search results matching tag: full auto

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (10)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (4)     Comments (67)   

Beto O’Rourke “It May Be Funny To You, Mother F*#ker”

newtboy says...

Lies and racist stupidity from a stupid racist liar.

Yes, with a license you can have full auto military weapons. You’re just wrong, as usual. Because they’re so highly regulated you never hear of legal full auto weapons being used in crimes, but they are obtainable. Thanks to the left, kits to turn legal semi auto rifles into full auto are no longer legal to sell. The right opposed making full auto mod kits, ghost gun kits, and 3d printed unregistered guns (semi or auto) illegal to build or sell.

Who told you that idiotic racist lie? 98% of killings are done by thuggish black people? (we all know exactly what you mean when you say “inner city thugs” bob. You don’t hide the racism at all, not one bit.) Just another fact free racist lie, just like when you tried to say 98% of crimes are black on black crimes and I proved that to be a total lie. Just obvious racist fantasy. Cite your source, I bet it’s the KKK, white nationalists, or neonazi sites again, no one else would make up such nonsense and actually think people might believe it. Only crazy right wing cultists are that delusional and gullible. Just so incredible racist and stupid, you fuckwit.

Not only are “inner city thugs” (we know the word you wish you could use) not committing 98% of gun crimes, the most gun crimes per capita don’t happen in cities, definitely not 98% of them by FAR. Here’s some citation for you to ignore and dismiss because it contradicts your racist fantasies-

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america

https://johnjayrec.nyc/2018/05/24/databit201801/

Yes, more gun crime happens in cities where approximately 85% of the population lives. Per capita counties are usually worse, almost always if you count deaths from external sources. Red counties and states consistently lead with the highest gun deaths per capita by far. In 2020, firearms were involved in 79 percent of all homicides and 53 percent of all suicides. Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Alabama, and Alaska have the highest firearm mortality rates in the country, according to the CDC. Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita:

Alaska (24.5 per 100k people)
Alabama (22.9 per 100k people)
Montana (22.5 per 100k people)
Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people)
Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people)
Missouri (21.5 per 100k people)
Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people)
Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people)
West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people)
New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people)
Notice a trend?

No bob, most shootings are with legally purchased guns, many bought legally by nut jobs that should be banned from buying them. It’s another lie from you. Cite your source…but wipe it first, I don’t want to have to read through your dingleberries. (I feel I need to explain because your comprehension is non existent…I’m saying you got it out of your ass).
This case, the seriously troubled kid waited until he was 18 to legally buy the gun he intended to use to murder people. If he had to wait until he was 21, it would have helped. If he had to pass a mental health screening, there would have been no Uvalde.

The right is willing to lie, obfuscate, try red herring false deflections like you just did, try racist deflections like you just did, try nonsense conflation, exaggerate to the extreme like stating a 21 year age limit for semi auto weapons or a mental health component to the licensing application process is taking your guns…anything but addressing the issue.

The right is also 100% opposed to funding mental health facilities/programs to help the underlying mental health disaster we have in America (that single payer health care would cover). Gun deaths went up 35% 2019-2020 under Trump and have dropped precipitously under Biden.

Just idiotic obvious racist lies here from you, nothing more, no facts, no ideas, no solutions, not even correctly identifying the problem, but scapegoating a group you clearly are prejudiced against (although you’re too cowardly to admit it, but there’s zero doubt).

Shame, you cowardly racist liar….if only you were capable of shame you would end yourself in contrition.
.

bobknight33 said:

@newtboy
@BSR
@mram


You can not have a military automatic weapon.

2nd 98% of killings are done by inner city thugs and yet the left only focus on suburban , school, theater killings .


Left wants to make it harder for people to buy legal -- The real problem is the illegal guns that are doing most killing - destroying families . cities. soles

The left has no desire to truly address this issue in their cities.

How they celebrate New Years in Russia

moonsammy says...

I had to look, and this does in fact violate Russian law: no full auto allowed, no >10 shot capacity allowed. I'm guessing it's not always enforced very strictly...

Congress Under Armed Attack Live Stream

greatgooglymoogly says...

"Who said protests have to be peaceful?"
-Chris Cuomo

The acts of Jan 6 were a little predictable given the police and public responses to riots the last 6 months. People tried to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, and the worst they got was teargas. Same with burning the church just blocks away from the capitol. No bullets fired at any point. I don't think there was any expectation of getting shot by anyone going in unarmed, the cops seemed satisfied to resist with a shoving match in many cases, even those carrying full-auto assault rifles were remarkably restrained. I think they recovered 5 guns total by people inside?

It looks like there were enough cops to hold the crowd back if they concentrated at the doors, they made a mistake trying to have a large perimeter, which is why we have videos of them taking barriers down because they were just gone around and useless, not because cops were letting them in. There were about 50 full on riot cops with shields who seemed to hold the rear of the building just fine.

Doc Rivers

Mordhaus says...

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

newtboy said:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Q Anon, Printable Guns, & Other Pure Nonsense Words

Mordhaus says...

The tricky thing about full auto is that most people avoid it primarily because of the severe penalties. Simply owning one that isn't registered and taxed is opening yourself to up to 10 years in federal prison plus a fine of up to 250k. If you commit a crime with one, they will hit you for the crime and the NFA penalty.

It isn't difficult at all to modify most current semi auto rifles into full auto. Heck, some of the older ones like the SKS can actually duplicate full auto fire by accident via slamfire. People don't do it because of the heavy penalty if you get caught, but it 'is' doable.

Of course, that doesn't take into account international concerns over automatic weapons, where access is usually limited to the military style rifles.

