Pretty much any semi automatic can fire 100 rounds a minute.
You lost me there.....
Another one-Georgia school shooter released alongside image of him posing with AK-47
- Thread starter -D-
- Start date
Pretty much any semi automatic can fire 100 rounds a minute.
You lost me there.....
Snobike Mike
Banned
The practical rate of fire for a semi is around 40-45 rpm. There is no legally available "armour piercing" ammunition available so my comment was to refute your claim of 100 rpm and "armour piercing" ammo, both sensationalizing statements spouted by the left media in both the US and Canada.
In any case, in the hands of a law abiding citizen there is no reason why they shouldn't own such a firearm.
There are over 300 million "known" legally owned firearms in the US. The real number is probably closer to 500 million. The FBI reports firearm homicides at around 11000 per year in the US with approximately 80% being criminal on criminal (making the legal firearm owner homicides around 2200/yr) so the percentage of all firearms used in the US for "mass killings" or any killing is less than 0.00001% assuming a firearm us used to kill no more than 1 person (ie it isn't used more than once).
Clearly firearm ownership isn't the issue because over 299 999 xxx firearms aren't used to kill anybody each and every day, regardless of how "scary" the media or the Coalition for Gun Control attempts to make them.
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Um, I don't have a clue?????
-D- said semi auto, not full auto. My statement was the practical rpm of a semi which for an ak happens to be approx 40.
Nevertheless, in the hands of over 80 MILLION law abiding US citizens there are 3 HUNDRED MILLION plus firearms that didn't kill anybody today, or yesterday, and won't tomorrow or the next day or the next.......
You are more likely to be killed in the US by a drunk driver than a firearm.
Yes, you don't have a clue.
First off, -D- said....
Can you tell me why a civilian requires a firearm that can disperse 100 bullets a minute and to further add why do those bullets have to be armour piercing?
He made NO mention of Semi automatic anything. I did.
Second, YOU said "practical" rate. neither -D- or I said "Practical".
Third. No mention of Automatic or Semi automatic was made by either of us as well. But, just to play along, you can easily run 100 rounds through a Betamag on an AK in semi in 60 seconds. I can run 100 rounds through a Betamag on an Ar-15 in just under 50 seconds.
Betamag.
So this is where YOU say....
Oh, I'm sorry, I in fact DON'T know what I'm talking about.
Type17
Well-known member
Why does the debate always break down to "liberals and their media hate our guns"? there are non-liberal places that try to keep guns out of civilian hands.
Anyway, everyone knows it's not the gun pulling it's own trigger. I just wish there wasn't any trigger to be pulled to begin with.
Anyway, everyone knows it's not the gun pulling it's own trigger. I just wish there wasn't any trigger to be pulled to begin with.
stevex
Well-known member
i've never understood the whole argument of "well knives are dangerous in the hands of a nut job"
and cars and motorcycles and sharp pointy sticks and bla bla bla
but in all of these silly examples, save the guns - their manufacture, their design, THEIR VERY REASON FOR EXISTENCE, was not to kill. Guns are designed for this purpose. To make it absolutely as easy as possible to kill whomever you're pointing it at. Yes, you can target shoot with it. Great past time, love it. Just like a knife can be used to cut out someones gizzard....but that isn't the intended purpose of its design and manufacture.. .unless we're talking about tactical military combat knives (which I do not have statistics available but I'm sure are incredibly miniscule)
So these absurd comparisons to motorcycles going 280 km/h in a 100km/h speed limit world, or a knife that can cut through a steak just as easily as human flesh, or a baseball bat that can whack a home run or cave in someone's skull.... they're laughable comparisons to anyone with any ability to look at BOTH SIDES of this never-ending debate
ps from what I read about that particular incident, his intention was never to go to that school and kill kids or students.. it was in fact, to have a shoot out with police. He instructed someone to call 911 so he could have a firefight with them
and cars and motorcycles and sharp pointy sticks and bla bla bla
but in all of these silly examples, save the guns - their manufacture, their design, THEIR VERY REASON FOR EXISTENCE, was not to kill. Guns are designed for this purpose. To make it absolutely as easy as possible to kill whomever you're pointing it at. Yes, you can target shoot with it. Great past time, love it. Just like a knife can be used to cut out someones gizzard....but that isn't the intended purpose of its design and manufacture.. .unless we're talking about tactical military combat knives (which I do not have statistics available but I'm sure are incredibly miniscule)
So these absurd comparisons to motorcycles going 280 km/h in a 100km/h speed limit world, or a knife that can cut through a steak just as easily as human flesh, or a baseball bat that can whack a home run or cave in someone's skull.... they're laughable comparisons to anyone with any ability to look at BOTH SIDES of this never-ending debate
ps from what I read about that particular incident, his intention was never to go to that school and kill kids or students.. it was in fact, to have a shoot out with police. He instructed someone to call 911 so he could have a firefight with them
Snobike Mike
Banned
Yes, you don't have a clue.
First off, -D- said....
Can you tell me why a civilian requires a firearm that can disperse 100 bullets a minute and to further add why do those bullets have to be armour piercing?
He made NO mention of Semi automatic anything. I did.
Second, YOU said "practical" rate. neither -D- or I said "Practical".
