already expressed your mindless condemnation of the AR-15 based on its scary look, I somehow doubt that you are ever going to see things in an objective way.

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

Um, of all the school shootings since at least 1984, only 3 or 4 involved an AR-15. You, sir, are a man obsessed with a scary looking gun.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote Glenn:

Quote:

When asked if she [revellette] was aware of any instance in which someone turned a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle, she said that the Las Vegas shooting was one such incident.

That's NOT true. Of the Las Vegas shooter, Revellette said:

Quote:

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.

She said automatic assault weapon. Is an M1919 an automatic weapon? Yes. Does the AR-15 fitted with a bumpstock shoot as fast as an M1919? Yes. So, you have no point. Please stop prevaricating about what other posters say, you only end up looking terrible at the end. Like now.

Quote Glenn:

Quote:

So I showed her a video that clearly demonstrated the difference between the rate of fire of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15.

Which was irrelevant, since revellette never said that a bump stock turns a semiauto AR-15 into the exact equivalent to the automatic AR-15s coming from the factory. She said the bump stock turns the semiauto AR-15 into an automatic assault weapon, and indeed the AR-15/bumpstock combo does fire as fast as an automatic weapon. And since the semiauto AR-15 is an assault weapon already except for it's slow firing rate, and the bump stock brings the firing rate up to the range of automatic weapons, the AR-15/bumpstock combo is the equivalent of an automatic assault weapon.

Yet, repeatedly you make the following the untrue claim:

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,

Once again, neither Revellette, I or anyone else in the thread ever said that. When do you recognize reality?

You are a perfect example of what revellette said gun advocates do: make distinctions of little or no substance and spend pages discussing those meaningless distinctions.

Quote Glenn:

Quote:

[I'm] Telling you how silly you were to assume that revelette had a machine gun from 1919 on her mind when comparing rates of fire is not inaccurate.

I assumed nothing. When revellette accurately posted that the bumpstock turned the semiauto AR-15 into an automatic assault weapon, I figured she meant the bumpstock raised the firing rate of the semiauto AR-15 into the firing speed range of automatic weapons. Not necessarily the from-the-factory automatic AR-15.

Instead, it is you who imagined she said that, and you continually post it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I'm afraid I have more bad news Glennn. I did a little checking and found out the AR-15/bumpstock is not only as fast firing as the M1919, it's actually faster than the AK-47.

The AK-47 is one of the two most used assault weapons in the world, but the AR-15/bumpstock combo beats it. This fellow goes through 100 rounds with a Romanian AK-47. Check the video for his start and stop times.

The 100 rounds commenced at the 50 second mark, and was over at the 1 minute 18 second mark. That's 28 seconds. That works out to firing rate for the AK-47 of 3.6 rounds per second. Not even close to the AR-15/bumpstock combo's 9.3 rounds per second. Proof positive that the bumpstock turns a semiauto AR-15 into the equivalent of an automatic assault weapon.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Since bump stocks will be outlawed as soon as Trump's executive order is finalized, what does it matter?

Is anyone else interested in seeing how the Florida popcorn shooting case turns out?

The shooter will probably be given a new "stand your ground" hearing using the new guidelines I presume.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

I'm afraid I have more bad news Glennn. I did a little checking and found out the AR-15/bumpstock is not only as fast firing as the M1919, it's actually faster than the AK-47.

Glennn said: How many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle are you aware of?

Revelette said: The Las Vegas shooter was one of them.
_________________________________________________________________

What you're really trying to say is that revelette didn't intend to mean that the bump-stock on the semiautomatic AR-15 in the video she posted turned it into an automatic AR-15. But you are wrong.

You need to come to terms with the fact that when I showed her a video-- https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+of+automatic+weapon+firing&view=detail&mid=95CC08F4A9E9909CBA7F95CC08F4A9E9909CBA7F&FORM=VIRE --so that she could see the difference between the firing rate of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and the firing rate of an automatic AR-15, she did not say that what she meant was that an AR-15 semiautomatic with a bump-stock is equivalent to an automatic A K-47. And the reason she didn't say that is because that's not what she meant. But you, being somewhat of a control freak here, assumed the right to decide that someone else didn't really mean what they said.

Why do you think she said that the video I showed her had been manipulated? She said that because she knew we were talking about the difference in the firing rate of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and the firing rate of an automatic AR-15. And she said that the video was probably manipulated because she was looking for way to explain why it proved her wrong about the bump-stock turning a semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic AR-15. If you're not getting this yet, you need to ask yourself why.

