Guns

[Danoff]

Nope, such a thing is hard to conclusively prove with so many factors. Any corellations i found can admittedly be quite easily rebuked with other arguments. I was just trying to find out if owning guns was cultural or reasons of actual safety concerns for you personally.

I'm not sure what you mean by "owning guns". Maybe you mean me specifically, in which case it's safety. And I admitted that you could probably find a scenario where I was safe enough that I felt that owning guns was more of a liability than a benefit. But if you mean "the public owning guns", then it's neither cultural or safety but principle.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure what you mean by "owning guns". Maybe you mean me specifically, in which case it's safety. And I admitted that you could probably find a scenario where I was safe enough that I felt that owning guns was more of a liability than a benefit. But if you mean "the public owning guns", then it's neither cultural or safety but principle.

I meant you specifically. Because I admit if I were to reside in the USA, I would very likely would want to own a gun as a hobby and for protection. But I would never open carry and only store it at my home or at a gunrange.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I admit if I were to reside in the USA, I would very likely would want to own a gun as a hobby and for protection.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why is that surprising? I have said many times on this forum I have intrest in American civil war weapons.

I have advocated that guns should be tightly regulated. There is no reason for it not to be regulated.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Why is that surprising? I have said many times on this forum I have intrest in American civil war weapons.

I have advocated that guns should be tightly regulated. There is no reason for it not to be regulated.

What you say here and what you just said and prefacing it with what you've been doing in a back and forth with Danoff is disingenuous...again.

It's funny how you have an interest in Civil War weapons, so you'd protect yourself with weapons that are thousands of dollars, cumbersome and impractical to defend yourself with? As for regulation what does that at all have to do with you saying owning a gun is alright for you, but only if you lived in America?

 

[PocketZeven]

What you say here and what you just said and prefacing it with what you've been doing in a back and forth with Danoff is disingenuous...again.

It's funny how you have an interest in Civil War weapons, so you'd protect yourself with weapons that are thousands of dollars, cumbersome and impractical to defend yourself with? As for regulation what does that at all have to do with you saying owning a gun is alright for you, but only if you lived in America?

Nope, I cant speak for @Danoff , but I respect his opinion a lot and there is no intent of being disenenuous. I have been consistent and advocated for stronger regulations on guns. What do you mean by "again"?

 

[Danoff]

Nope, I cant speak for @Danoff , but I respect his opinion a lot and there is no intent of being disenenuous. I have been consistent and advocated for stronger regulations on guns. What do you mean by "again"?

I appreciate that, and you have been discussing tighter licensing and vetting rather than bans recently. I think the most recent element that has thrown people off (myself included) was your support of the NZ semi-auto rifle ban.

 

[PocketZeven]

I appreciate that, and you have been discussing tighter licensing and vetting rather than bans recently. I think the most recent element that has thrown people off (myself included) was your support of the NZ semi-auto rifle ban.

There might be confusion there, because I applauded the immediate reaction and action by the NZ government in contrast to the perceived inaction of the USA. Perhapos it was perceived as supporting bans on all guns?

 

[Danoff]

There might be confusion there, because I applauded the immediate reaction and action by the NZ government in contrast to the perceived inaction of the USA. Perhapos it was perceived as supporting bans on all guns?

No I meant the support of the NZ semi-auto rifle ban, which is what I said a second ago.

I was agreeing with the ban proposed by NZ, as an action instead of inaction with only thoughts and prayers what the current US administration does after each incident. This was not just my argument, but NZ.

Stricter licensing, registration, mandatory training etc all help to reduce the risk of misuse. But I also do still agree that high powered semi automatic rifles with long ranges in combination with high capacity clips have no business in the possession of ordinary civilians. They beat the purpose of deterrent or recreational shooting. Strict gun laws and a low rate of mass shootings go hand in hand statistically.

I agree with the ban. But that is because I believe in the correlation we previously discussed. That does not mean I think your country should to.

I left some of the context in these quotes so that you can see more easily how you tempered these statements slightly.

 

[PocketZeven]

No I meant the support of the NZ semi-auto rifle ban, which is what I said a second ago.





I left some of the context in these quotes so that you can see more easily how you tempered these statements slightly.

??? I am confused a bit. In my opinion I have not tempered my statement. I still very much think that high powered semi-automatic rifles should not be in possession of ordinary citizens. Do you think i did?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Nope, I cant speak for @Danoff , but I respect his opinion a lot and there is no intent of being disenenuous. I have been consistent and advocated for stronger regulations on guns. What do you mean by "again"?

No one asked you to speak for Danoff though, I was merely highlighting what you've been recently saying and tying it to the post I previously quoted you on and why it is in fact surprising that you would indeed own a weapon supposedly if you lived here. I was clear about the again as you have come across disingenuous on the topic more than once.

You have been a consistent advocate of heavy regulations as well as regulations that do ban segments of the market to potential buyers. Again the fact you would own a gun if you lived here is interesting, while being up and down opposed to a majority of the firearms available to people. Now if you want to give a more clear cut encompassing idea of what you mean so it's a point of reference rather, that might help.

??? I am confused a bit. In my opinion I have not tempered my statement. I still very much think that high powered semi-automatic rifles should not be in possession of ordinary citizens. Do you think i did?

Why wouldn't he or others, when all you say you've been an advocate of, is strict regulation. See strict regulation isn't the ban of a category or entire sub set of items. Rather it is limiting how the use of said item is done. What I think (and feel free to correct me like I know you will), is that you want regulation entirely, while opting to ban certain elements and have that be "regulation". There is a difference between banning and regulating.

Also again why do semi-auto get the ban, but not lever, bolt or pump action long guns? That are more often than not more powerful in selection available than the contemporary .223 or .308.

 

[PocketZeven]

No one asked you to speak for Danoff though, I was merely highlighting what you've been recently saying and tying it to the post I previously quoted you on and why it is in fact surprising that you would indeed own a weapon supposedly if you lived here. I was clear about the again as you have come across disingenuous on the topic more than once.

You have been a consistent advocate of heavy regulations as well as regulations that do ban segments of the market to potential buyers. Again the fact you would own a gun if you lived here is interesting, while being up and down opposed to a majority of the firearms available to people. Now if you want to give a more clear cut encompassing idea of what you mean so it's a point of reference rather, that might help.



Why wouldn't he or others, when all you say you've been an advocate of, is strict regulation. See strict regulation isn't the ban of a category or entire sub set of items. Rather it is limiting how the use of said item is done. What I think (and feel free to correct me like I know you will), is that you want regulation entirely, while opting to ban certain elements and have that be "regulation". There is a difference between banning and regulating.

Also again why do semi-auto get the ban, but not lever, bolt or pump action long guns? That are more often than not more powerful in selection available than the contemporary .223 or .308.

You referenced I was being disingenuous to @Danoff . So i was just saying it isn’t my intent and hope he doesn’t think so either.

To summarize my opinion and make sure I am consistent and that your accusations are inaccurate:
- Semi automatic military style rifles (AR-15 style) should be banned anywhere for civilian ownership. Except for use at a gun range. Where these rifles are not allowed to leave premises.
- gun license requirement
- Open carrying should not be legal. Except law inforcement.
- registration of all guns sold
- I have interest to collect guns from the American civil war, because I am a fan of westerns
- guns for target shooting should be stored at gun range
- when kept at home they are stored safely under lock and key
- when transporting the gun one should use safety lockbox.
- guns for hunting are only allowed in designated area’s and when hunting should be reported to an oversight Organisation.
- Lever/bolt/pump guns have a lower rate of fire and smaller magazine.

Also realize that guns are not a right in the rest of the world and considered a privelege.

 

[Famine]

I still very much think that high powered semi-automatic rifles should not be in possession of ordinary citizens.

Also again why do semi-auto get the ban, but not lever, bolt or pump action long guns? That are more often than not more powerful in selection available than the contemporary .223 or .308.

- Lever/bolt/pump guns have a lower rate of fire and smaller magazine.

I'm just curious what your understanding of "semi-auto" is.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm just curious what your understanding of "semi-auto" is.

Where you addressing me or @LMSCorvetteGT2 ?

Don’t just quote me on “semi-auto”. I clarified above with high powered (military style) semi-auto rifles. Like the AR-15 which has a high firing rate and large magazine capacity. I may have referenced in some posts as “semi-auto rifles” either with or without “high powered”.

 

[Famine]

Where you addressing me or @LMSCorvetteGT2 ?

You - I imagine @LMSCorvetteGT2 is wondering the same thing.

Don’t just quote me on “semi-auto”. I clarified above with high powered (military style) semi-auto rifles. Like the AR-15 which has a high firing rate and large magazine capacity. I may have referenced in some posts as “semi-auto rifles” either with or without “high powered”.

And I'm asking what your understanding of "semi-auto" is.

You seem to give a lot of importance to the term, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to me whether a gun is a semi-auto or not. It's especially curious when you then say "high firing rate", which is... a bizarre thing to attach to "semi-auto". Thus I'm wondering exactly what it is you understand by the term, because it doesn't seem to be appropriate.

 

[PocketZeven]

You - I imagine @LMSCorvetteGT2 is wondering the same thing.

And I'm asking what your understanding of "semi-auto" is.

You seem to give a lot of importance to the term, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to me whether a gun is a semi-auto or not. It's especially curious when you then say "high firing rate", which is... a bizarre thing to attach to "semi-auto". Thus I'm wondering exactly what it is you understand by the term, because it doesn't seem to be appropriate.

I reference high capacity magazine Gas powered rifles. Each one press of the trigger, fires and automatically loads the next Round. They have relative a higher firing rate then bolt/lever/pump action rifles. Semi -auto handguns have less range and less magazine capacity. Are you assuming I don’t know what semi-auto means?

The relevance in my opinion is that for use as self defense, hunting or targetshooting a magazine of 30+ And a high firing rate is not needed.

 

[Famine]

Are you assuming I don’t know what semi-auto means?

I'm certainly questioning it, yes.

Semi-auto just means that the gun fires a single round with a single trigger press, then chambers the next available round. It doesn't confer any information about capacity, power, rate of fire, range or anything else.

It seems like a bizarre specific detail to fixate on. I don't understand why "shoots one round then chambers the next" is an undesireable trait of firearms that must be banned from public ownership. It doesn't make them fire more bullets, it doesn't give them a higher capacity, it doesn't make them shoot further and it doesn't give them any more stopping power.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm certainly questioning it, yes.

Semi-auto just means that the gun fires a single round with a single trigger press, then chambers the next available round. It doesn't confer any information about capacity, power, rate of fire, range or anything else.

It seems like a bizarre specific detail to fixate on. I don't understand why "shoots one round then chambers the next" is an undesireable trait of firearms that must be banned from public ownership. It doesn't make them fire more bullets, it doesn't give them a higher capacity, it doesn't make them shoot further and it doesn't give them any more stopping power.

You are ignoring the military style and rifle part of my post and chose to fixate on semi-auto. A rifle has a longer range then a handgun, military style has high capacity magazines. I can’t control your selective reading. I am not fixating on those words, you are. Where did I ever claim that all semi-automatics should be banned. That is what your selective reading is assuming. That is inaccurate. But I am certain you won’t admit any fault of your own in selective reading or cherrypicking “semi-auto” from “high powered military style semi-auto rifles”.

 

[Famine]

You are ignoring ... your selective reading ... your selective reading ... you won’t admit any fault of your own in selective reading or cherrypicking

Yeah, no.

I'm asking you what you understand by the term "semi-auto" and why it's relevant, because you keep on adding it as a detail to your posts about types of guns that should be (or you support being) banned. No need for the aggressive attitude about not reading things (especially from someone on such thin ice for inventing things other people haven't said) for a simple question about your use of terminology. I brought it up in the NZ thread way back when too, but you didn't answer then either.


If you support civilian ownership of high-powered, military-style, fully automatic rifles, then yes, you absolutely should use the "semi-auto" distinction to separate them from guns you don't support civilian ownership of. Otherwise - and your comments about rate of fire suggest that this is the case - it simply doesn't belong there, and it rather looks like someone who doesn't know anything about guns or has any experience with guns is just dropping in a gun term they've heard once because it sounds dramatic. Hence the question.

What's a "military style" gun anyway?

 

[PocketZeven]

Yeah, no.

I'm asking you what you understand by the term "semi-auto" and why it's relevant, because you keep on adding it as a detail to your posts about types of guns that should be (or you support being) banned. No need for the aggressive attitude about not reading things (especially from someone on such thin ice for inventing things other people haven't said) for a simple question about your use of terminology. I brought it up in the NZ thread way back when too, but you didn't answer then either.


If you support civilian ownership of high-powered, military-style, fully automatic rifles, then yes, you absolutely should use the "semi-auto" distinction to separate them from guns you don't support civilian ownership of. Otherwise - and your comments about rate of fire suggest that this is the case - it simply doesn't belong there, and it rather looks like someone who doesn't know anything about guns or has any experience with guns is just dropping in a gun term they've heard once because it sounds dramatic. Hence the question.

What's a "military style" gun anyway?

The honor of “inventing things” is a piece of fiction.

Automatic are already unavailable to public.
I use semi auto rifles to distinct from action rifles. Within context and respect of of the USA, 2nd amendment and use in for example hunting and targetshooting I don’t think these rifles should be banned.

Don’t assume i don’t know anything about guns. I have experience in targetshooting with automatic, semi and bolt action rifles. I also have some knowledge about civil war period guns and rifles. Between semi-auto and bolt action, rate of fire is considerably higher. That is what I am referencing when I say high rate of fire. I don’t know your experience with guns, but ask any expert about rate of fire between semi-auto rifles vs bolt/pump/lever action rifles.

 

[Famine]

Automatic are already available to public.

Okay. And?

The question was if you supported ownership of high-powered, military-style, fully automatic rifles, which is why you keep putting the "semi-auto" qualifier into "high-powered, military-style, semi-automatic rifles". It would seem to be an insane position to hold - especially for someone against high rates of fire and large capacity magazines - that full auto, burst and select-fire weapons are fine, when single-press, single-shot, self-reloading ones aren't, but it's something we need to establish.

Hence, as I said, the question.

I use semi auto rifles to distinct from action rifles.

Whu?

Do you mean you use the term "semi-auto" to distinguish these rifles from rifles that have a separate reloading or recocking mechanism (bolt-action/break-action, single-action/double-action)?

Within context and respect of of the USA, 2nd amendment and use in for example hunting and targetshooting I don’t think these rifles should be banned.

Ah yes, target shooting. Which, as I recall, was training to kill your potential target better and equating to killing a lifeform.

Remind me at this point... why are "high-powered, military-style, semi-automatic rifles" not okay to use for target shooting? I've forgotten.

Don’t assume i don’t know anything about guns.

I didn't.

Between semi-auto and bolt action, rate of fire is considerably higher. That is what I am referencing when I say high rate of fire. I don’t know your experience with guns, but ask any expert about rate of fire between semi-auto rifles vs bolt/pump/lever action rifles.

Both fire one projectile with one press of the trigger. That's a rate of one.

Depending on how rapid you can twitch that finger, you can definitely rattle through a standard, 20-round magazine in three or four seconds before having to reload. Call it three (hey, who cares about accuracy right? It's all about getting those bullets out) with a very fast two-second reload and you're looking at an upper bound of 240 rounds a minute - although I doubt the person or the gun could keep up with that.

There's so many AR-15 derivatives it's tough to say for sure, but Bushmaster reckons its AR-15 has a 45/minute effective fire rate. A Lee Enfield bolt-action with a 10-round box can get close to half that. It seems rather odd to say a 20/minute bolt-action is fine, but a 45/minute semi-auto is not.

For fully auto, you can keep up ten a second until you run out or it overheats or jams. The question's still up there as to whether you support fully auto weapons, which is why you keep specifically mentioning semi-auto ones. I'd find it a bizarre position, but hey.

Oh, and in case you missed it:

What's a "military style" gun anyway?

 

[PocketZeven]

Okay. And?

The question was if you supported ownership of high-powered, military-style, fully automatic rifles, which is why you keep putting the "semi-auto" qualifier into "high-powered, military-style, semi-automatic rifles". It would seem to be an insane position to hold - especially for someone against high rates of fire and large capacity magazines - that full auto, burst and select-fire weapons are fine, when single-press, single-shot, self-reloading ones aren't, but it's something we need to establish.

Hence, as I said, the question.

Whu?

Do you mean you use the term "semi-auto" to distinguish these rifles from rifles that have a separate reloading or recocking mechanism (bolt-action/break-action, single-action/double-action)?

Ah yes, target shooting. Which, as I recall, was training to kill your potential target better and equating to killing a lifeform.

Remind me at this point... why are "high-powered, military-style, semi-automatic rifles" not okay to use for target shooting? I've forgotten.

I didn't.

Both fire one projectile with one press of the trigger. That's a rate of one.

Depending on how rapid you can twitch that finger, you can definitely rattle through a standard, 20-round magazine in three or four seconds before having to reload. Call it three (hey, who cares about accuracy right? It's all about getting those bullets out) with a very fast two-second reload and you're looking at an upper bound of 240 rounds a minute - although I doubt the person or the gun could keep up with that.

There's so many AR-15 derivatives it's tough to say for sure, but Bushmaster reckons its AR-15 has a 45/minute effective fire rate. A Lee Enfield bolt-action with a 10-round box can get close to half that. It seems rather odd to say a 20/minute bolt-action is fine, but a 45/minute semi-auto is not.

For fully auto, you can keep up ten a second until you run out or it overheats or jams. The question's still up there as to whether you support fully auto weapons, which is why you keep specifically mentioning semi-auto ones. I'd find it a bizarre position, but hey.

Oh, and in case you missed it:

Unlike you, I assume people know the difference between semi-auto and auto. I also accidently wrote "available", instead of "unavailable", which I corrected in a subsequent edit.

High powered, military syle, semi automatic rifles are rarely used for targetshooting, because of less accuracy. I am not referencing automatics at all, you are. You are assuming that me referencing semi auto's means I assume automatics should be legal? And others also would read into this?

edit: I already explained a few times I differentiate semi-auto to bolt/pump/lever action rifles. How else would you differentiate them? How should I call semi-auto rifles?

"Both fire one projectile with one press of the trigger. That's a rate of one." Do i need to explain what rate of fire means? Examples like these are purposefull jabs and displays disrespect and assuming i dont know what semi-auto and rate of fire mean. Like you did here:

"it rather looks like someone who doesn't know anything about guns or has any experience with guns is just dropping in a gun term they've heard once because it sounds dramatic. "

I know that continued firing can overheat and jam a weapon. To put it in practical sense, a mass shooter can do a lot more damage by using a semi-auto military stylke rifle then a bolt action hunting rifle. Those seconds between reloading can save lives. dont be

Military style, is referencing assault style rifles with high capacity magazines and high power rounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms

Anyone who can reach AR-15 rates of Fire with a bolt action rifle is highly skilled and an anomoly. Those are rare exceptions. There is no reason for ordinary civilians to own such weapons for personal protection or hunting.

Edit: I incorrectly wrote available where I meant unavailable.

 

[Famine]

Unlike you, I assume people know the difference between semi-auto and auto.

Why?

High powered, military syle, semi automatic rifles are rarely used for targetshooting, because of less accuracy.

Less accuracy than what? Why are they less accurate for one-press, one-round, chamber the next?

Do i need to explain what rate of fire means? Examples like these are purposefull jabs and displays disrespect and assuming i dont know what semi-auto and rate of fire mean.

Did you read the next paragraph, or just miss it out to make literally no point?

Like you did here:

"it rather looks like someone who doesn't know anything about guns or has any experience with guns is just dropping in a gun term they've heard once because it sounds dramatic. "

Did you read the next sentence, or just miss it out to make literally no point?

I know that continued firing can overheat and jam a weapon. To put it in practical sense, a mass shooter can do a lot more damage by using a semi-auto military stylke rifle then a bolt action hunting rifle. Those seconds between reloading can save lives. dont be

Ah, we're getting to the semblance of a point here. By slowing down the number of bullets that can come out in a minute, criminals can't kill as many people as quickly. Have I got that right?

So. What's the maximum number of bullets that can come out of an illegally held, illegally used weapon in what time period in order that law-abiding people may be allowed to own one? How did you arrive at that specific number?


It's worth noting yet again that I've now asked three times if you're also against fully automatic weapons, which can fire more bullets more quickly.

Anyone who can reach AR-15 rates of Fire with a bolt action rifle is highly skilled and an anomoly.

Okay. And?

There is no reason for ordinary civilians to own such weapons for personal protection or hunting.

According to whom?

Military style, is referencing assault style rifles with high capacity magazines and high power rounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-style_semi-automatic_firearms

That's a link to an article about how New Zealand classifies "military-style semi-automatic firearms". That's not what I asked. I asked you what "military style" weapons are.

Is it, for example, a gun actually used by the military? Is it a gun derived from one actually used by the military? Is it a gun that looks dangerous, like soldiers should be the only ones allowed to carry it? Is it something painted in desert camo? Is it something bought for well over the asking price because of corporate cronyism despite not being terribly suitable for the job in theatre? What is a "military style" weapon?

 

[Danoff]

Anyone who can reach AR-15 rates of Fire with a bolt action rifle is highly skilled and an anomoly. Those are rare exceptions. There is no reason for ordinary civilians to own such weapons for personal protection or hunting.

It depends on what you think you need personal protection from. I gave the example of a black person living in clan territory in, say, a rural farmhouse. You might want an AR-15 in that circumstance. I think I'd be concerned enough about the white hooded folks to want something like that in that region.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why?


Less accuracy than what? Why are they less accurate for one-press, one-round, chamber the next?

Did you read the next paragraph, or just miss it out to make literally no point?

Did you read the next sentence, or just miss it out to make literally no point?

Ah, we're getting to the semblance of a point here. By slowing down the number of bullets that can come out in a minute, criminals can't kill as many people as quickly. Have I got that right?

So. What's the maximum number of bullets that can come out of an illegally held, illegally used weapon in what time period in order that law-abiding people may be allowed to own one? How did you arrive at that specific number?


It's worth noting yet again that I've now asked three times if you're also against fully automatic weapons, which can fire more bullets more quickly.

Okay. And?

According to whom?

That's a link to an article about how New Zealand classifies "military-style semi-automatic firearms". That's not what I asked. I asked you what "military style" weapons are.

Is it, for example, a gun actually used by the military? Is it a gun derived from one actually used by the military? Is it a gun that looks dangerous, like soldiers should be the only ones allowed to carry it? Is it something painted in desert camo? Is it something bought for well over the asking price because of corporate cronyism despite not being terribly suitable for the job in theatre? What is a "military style" weapon?

I edit my post. I incorrectly wrote available instead of unavailable. So yes I am favor of bans for automatics, which they already are, hence me not referencing them.

Generally bolt/lever action rifles are more accurate then semi auto rifles. Sources to corroborate:
http://www.gtitraining.org/news-516-semi-auto-vs-bolt-action-rifle.htm
https://loadoutroom.com/12939/snipers-choice-bolt-action-vs-semi-auto-precision-rifles/

What next sentence? You asking me a question?

Yes criminals can do less damage with less powerfull weapons, do you even need to argue that? Someone can be faster with a faster car. Someone can kill more in a short span with a 30 round magazine, instead of 10 etc.
On another note, some people often reference extreme violence in Mexico. 70% of guns in Mexico come from the USA. I think there is corollation with the violence, but I am guessing you dont see it at all.

What number are you talking about, I am not referencing a number at all. The combination range, capacity and rate of fire determin the effectiveness of a weapon.
Therefore I am referencing weapon classes. Stop focusing on those 2 words. I both mentioned high powered and military style and you keep fixating on and on about me using "semi-auto". What are you doing dude? Do you keep completely ignoring the other issues I just adressed concerning stricter gunlaws?

An anomoly is an exception to the rule, to emphasize your suggestion that a boltaction having the same rate of fire as a AR-15 is false.

That article actually does describe my used definition. Better yet, that is where I orginally got the term from, why cant I post it as reference? Just read the article and you will know exactly what I mean with Military style.

edit:

It depends on what you think you need personal protection from. I gave the example of a black person living in clan territory in, say, a rural farmhouse. You might want an AR-15 in that circumstance. I think I'd be concerned enough about the white hooded folks to want something like that in that region.

I would highly recommend calling law enforcement first. Also securing doors and windows and as a last defense I could make a case a shotgun would be more efficient in close quarters. I dont know the details of what circumstance you are describing, but a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun would suffice as a last resort.

But the best measure is to not put yourself in that situation. For the safety of that family, they should move to a safer place. The best solution is to create an environment where you wont need a gun. So on the longer run, vote against the extreme left and make sure the Clan does not get empowered by rightwing propaganda. The current whitehouse has arguably done very little to reduce these risks apparantly.

 

[Famine]

Generally bolt/lever action rifles are more accurate then semi auto rifles. Sources to corroborate:
http://www.gtitraining.org/news-516-semi-auto-vs-bolt-action-rifle.htm
https://loadoutroom.com/12939/snipers-choice-bolt-action-vs-semi-auto-precision-rifles/

Your sources are both talking about sniper rifles. Sniper rifles.

How does a bolt action gun compare to a semi-auto at 600 yards? 300 yards? 200 feet? You know, target-shooting range, not Kandahar.

What next sentence? You asking me a question?

You quoted only the part where I said the use of "semi-auto" looks like - and I did say "looks like" - someone who didn't have much gun experience using a gun term they'd hear and thought it sounded dramatic. The next sentence said "Hence the question".

That's because I was asking you what you meant by "semi-auto" to establish whether you were using a term incorrectly or not. You chose not to bother quoting that second sentence.

What number are you talking about, I am not referencing a number at all.

That'll be why I asked you the question. You've made a clear determination that slowing down the number of bullets that can come out in a minute, means criminals can't kill as many people as quickly and that's why you want to ban semi-auto guns but not bolt/break-action guns.

In order to make that determination, you must have arrived at an upper bound of the maximum number of bullets that can come out of an illegally held, illegally used weapon in what time period in order that law-abiding people may be allowed to own one.

The question is what is that number, and how did you arrive at that specific number?

Therefore I am referencing weapon classes. Stop focusing on those 2 words. I both mentioned high powered and military style and you keep fixating on and on about me using "semi-auto". What are you doing dude? Do you keep completely ignoring the other issues I just adressed concerning stricter gunlaws?

You're using a number of descriptive terms. Your issue is with high-powered, military-style, semi-auto guns. I'm trying to find out what you class as each of those three terms - and don't worry, I'll be asking about high-powered eventually.

That article actually does describe my used definition. Better yet, that is where I orginally got the term from, why cant I post it as reference? Just read the article and you will know exactly what I mean with Military style.

You can post whatever you want as reference, but I'm not trawling through hundreds of words of someone else's answer to a question I did ask them. I asked you what a military style weapon is.

An anomoly is an exception to the rule, to emphasize your suggestion that a boltaction having the same rate of fire as a AR-15 is false.

What suggestion is that? I do hope that's not a fourth time you've literally lied about what I've posted:

There's so many AR-15 derivatives it's tough to say for sure, but Bushmaster reckons its AR-15 has a 45/minute effective fire rate. A Lee Enfield bolt-action with a 10-round box can get close to half that. It seems rather odd to say a 20/minute bolt-action is fine, but a 45/minute semi-auto is not.

 

[Danoff]

I would highly recommend calling law enforcement first.

I wouldn't rely on them in a rural area, especially if you think maybe the cop you get is a member.