As an aside, you will see people here exploit loopholes like the bump stock to simulate full auto because they can't be subject to the NFA. Personally I think that is a bigger issue than printable guns, at least in the US. I think we still have something like 400-500k of those still floating around. To me it is far more of a 'sky is falling' issue than plastic printed guns, but that's just me.

newtboy said:

Granted, steel makes them detectable, but they're still ghost guns, invisible as far as being able to trace them goes.

Yes, full auto would likely be illegal, but that wouldn't stop many people from making them given the ability....some would be encouraged by that, feeling they were sticking it to the man.

Q Anon, Printable Guns, & Other Pure Nonsense Words

newtboy says...

Granted, steel makes them detectable, but they're still ghost guns, invisible as far as being able to trace them goes.

Yes, full auto would likely be illegal, but that wouldn't stop many people from making them given the ability....some would be encouraged by that, feeling they were sticking it to the man.

Mordhaus said:

True, I did not consider international applications.

Milled steel would sort of defeat the scare tactic of a "totally invisible, undetectable" gun.

Anything fully automatic would immediately fall under NFA and be extremely illegal if not held to the strict standards in the Act.

Gun Control Explained by Mr Bean

C-note says...

You are right, I copied and pasted the title from YouTube as is. No intent other then the comedy aspect was in my mind at the time I posted this one.

But I have lived in the states enough to know this is a tender subject. Every time I go to Vegas I visit the gun ranges that offer full Auto Micro Tavor. Outside of those trips it's just air rifles.

ChaosEngine said:

That's not Mr Bean, it's Rowan Atkinson on a completely different show.

b4rringt0n (Member Profile)

How powerful assault-style rifles lead to devastating wounds

newtboy says...

Rimfire is typically .22 and smaller, definitely not for assault weapons.

Data:
http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/projectiles-muzzle-energy-stopping-power/


Edit: now I see, you misquoted them. I just now had a chance to watch the video and had replied based solely on your misquote in your comment. You're correct that single shot, semi auto, and full auto have nothing to do with projectile speed, but including rimfire ammo is misleading.

harlequinn said:

Good video. But...

"The speed of an assault weapon is substantially higher than the speed of a handgun".

No. The velocity of the projectile from a centerfire rifle is generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. It does not matter if the rifle is semi-automatic or not. The velocity of the projectile from a rimfire rifle is also generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. But rimfire rifles have very low projectile weights and deliver substantially less energy, have substantially less momentum, have generally smaller projectile diameters, and hence are much less lethal than centerfire pistols.

Some projectiles are designed to tumble. Most projectiles for disrupting flesh are designed to flatten out (and not fragment).

PAT ROBERTSON SAYS BAN WEAPONS OF WAR!!!!

newtboy says...

Sorry, automatics, machine guns, are already illegal without a Federal Firearms License, so not available to the general public Pat. I think you know this and are playing dumb to sound reasonable. The recent school shooting was with a semi auto, as are most, nearly all, mass shootings.
That's not just semantics.
Saying bump stocks and other rapid fire devices aren't the same as full auto modifications (which the law does)...that's semantics.

CNN: Guns In Japan

newtboy says...

Wait...your take there is that Muslims are <1/4 as violent as Christians? Did you get whiplash turning around that fast?
What would I propose?
First, more assistance for the indigent, as economic status is far more important than race when determining a person's likelihood to use a gun on others. Remove the desperation, I expect you stop well over 1/2 of gun violence.
Second, recognizing that fighting the advanced military with semi auto rifles is futile, I would ban all full auto and mods, and extended mags with a buy back at market value (granted, a ban doesn't remove them, but stops more from being legally sold).
Don't pretend that, because that wouldn't stop all gun crime, it's useless. There is no silver bullet, that's no reason to take a moonlit walk on the moors during werewolf season. You can't stop all auto deaths, but we still stop people from jogging on the freeway

Edit: I agree with better mental health reporting/testing and better background checks (not necessarily longer, but remove the congressional roadblocks to making it near instant, nation wide, computerized, and more thorough)
Gun free zones are a failed experiment...ask DC. Unless you search everyone and everything entering the zone, it's worse than useless.

bobknight33 said:

Pakistan are 95%+ Muslime They follow a higher power..
371 murder cases, 28 cases of gang murder, nine of abduction for ransom, 4 terrorism incidents were registered in 2015,
not quite as violent as America.

Then look at who is doing the shooting?
Lone nuts--- insignificant
Pissed off spouses -- insignificant
Inner city gang bangers -- root cause of American gun violence

Inner cities have excessive gun violence. Why is that?
No jobs?
No respect for life?
No desire to educate oneself to get out of the situation?
No real deterrent for gun use?

Would a strict gun free zone in such high gun use are be an OK solution that carries the strictest punishment for those that commit crimes with guns ( as apposed to guns being used to defend)? Ho about a 1 year of PSA on the local media before it goes into effect? then strictly enforced?


Until you can get people to respect life and or use the strictest punishment -- I think this will continue.

Better mental health links to ATF where friends and worker can nark to the ATF? This also might help send a flag to re investigate and or to investigate even more on the background check.

Longer waiting period to give ATF more time to do more thorough background check.



What would you propose?

Vox explains bump stocks

harlequinn says...

"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!

newtboy said:

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

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? 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.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.

Vox explains bump stocks

newtboy says...

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

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? 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.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.

harlequinn said:

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).

Vox explains bump stocks

harlequinn says...

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).

newtboy said:

I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
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. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.

Vox explains bump stocks

newtboy says...

I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
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. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.

harlequinn said:

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.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists