"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Cars drive and kill. True. And all the regulations he mentioned didn't stop one crazy guy hopping in a truck and saying "fuck you" and mowing down a hundred people. This is an important point because he's talking about firearm regulation in the context of mass shootings, and that firearm regulation will lessen or prevent these mass shootings - which he then compares to mass murder by vehicle, and vehicle regulation - regulation which clearly failed to stop any sort of purposeful mass murder by vehicle. Vehicle regulation is to lessen the impact of accidents and provide the government with a revenue stream through taxes. If vehicle regulation was to stop mass murder by vehicle, and you were to use Australia's firearm laws as a blueprint, you wouldn't be driving to work tomorrow.

The scary thing is, cars have killed more people by accident over the last 50 years in the USA than firearms have on purpose. That's how truly dangerous they are. If people woke up and realised they are a fantastic killing machine, then you'd start to see an increase in the incidence of mass vehicle killings... oh wait.

The reality is, from a public health discourse, there are plenty of things that kill at higher rates than firearms. The difference is that firearms are sometimes used to murder people and as far as we know most medical malpractice, car crashes, etc. are accidental. They are emotively tackled very differently.

PS: I'm not arguing against some firearm regulations being introduced in America. I'd use a modified version of New Zealand legislation (which allows for semi-auto long arms, high capacity magazines, etc.). I'd add self defense as a reason to own, and add concealed carry permits for those willing to do a course (with the catch that they would become a form of quasi-deputy of the state - so there would be hurdles to jump to get this permit).

Just about any competition shooter can keep up 0.3 splits for 10 minutes. Go to a three-gun competition near you and ask someone to show you.

Aiming is relative to what you want to achieve. From "spray and pray" to taking many minutes per shot in Palma and F-class. You might take 10-12 shots per minute with a semi-auto at this distance. Others will aim and shoot at 5 to 10 times that rate.

"Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic."

No. That's not how it works. I don't have to prove anything to you (as much as you have to prove anything to me). How about this though - first go read "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, which covers this topic, then go search on Youtube for the many videos (I checked just now and there are plenty) showing how full auto hits much less, (and the shots where you do hit are mainly sub-optimal) compared to aimed fast shots in semi-auto, then go join a gun club and try some competitive shooting. I'd be surprised if at the end of that you still imagine full-auto is what you think it is.

Also fun to watch are videos of guys like Jerry Miculek who can fire in semi-auto at insane rates of fire.

Now, lets be clear, I'm not saying full-auto doesn't have its uses, because it does. I'm taking umbrage with your claim that you have more control in full-auto (you do not) and that you get more hits on target with full auto across a series of targets (you do not).

I shoot regularly (often multiple times per week). My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute.

An AR-15 on full auto fires at approximately 600 rounds per minute - twice what I can do on semi-auto. Using a competitive shooter as an example, and taking into account magazine changes (which with training are done much quicker than any of the operators in AR-15 to failure tests I've seen), and assuming lazy splits of 0.30 seconds, a competitive shooter can probably fire at a faster rate per minute than a novice can on full auto (i.e. well more than the approximately 150 rounds per minute a novice shooter achieves when taking into account magazine changes).

The thing is, it is well known in military and firearm enthusiast circles that the massive reduction in accuracy when shooting on full auto does not give the perceived payoff. You have much less control when firing a fully automatic firearm. You hit your target less often. Semi auto plus aiming = hits on target. At the range he was shooting (300 to 350 meters), the same lunatic deciding to aim his firearm would have resulted in less wounding and more fatalities.

Any ex-military here? Chime in.

An AR-15 on continual full auto fire (using 30 round or greater magazines) fails at approximately 840 rounds. It takes about 6 minutes to get to failure. With magazine changes it is an effective firing rate of approximately 140 rounds per minute.

He could have achieved his psychotic feat with 2 firearms, swapping firearm after each magazine change.

Lol, I clearly told you that I'd be away for about a month and I'd reply to your forthcoming reply post (it was obviously forthcoming at the time).

"Anger issues". Lol, good try turning it around there. I'm not the one who jumped into this thread foaming at the mouth. As above - I clearly wrote I'd be back about now.

"upset". Lol! You do know what "lol" means, right? I'm sure you can see it all over my posts. That's what I'm doing. I'm laughing at you.

I'm talking to the only person that matters in this conversation. You.

"So, I'm just going to wish you the best and move on."

Like I wrote, "Yeah, good luck with that." The reason I wrote that is because you're too predictable.

"Once again (non-sarcastically) best of luck to you."

And once again, I'm calling bullshit on that.

BTW - I may be gone for a while again. I'll be back though. Don't spaz out on me again when I come back.

That's true. And only a racist would celebrate racists, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

Time for Americans to do some real introspection. Slavery isn't acceptable because the founding fathers did it. Considering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they penned, it seems all the worse that they could recognise the evil slavery was yet still profit from it (and they're not suddenly good people because they released some of their slaves, or released them after they died).

I think making sure history is well recorded and taught correctly is more important than tearing down a statue. If a statue or monument is left up then it needs to clearly state the history of the subject and how they were on the "wrong side of history".

I think it is possible to recognise the good and bad that an individual has done.

Right, I'm back.

Was that it? Was that the best you have? Jesus, I was hoping for something a little better than that. I had high hopes for you indeed.

Care to point out those baseless assumptions?

"I understand challenges to your beliefs can be disorienting"

Fucking lol. Baseless assumptions much? You'd have to know my beliefs (and clear as day you don't) to even start to be a challenge to it. I even gave hints about my beliefs.

Don't be surprised when you blindly attack and make incorrect assumptions about someone that it comes right back at you. Also, keep in mind I love arguing. If that isn't obvious then I don't know what is. I could do this all day.

I don't think you're being sarcastic. I think you're trying to exude some sense of superior reasoning because you abandoned your religion. I think you're projecting your own insecurities onto other people to try to prop up your ego. I think you're angry at religion and are looking for religious people to dump your bile on (and it doesn't matter if they aren't religious - as long as you get to attempt to attack them it's all good to you) and that is pretty shitty of you.

"I'm just going to wish you the best and move on."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Lol, anyway - did you get my point yet? The one about Tradition and Sola Scriptura? It was an important point. I even gave an example of it... I'm waiting with bated breath.

Incoherent to you maybe. Rambling no (my comments should roughly match up line for line as replies to your text - I didn't use quotes). Struck a nerve? No. But it looks like you've got a lot to say for someone who doesn't care for religion.

Almost nobody can remember all they read. This is not a unique claim. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with more than one major denomination - so don't speak on behalf of the others. You're pretty hung up on me needing to have remembered this thing in particular? Sorry but I didn't know this - that's why I asked (ffs). In this regard you're weak at being compassionate. I'm sorry, what is it you think I'm defending? My words? They don't need defence mate. They stand on their own.

I'd have to have some bullshit to quit it. I didn't try to shut down @newtboy (pointing out a truth of his own admission is not shutting him down - got that Mr. Reason?) and I certainly haven't been shut down myself (surprise motherfucker - I'm right here). That you can't understand the fairly straight forward last post shows a lot about you.

"To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:"

You missed several questions. Four in fact. I expected as much.

"The back bone of my religion" You're at it again. The retard is strong in you.

I'm not explaining away God's omnipotence. I'm making a fairly straight argument that he's not omnipotent (as in all powerful). I've used the straight forward translation of the word (the simplest argument is that omnipotent also means greatly (not all)) powerful and the refutation of your defence that he is in fact all powerful. This isn't some apologist thing, or defence of some fucked up part of the bible. I'm taking what you believe is a fundamental part of Christianity and attempting to take it down a notch. Hey, why do you think that is? (come on, say the opposite of the obvious, do it, show me how retarded you can be)

It's only a house of cards if you're not willing to give it even the slightest credence (which with your rabid atheism is unfortunately self-admittedly true). That's a great pity. Thousands of years of human culture dismissed in an instant because you're too headstrong (or butt-hurt) to give it a second thought. So much for reason.

Maybe you're not familiar with the 20th century and the clusterfuck of death that surrounded governmental experimentation (of which rejection of religion was a fundamental tenet). Look, I'm happy for you to attempt a no government society where your reason and compassion will lead everyone into quiet nirvana. But you'll be one of the first to be taken advantage of by some cold ruthless cunt who doesn't possess those abilities.

No, I seriously doubt you wish me the best. Your tirade against me demonstrates that. Hopefully you'll realise soon that you're not an Übermensch. And almost everything you now know is wrong (I sincerely hope you know that - it's a fundamental scientific tenet that we are always getting closer to the truth - wiping away the untruths we know - and yes there is research on this).

I do thank you for at least attempting to overcome your own obvious cognitive dissonance in sincerely wishing me peace at the end. It reminds me so much of people who claim to have a religion of peace after their brothers blow some people up. Lol.

Next up. SDGundamX with what he's sure will this time be the final blow as all bow before him with his unassailable reason and compassion that nobody else can possibly challenge.

Bye for a while. I've literally got work now and won't be back for about 28 days. I will be back though. Talk then.

LOL. Dumbest assumption of the month. No seriously.

I'm not "telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay" - I'm pointing out what he has already admitted (hopefully you can see the difference). If I've read the bible and don't remember 100% of it (fucking please - I was clear that my knowledge wasn't eidetic) and you compare it to someone who hasn't read it at all - then that is a false equivalence. If you're going to try and call out some form of hypocrisy, you should probably get your argument right.

Pick any book you've read and I'll find something you don't know in it. I won't suddenly argue that "you don't know what it actually says", because that is not true. You would have limited knowledge, like every human, on every topic that has ever been.

Has your self-confessed atheism brought you peace? Are you an angry atheist? Are you vegan? Lol. I'm guessing that you googled every verse you quoted. So how much of the knowledge is yours?

As above - the bible read by itself without the context of Tradition becomes untenable. And literal interpretations are often incorrect.

No, I didn't argue that those verses you quoted don't say something along the lines of him being all powerful - they clearly do. I don't have issue with that. They say what they say.

I'm making my own analysis and argument of your examples (not referring to the verses), and the verses (separate from your examples). Do you have a problem with that? Are you calling the Bible fact? Or are you saying that the definitive interpretation of those passages is what you say it is and that is the "fact"? Or that those passages say what they say (and this is the fact) regardless of whether they are true or not? Not that you're unclear or anything.

I see you agree with my statements. Yet you go and make all these assumptions. Go figure.

Hey I'm sure whatever system you come up with will be heaps better than anything that's gone before. I hear all the 20th century attempts worked out really well.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Why would I want to re-read the BIBLE (I capitalised it because really, it makes no difference)? I wrote AFAIK. I didn't say it did not say it. I specifically asked for this information in case anyone else had it (which I made clear).

It seems only very old translations say omnipotent (i.e. king james, third millenium). All new translations have "Lord God Almighty". Almighty is a synonym to omnipotent.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/19-6-compare.html

Judging sins (i.e. knowing what happens in a limited situation) is not omniscience.

Creating the universe, while powerful, is not omnipotent.

I.e. your examples fit the second meaning of omnipotent/almighty, which is "greatly powerful".

Now, Matthew 19:26 is interesting because it is actually a quote from Jesus. That's the new closest thing to omnipotent for me. EDIT: no, thinking about it, he might be saying "it's possible", as in it has a probability of happening.

EDIT 2: Very importantly, reading the Bible by itself causes these very problems. I mentioned the Orthodox Tradition above - where they have an oral and written history that defines the interpretation so that people don't make up their own shit (like I do all the time - lol).

@newtboy 's original comment may stand in your eyes. But you don't get to dictate whether it is a fact or not. But more importantly than that - what comment are you referring to? I don't see him having written what you are paraphrasing.

In which case you don't know anything about the bible except for hearsay. You don't have much to argue then...

And I think so. Who wins?

You're entitled to your opinion about the "joke". If I say it doesn't bother me it's because I'm telling the truth. If it bothered me, she'd know about it.

The problem with being funny (or talented in any way) nowadays is that you're going to get compared to the plethora of incredibly talented people on the internet. With this in mind I actually have a yard stick I'm comparing against. Maybe in yesteryear you could claim some person or another was funny (or talented) and it would be true in one's tiny circle, just like every ugly baby is pretty to their mother.

I'm happy to be percieved by others as pathetic - they're entitled to their opinions. But I'll happily keep calling people out as pathetic.

The social mores are clear in this case - it's rude to reply to a question with a question; and it would have been trivial to answer the question.

You're welcome to walk away. Don't worry, sooner or later I'll get bored of you as well.

Lol, you're looking pretty pathetic.

You bore me.

Simple question:

Where in the bible does it say God is omnipotent?

I ask because as far as I know it doesn't. It speaks of his power, mystery, understanding all being great. But it doesn't say he is omnipotent. The closest you'll probably get is in Jeremiah where he has a high opinion of God saying "nothing is too hard for you".