Also securing doors and windows and as a last defense I could make a case a shotgun would be more efficient in close quarters. I dont know the details of what circumstance you are describing, but a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun would suffice as a last resort.

I'm trying to describe an open area with a large number of people coming to attack one person who is far from police help.

But the best measure is to not put yourself in that situation. For the safety of that family, they should move to a safer place.

Sure, but some people are stubborn about being allowed to live in certain places.

 

[PocketZeven]

Your sources are both talking about sniper rifles. Sniper rifles.

How does a bolt action gun compare to a semi-auto at 600 yards? 300 yards? 200 feet? You know, target-shooting range, not Kandahar.

You quoted only the part where I said the use of "semi-auto" looks like - and I did say "looks like" - someone who didn't have much gun experience using a gun term they'd hear and thought it sounded dramatic. The next sentence said "Hence the question".

That's because I was asking you what you meant by "semi-auto" to establish whether you were using a term incorrectly or not. You chose not to bother quoting that second sentence.

That'll be why I asked you the question. You've made a clear determination that slowing down the number of bullets that can come out in a minute, means criminals can't kill as many people as quickly and that's why you want to ban semi-auto guns but not bolt/break-action guns.

In order to make that determination, you must have arrived at an upper bound of the maximum number of bullets that can come out of an illegally held, illegally used weapon in what time period in order that law-abiding people may be allowed to own one.

The question is what is that number, and how did you arrive at that specific number?

You're using a number of descriptive terms. Your issue is with high-powered, military-style, semi-auto guns. I'm trying to find out what you class as each of those three terms - and don't worry, I'll be asking about high-powered eventually.

You can post whatever you want as reference, but I'm not trawling through hundreds of words of someone else's answer to a question I did ask them. I asked you what a military style weapon is.

What suggestion is that? I do hope that's not a fourth time you've literally lied about what I've posted:

I dont know. I am not an expert. Ask someone else to for those answers.

You made assumptions, then denied them. Asking a questions about your assumption, doesnt make the assumtion disappear.

So you chose to focus on "the number of bullets" that can come out? Something I have not adressed or even written? What number are you talking about? Who is making up things here? That is a farcry from the language I am using.

Again I reference that Wiki article. This all directly corollates to the NZ ban. I was using the language in that context. Referred to as MSSA and recatogorized as E. I f you bothered to read the link, you wouldnt seem like a broken record. "High powered" is descriptive and used in articles and languages to describe assualt rifle type weapons.

Having half the same rate. I made a mistake and owning it.


edit:

I wouldn't rely on them in a rural area, especially if you think maybe the cop you get is a member.



I'm trying to describe an open area with a large number of people coming to attack one person who is far from police help.




Sure, but some people are stubborn about being allowed to live in certain places.

That is quite a hypothetical. And I am not aware or could empathize with such a specific situation. Does it happen nowadays? But I will try my best to think in that hypothetical (how unlikely i think it is)
Like I referenced it is much more efficient to not put yourself in that situation. But if so and I was significantly outnumbered, with nowhere to run, a shotgun with enough rounds and fleeing to the basement can be an effective way to funnel those enemies.

But if it is a likely scenario, I think an exempt written as law, for only coloured people living in these area's to own semi-auto rifles and can prove their in a high risk area, would be a good deterrent. I assume that these clan members for the rest are lawabiding.

 

[Famine]

I dont know. I am not an expert. Ask someone else to for those answers.

Why would I ask anyone else to support your claim? You made it! This is what you said:

High powered, military syle, semi automatic rifles are rarely used for targetshooting, because of less accuracy.

Your claim, you provide the evidence that people rarely use the "high-powered, military-style, semi-automatic" rifles for target shooting (despite AR-15s not exactly being a rare sight at shooting ranges), and that they don't do so because of "less accuracy".

You made assumptions, then denied them. Asking a questions about your assumption, doesnt make the assumtion disappear.

I haven't made any assumptions. You know this because I told you.

So you chose to focus on "the number of bullets" that can come out? Something I have not adressed or even written? What number are you talking about? Who is making up things here? That is a farcry from the language I am using.

Okay, there's something you're just not getting here.

You are advocating a ban on guns like the AR-15, because of the high rate of fire. You say that lower-rate firearms give people the chance to escape when guns are criminally used against them. You say that guns like the Lee Enfield bolt-action gun are fine because of the lower rate of fire. You've said these things.

That means that, somewhere, you must have drawn a mental line of "number of rounds/minute" above which a gun is unacceptable and below which a gun is acceptable. You must have a point at which a gun is firing too many rounds too quickly.

What I'm literally asking you is to verbalise what that point is, and why you have chosen that point. When does a gun fire too many rounds too quickly for you? What we can say is that one example of the AR-15 has an effective rate of fire of 45 rounds/minute according to its manufacturer. A gun like the Lee Enfield can, in pretty ideal conditions, fire 20 rounds/minute. This means that your number is likely above 20 but below 45.