Third. No mention of Automatic or Semi automatic was made by either of us as well. But, just to play along, you can easily run 100 rounds through a Betamag on an AK in semi in 60 seconds. I can run 100 rounds through a Betamag on an Ar-15 in just under 50 seconds.
Betamag.
So this is where YOU say....
Oh, I'm sorry, I in fact DON'T know what I'm talking about.
To many "d's" usernames.
Btw, check your post 41, something about semi's................
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Knives and pointed sticks were originally designed to kill as they were used for hunting. Yep, a gun can kill, when used for hunting. It can also be used for target shooting. Are Olympic target guns designed to kill?
Assuming you continue to build on the "designed to kill" argument, isn't it ironic that you are more likely to be killed in America by a car that wasn't designed to kill than your gun which was supposedly only designed for one thing which is as you claim, to kill.
Btw, there are approximately the same number of guns and cars in America.
For what?
You're admission of not knowing WTF you are talking about?
Nope, not there.
And WHAT exactly?????
Again..... -D- said nothing about SA. [space, new sentence] I did.
There was no need to specify one or the other since they are both legal in the US to own by civilians.
YOU said no civilian can own a rifle capable of 100 rounds a minute.
You don't know WTF you are talking about.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Testy much?
Also, I am the one (although who said what is really quite irrelevant because this is not a personal attack thread right but a discussion of facts correct??) because in a practical (or tactical sense even), carrying around unreliable bulky 100 rnd magazines isn't all that "practical".
Take your AR or AK and use so called "high capacity" but standard military style 30 round mags and run a 100 rnd test. Generally you'd be unable to get much better than 40-45 rounds off with a semi because you'd actually have to change your mags 3 times. The next question is of course will the average shooter actually hit anything but I'll await your next calm response before we move the discussion further.
Snobike Mike
Banned
I actually said name one civilian firearm that can shoot 100 rpm. And I'm sure you know that for most states, including for CT, FA or SF firearms are in fact illegal and weren't used at Sandy Hook. \
I was also questioning the statement about "armour piercing" ammo. Both terms use by -D- (be sure to jumpy on me if I've got the wrong Dee) are common misdirection terms used by the CGC or Anti's.
OMFG...
You are saying (said) it isn't possible to fire 100 rounds from a semi auto. I say, it is. You want to pull "practical" into it because you did a quick google and didn't understand what that meant. -D- said, it is CAPABLE of firing 100 rounds but now, in desperation, you want to claim a betamag is unreliable?
Give me a break.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
Last time.....
It is legal to buy a firearm in the US that is capable of firing armour piercing ammunition at a rate of 100 rounds a minute.
I will specify EXACTLY what ammunition. 7.62 X39 steel core. Available by the millions in the US and here in Canada.
Do I seriously have to list every semi auto rifle that can fire AP?
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Ok, looks like we've gotten bogged down in to much detail and it's causing you a lot of grief. This thread really isn't about how capable you are with an AR or AK with a betamag.
Let's go back to bigger picture (can we stay out of a peeing match??).
Gun control doesn't work. Whether a firearm can shoot 1 rpm, 100 rpm or 1 million rpm, in the hands of law abiding citizens they are no more dangerous than your grandma's sewing kit.
Massacre's will not be stopped by gun control. They have happened for centuries and as already pointed out, over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US whether they were FA, SF, SA, SS or whatever did not kill anybody today.
As pointed out by some other poster (whom I dare not name because I might inadvertently misquote), you can own "most" kinds of guns in the US because it is legal to do so. It completely doesn't matter why or whether you need it, you just can. Anybody who says that banning guns will stop them should check their history in or around April 1999.
Snobike Mike
Banned
My apologies, my limiting definition of armour piercing is a ballistic tip or incendiary tip projectile. By pure definition you are correct and technically a steel core non incendiary bullet is in fact armour piercing. Since it is legal to own, "need" is irrelevant. I was incorrect by your definition, isn't the first and won't be the last time.
Of course we could now argue about what "armour" means cuz if you have a "bullet proof" vest as worn by at least some police officers they can be pierced easily by any rifle calibre non steel core ammunition.
But I'd like to talk about the more general gun control topic so I'm veering us of again........
-D-
Banned
WOW! Stop the presses.
1. You get confused with something so simple, my username -D- and D23's and you want use to trust you with more important things.
2. You made up your own facts attributed to me when if you just took a moment to scroll up you would have noticed that I PURPOSELY did not specify the type of guns.
3. You tried to state some factual perspective and started adding strawman arguments only to be easily picked apart by D23.
Dude, please keep typing. You are a perfect demonstration of someone on the "nutter" track and further demonstrate why certain types of weapons should not be available to the general public.
If I followed your logic then I should be allowed to own an atomic bomb or experiment with a nuclear suitcase bomb in my garage.
Hell, people should be allowed to have biochemical materials in their garage just because they feel like it is their right.
With your thought process, we should not have implemented laws to keep your neighbor from owning a lion and keeping it in their backyard.
Let me help you before you answer - my scenarios are based on the essence of what you are advocating which is to let the general public do whatever they want. The general public is too stupid hence all the laws for obvious things e.g. seatbelts, drinking and driving, helmets etc...were implemented to protect them from themselves and to protect us from them.
You did still not answer my basic question that was bold instead you went of on some convoluted tantrum.