Now, if she had intended to mean that she was comparing the firing rate of a semiautomatic AR-15 with something besides an automatic AR-15, she would have said, "Glennn, the video you posted which shows the difference in the firing rates of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15 is meaningless because I'm comparing the firing rate of an AR-15 with a bump-stock to an AK-47." She would have also provided a video showing the similarity between the firing rate of an semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AK-47. Your problem is that you're filtering everything you read through a screen. And that screen filters out anything that goes against what you need to be true in order to save face here.

Also, revelette posted a video-- http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/10/robert-farago/how-to-turn-a-modern-sporting-rifle-into-an-assault-rifle/ -- purportedly showing how easy it is to turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle. In fact, her exact words were: "My point with the video was to say there is information out there for people to learn how to turn a semi assault rifle into an assault rifle." In that video, the AR-15 is firing at a rate consistent with an automatic AR-15. That tells you that revelette was saying that the alteration done to that rifle made it fire at the same rate as an automatic AR-15. And she couldn't have been talking about a bump-stock because the stock is not even being held next to the man's shoulder in the video. So she was obviously referring to some other method by which that AR-15 had been altered. And here is where you must resist the temptation to assume authority over revelette's thought processes and attempt to tell us all what she really meant. She said what she meant, and she meant what she said, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

I'm actually starting to feel bad for you concerning all the checking up on things you're doing because you seem genuinely incapable of understanding that the argument was never about how a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock compares to a 1919 machine gun or even an AK-47 when it comes to firing rate. It was about revelette's incorrect answer to my question of how many instances she is aware of in which someone turned a regular semiautomatic assault rifle into an automatic assault rifle. I don't recall her saying that her video shows how easy it is to turn an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle into an automatic AK-47, do you? No, you don't.

Your thoughts?

1 Reply

Quote:

The culture that formed the young men who have killed so many in mass shootings—or who kill themselves with drugs, alcohol, and guns to the head—cannot be blamed on the usual suspects, the “bigots” of flyover country and the “religious right.” On the contrary, it is institutions such as Harvard, Google, and the Ford Foundation that determine the mainstream. Their priorities set the tone, with the buzzwords of “multiculturalism,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” and other omnibus terms for a post-traditional way of life. With their vast wealth and prestige, our elites sponsor attacks on the usual bugbears: heteronormativity, patriarchy, logocentrism, and racism. Today’s culture is the result of a more than fifty-year effort of deregulation, rejection of traditional norms, and denigration of commonplace pieties.

Guns are just a symptom. The real problem is identified in this article.

Quote:

The percentage of gun-owning households is the same today as it was fifty years ago, which means that the availability of guns does not explain the upsurge in mass shootings.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/05/the-smell-of-death

0 Replies

Quote:

Today’s culture is the result of a more than fifty-year effort of deregulation, rejection of traditional norms, and denigration of commonplace pieties.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/05/the-smell-of-death

0 Replies

@Glennn,

On May 27 at 11:24am Eastern time, Glenn wrote:

Quote:

@revelette1,
How many instances of someone turning a regular semiautomatic rifle into an automatic assault rifle are you aware of?

On May 27, fifteen minutes later, Revellette wrote:

Quote:

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. It was done legally. It should not be done legally.

On May 27, twenty-five minutes after Revellette's post Glennn posted:

Quote:

An automatic rife fires about 15 rounds per second. A semiautomatic rife with a bump stock fires about 7.5 rounds per second. So, no, the Las Vegas shooter did not turn his rifles into automatic weapons.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+of+automatic+weapon+firing&view=detail&mid=95CC08F4A9E9909CBA7F95CC08F4A9E9909CBA7F&FORM=VIRE

On Saturday, June 2-six days after revellette's post, Glennn posted:

Quote:

You need to come to terms with the fact that when I showed her a video--
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+of+automatic+weapon+firing&view=detail&mid=95CC08F4A9E9909CBA7F95CC08F4A9E9909CBA7F&FORM=VIRE --
so that she could see the difference between the firing rate of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and the firing rate of an automatic AR-15, she did not say that what she meant was that an AR-15 semiautomatic with a bump-stock is equivalent to an automatic A K-47. And the reason she didn't say that is because that's not what she meant.

So after all this runaround you still can't deny that what revellete said six days ago was accurate-that a bump stock turns a legal semi-automatic rifle into an automatic assault weapon. Because that is exactly what she said. But you try to claim that she meant this only applies to AR-15 semiautomatics and AR-15 from-the-factory automatics, which she DIDN'T say. And you further assert that you can say this not because of something she posted later, but because of something she DIDN'T post later.

At this point the best thing that can be advised is for you to stay right where you are, the men in the white coats should be arriving to pick you up shortly. And for God's sake, please don't go near any guns, single-shot, semi-automatic or automatic. The life you save might be your own.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

And you further assert that you can say this not because of something she posted later, but because of something she DIDN'T post later.

Revelette did said: "My point with the video was to say there is information out there for people to learn how to turn a semi assault rifle into an assault rifle."

She didn't say that there was a product out there for people to buy and attach that would turn their semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic AR-15 as seen in her video. She said there was information out there for people to learn to turn it into an automatic rifle. That should tell you that she was not talking about a bump-stock. Plus, the rifle in the video is firing faster than if the guy was using a bump-stock. So she was obviously referring to some other method by which that AR-15 had been altered to make it fire at the rate of an automatic AR-15 . . . like the one in her video. If you would rather not believe that the semiautomatic AR-15 in her video was firing at a rate consistent with an automatic AR-15, and not one that was only fitted with a bump-stock, then I suggest that you watch it at 25% speed. But if you'd rather not know, then don't do that.

So, to recap. You believe that she meant that the alteration done to the AR-15 in her video that turned it into an automatic AR-15 was the attachment of a bump-stock. And you believe this despite the fact that the AR-15 was firing at a rate consistent with an automatic AR-15, and not at the rate of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock attached. And though she said that there is information out there for people to learn, you insist that she meant that there is something out there for people to buy and attach to their AR-15. The thing for you to focus on here is that if that AR-15 simply had a bump-stock attached to it (which it didn't), it would not have fired as fast as an automatic AR-15. But the fact is that it did. And the stock of the rifle in her video was not even being held against the shooter's shoulder. Being a control freak doesn't really give you any control over videos. I mean, how could it?

Quote:

So after all this runaround you still can't deny that what revellete said six days ago was accurate-that a bump stock turns a legal semi-automatic rifle into an automatic assault weapon.

No, if she had intended to mean that she was comparing the firing rate of a semiautomatic AR-15 with something besides an automatic AR-15, she would have said, "Glennn, the video you posted which shows the difference in the firing rates of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AR-15 is meaningless because I'm comparing the firing rate of an AR-15 with a bump-stock to an AK-47." She would have also provided a video showing the similarity between the firing rate of an semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock and an automatic AK-47.

Haven't you ever wondered why revelette hasn't come to your rescue by stating that she was indeed comparing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock to a 1919 machine gun or an AK-47? Think about that.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

So after all this runaround you still can't deny that what revellete said six days ago was accurate-that a bump stock turns a legal semi-automatic rifle into an automatic assault weapon.

Sorry, but if she had meant that a bump-stock turned a semiautomatic AR-15 into something other than an automatic AR-15, she would have said so after I showed her a video comparing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic AR-15. But she didn't. All she said was that the video was probably manipulated, meaning she understood what comparison was being made. I know you understand this, but the control freak side of you won't let you acknowledge it.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote Glennn:

Quote:

She [Revellette] didn't say that there was a product out there for people to buy and attach that would turn their semiautomatic AR-15 into an automatic AR-15 as seen in her video. She said there was information out there for people to learn to turn it into an automatic rifle. That should tell you that she was not talking about a bump-stock.

Alas, your mental deterioration continues at an accelerating rate. For over a week and several pages we have been discussing a quote Revellette made before she posted the message about information, which is this.
Quote Revellette:

Quote:

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. It was done legally. It should not be done legally.

Revellette also made the following quote before the quote you referred to:

Quote:

Of course it is, if a regular riffle can be made into an assault weapon, then clearly those parts which make up the parts that make an assault weapon out of a riffle should be discontinued and banned.

Of course, those parts she referred to are the bumpstock.

To briefly sum up, Revellette made the true statement that a bumpstock can be used to make a semiauto rifle into an assault weapon. She also correctly stated that information existed on the web how to attach those parts. And after discussing these very same quotes for over a week, you somehow arrive at the conclusion that Revellette never said products exist for turning semiauto rifles into assault weapons.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote Glennn:

Quote:

Sorry, but if she [Revellette} had meant that a bump-stock turned a semiautomatic AR-15 into something other than an automatic AR-15, she would have said so after I showed her a video comparing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic AR-15. But she didn't.

As it was, you had made several outrageous statements that called out for response at the time, and she didn't quite get around to answering that outrageous statement of yours. The question is, why is it relevant?

Are you under the impression that if poster A makes a true statement, and then poster B wrongly asserts that poster B's statement is false and is not answered by poster A, then poster A's true statement now becomes rendered wrong?

Allow me to illustrate. Suppose revellette correctly posted that light travels faster than sound. In the next post, you say that that Revellette is incorrect, sound travels faster than light. Revellette does not respond to you on the sound and light issue. Does that mean that Revellette's post is incorrect and we are to regard sound as travelling faster than light from now on?

Your thoughts?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

How much longer???? I don't know. All I know is my fellow citizens want to argue about the bullshit stats over lethal weapons, get entirely spun-up over who knows (obviously no one who ever served in the military or actually had to use a weapon in combat) the most about weapons manufactured between 1776 and 2018. That's so freaking helpful.

So lets all shove our heads up our butts because it's haaaaarrrrd to solve a difficulty. There isn't anyone in this entire country who can offer a plan that doesn't violate the second amendment and protects adults and children from being slaughtered by an asshole who has access to his asshole lazy parents guns, or is mentally ill or a monstrous abuser who can get their sick hands on one of Jesus's Peace Makers.

I guess this next sentence will inform folks of something they never heard of before.......Here goes nothing: This country sent a man to the moon and brought him back......Apparently we shot our wad in 1969 and we can no longer find our asses using both hands.....

It's incredibly sad we can't figure out a way to protect our children. But what the hell, other people will give birth to more children, the country will be ok. Ya win some and you lose some.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Actually, we can ban AR-15s and other semiauto versions of assault weapons tomorrow if had the political will. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't block it, because while the 2nd Amendment days that people should be allowed to have weapons, it says nothing about people being allowed to ANY weapon. That's why bans against people owning machine guns, bazookas and Surface-To-Air Missiles haven't been shot down by the Supreme Court.

We really don't have to worry about the Constitution. It is the political will we lack.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

You're right, if we had the will and some adult temperament we could fix a lot of things. But too many people are invested in a bullshit ego-fest that makes them believe they need to divide the country, I worry that we will not be able to unite when the need arises. Jesus Christ, we've had volunteer military forces fighting in the middle east for 17 years......I hope we can do a little bit better than 'Thank you for your service'. I don't believe we need to alter the 2nd amendment, but it still needs to discussed (discussed, not scrapped). I worry more about the 1st amendment. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble and for a governmental redress of grievances.

However, it appears very few of our citizens are curious or inquisitive. I fear if they don't get off their lazy butts, some outside government will be making decisions for them.

All that yakking about the Constitution????? It's a remarkable document that far too few ever read or understand.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

So after all this runaround you still can't deny that what revellete said six days ago was accurate-that a bump stock turns a legal semi-automatic rifle into an automatic assault weapon.

I can deny it.

Adding a bump stock does not change a gun into an automatic weapon.

The bump stock may allow the gun to fire at a rate similar to an automatic weapon, but it does not become an automatic weapon.

Adding a bump stock also does not turn a gun into an assault weapon (which is a term relating to cosmetic features).

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

To briefly sum up, Revellette made the true statement that a bumpstock can be used to make a semiauto rifle into an assault weapon.

Not a true statement. "Assault weapon" is a term for harmless cosmetic features that have nothing to do with bump stocks.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Actually, we can ban AR-15s and other semiauto versions of assault weapons tomorrow if had the political will. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't block it, because while the 2nd Amendment days that people should be allowed to have weapons, it says nothing about people being allowed to ANY weapon.

That is incorrect. You are only allowed to restrict a right if there is a good reason to justify that restriction.

There is no justification for banning AR-15s or other semi-auto weapons. Such bans are designed only to violate people's rights for fun.

Blickers wrote:

That's why bans against people owning machine guns, bazookas and Surface-To-Air Missiles haven't been shot down by the Supreme Court.

People can provide good reasons to justify restrictions on those weapons.

No such reason can be provided to justify banning the AR-15.

Blickers wrote:

We really don't have to worry about the Constitution. It is the political will we lack.

Since what you propose is an outright violation of the Constitution, you do sort of have to worry about it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I heard a strange kind of strangled wimpy noise, Did you hear it? I wonder if I need to go get the WD-40 from the garage.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I heard a strange kind of strangled wimpy noise, Did you hear it? I wonder if I need to go get the WD-40 from the garage.

Your disdain for our Constitution and civil rights is shameful.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know