If you haven't actually done that, then your point is just emotional and bereft of reasoning. We can address that later.

Again I reference that Wiki article. This all directly corollates to the NZ ban. I was using the language in that context. Referred to as MSSA and recatogorized as E. I f you bothered to read the link, you wouldnt seem like a broken record. "High powered" is descriptive and used in articles and languages to describe assualt rifle type weapons.

And again, all I want is for you to say, here, what a "military style" weapon is. I read the link, which is how I know what it is, but all that tells me is what New Zealand classifies as an illegal gun. It doesn't tell me what @PocketZeven thinks "military-style" means when it comes to guns.

I asked a bunch of follow-up questions but they were, of course, ignored.

I think an exempt written as law, for only coloured people living in these area's

Oh Jesus...

 

[PocketZeven]

Why would I ask anyone else to support your claim? You made it! This is what you said:

Your claim, you provide the evidence that people rarely use the "high-powered, military-style, semi-automatic" rifles for target shooting (despite AR-15s not exactly being a rare sight at shooting ranges), and that they don't do so because of "less accuracy".

I haven't made any assumptions. You know this because I told you.

Okay, there's something you're just not getting here.

You are advocating a ban on guns like the AR-15, because of the high rate of fire. You say that lower-rate firearms give people the chance to escape when guns are criminally used against them. You say that guns like the Lee Enfield bolt-action gun are fine because of the lower rate of fire. You've said these things.

That means that, somewhere, you must have drawn a mental line of "number of rounds/minute" above which a gun is unacceptable and below which a gun is acceptable. You must have a point at which a gun is firing too many rounds too quickly.

What I'm literally asking you is to verbalise what that point is, and why you have chosen that point. When does a gun fire too many rounds too quickly for you? What we can say is that one example of the AR-15 has an effective rate of fire of 45 rounds/minute according to its manufacturer. A gun like the Lee Enfield can, in pretty ideal conditions, fire 20 rounds/minute. This means that your number is likely above 20 but below 45.

If you haven't actually done that, then your point is just emotional and bereft of reasoning. We can address that later.

And again, all I want is for you to say, here, what a "military style" weapon is. I read the link, which is how I know what it is, but all that tells me is what New Zealand classifies as an illegal gun. It doesn't tell me what @PocketZeven thinks "military-style" means when it comes to guns.

I asked a bunch of follow-up questions but they were, of course, ignored.

Oh Jesus...

I am not advocating a ban, because of high rate of fire. That is an inaccurate portrayal. You keep doing this. Why ignore the rest of the post and solely focus on the words semi and auto? You clearly understood what I meant! If not, I could easily referenced you to that wiki page. But instead of that you are still going on and on about things I did not say.
1. You are advocating a ban on guns like the AR-15, because of the high rate of fire. You say that lower-rate firearms give people the chance to escape when guns are criminally used against them. You say that guns like the Lee Enfield bolt-action gun are fine because of the lower rate of fire. You've said these things. Nope reread and use the language I used. I didnt even mention Lee Enfield at all! You did! You are bordering on dilusional.

2.1 That means that, somewhere, you must have drawn a mental line of "number of rounds/minute" above which a gun is unacceptable and below which a gun is acceptable. You must have a point at which a gun is firing too many rounds too quickly. Nope never suggested it. I just explained the difference between bolt-action and semi-auto. I dont have a point at which a gun is firing too many rounds too quickly. Read my posts!
2.2 What I'm literally asking you is to verbalise what that point is, and why you have chosen that point. When does a gun fire too many rounds too quickly for you? What we can say is that one example of the AR-15 has an effective rate of fire of 45 rounds/minute according to its manufacturer. A gun like the Lee Enfield can, in pretty ideal conditions, fire 20 rounds/minute. This means that your number is likely above 20 but below 45.
I didnt choose anything! I was supporting a ban that was put in law by a government. I am not claiming I know all the language in that ban. You are assuming I decided somehow that a gun above a certain rate of fire should be banned, which I did not claim, post or written.
3. And again, all I want is for you to say, here, what a "military style" weapon is. I read the link, which is how I know what it is, but all that tells me is what New Zealand classifies as an illegal gun. If you really read it, you wouldnt have asked the question repeatedly. To quote: "in New Zealand are those semi-automatic firearms known in the United States as "assault weapons" Nothing more or less and I literally stated I got that that phrase from the NZ incident.
4 .I asked a bunch of follow-up questions but they were, of course, ignored. I am not answering question, you already know the answer to.
5. Oh Jesus... I dont believe in jesus, but if he did exist pretty sure he cant help you here.