18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

False. An assault rifle was not used at all. The crime was perpetrated with a stolen semi-automatic superficially styled to look like an assault rifle. Functionally, it was no different from any number of common rifles that just don't look as "scary".

---

I stated it was a "military style assault rifle." I didn't say it was an assault rifle.

Besides, I could easily make the argument that GI's carried a semi-auto assault rifle in WW II and Korea. Prior to that, the main assault rifle used by the American military was a bolt action.

Personally I believe you are arguing semantics meant to demean the argument knowing full well the term being used and what it means. Especially given that even in a semi-auto capability, an individual can deliver a lot firepower in a very short period of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

Why shouldn't they?

---

Just looking for a reason.. Hunting, Really?? Maybe the next war of the states?? Maybe china is on the way?? The drug cartel is in the next county? They are just out to get you?

By the way these are some of the reasons that people have told me over the years... Stupid beyond reason.

Just be honest and say " I have them in case in need to kill people" Why else would you need them? By the way I support the right to have them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

That's not the comparison I'm making. Predictably, you don't get the analogy I'm making. It's obvious you are making an emotional argument.

No, you are making illogical comparisons to divert from your inability to even define what you want to ban.


Please read the Pure Food and Drug Act before you continue to make a fool of yourself as it relates to the regulations regarding food production.

Again, tell me how manufacture has to do with the defined legal use of the consumer. That's right it doesn't. Nice try to divert once again but I want you to stay on topic and tell me how you directly compare controlling what someone buys regarding firearms and how someone manufactures candy. Oh that's right, YOU CAN'T. Try and tell me again how the government controls the amount and type of candy you buy. Oh wait, THEY DON'T. Any candy that is legal to sell can and is legally purchased with no restrictions on type or quantity every single day. Stop trying to sound so superior when your argument here is completely assinine and irrelevant.


Sadly, you have dissolved into personal attacks. As I stated earlier, you are making emotional arguments. Facts or logic don't support your positions.

And you have chosen your normal path of non-fact based propaganda and idiotic non-relevant comparisons. Sorry I am not going to let you get away with it. You can even define what you want to ban and refuse to be educated by not only me but others here.


No need to do any such thing. You're supplying all the support I need.

Yes, I am, by completely destroying your ability to stay on tract. Since you have nothing, not even a clear understanding of the firearm you want to ban, yu throw up the standard diversions and blather. Nice try...well not really.

---

Please do try harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I stated it was a "military style assault rifle." I didn't say it was an assault rifle.

Besides, I could easily make the argument that GI's carried a semi-auto assault rifle in WW II and Korea. Prior to that, the main assault rifle used by the American military was a bolt action.

Personally I believe you are arguing semantics meant to demean the argument knowing full well the term being used and what it means. Especially given that even in a semi-auto capability, an individual can deliver a lot firepower in a very short period of time.

---

Your grammar in "military style assault rifle", states you called it an assault rifle. What type of assault rifle? Military style.

As for assult rifles in WWII and Korea, GI's did not have them. An assault rifle by definition uses a smaller capacity intermediate rifle cartridge than a battle rifle and it fires full auto or in bursts. The M1 Garand was a battle rifle, semi-auto only, and fired a full size 30-06 cartridge. The BAR was full auto but used the same full power cartridge, therefore not an assault rifle. The M1 Carbine used a small, low performance pistol style round (it often didn't penetrate winter clothing of the North Koreans and Chinese) and was semi-auto. The M2 Carbine was an M1 Carbine modified to fire fully auto, but still used the pistol round and was not an assault rifle. The M-14 used the .308 cartridge, which is essentially a 30-06 with a shorter casing, therefore it was not an assault rifle. The Germans had an assault rifle in WWII, the Sturmgewher 44. It was full auto and had the intermediate cartridge. The USA didn't get an assault rifle until they adopted the M-16 in the Vietnam era. The AR-15 used in the school shooting is not an assault rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Because they are typically used to commit mass murder.

---

Care to back that up? There are 10s of millions of responsible, law abiding gun owners in the US. Conservatively, let's say millions of them own at least one large capacity magazine.

Now tell me that those magazines are "typically" used for mass murders. Or anything illegal at all. Go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L-Webb

Just looking for a reason.. Hunting, Really?? Maybe the next war of the states?? Maybe china is on the way?? The drug cartel is in the next county? They are just out to get you?

By the way these are some of the reasons that people have told me over the years... Stupid beyond reason.

Just be honest and say " I have them in case in need to kill people" Why else would you need them? By the way I support the right to have them

---

Painfully obvious you have never gone squirrel hunting in Minnesota. Many of us use a .22 with a tubular magazines, saves having a pocket full of loose ammo. Unless you hunt, you won't get it.

scfire, yes you are correct and you have never called it an "assault rifle", but lets be honest on the semantics of this. The average human sheep will only receive their limited firearm knowledge from the media, and all they are hyping on is just that, "military style assault weapon" and obviously every feature on the gun will be equated to "assault weapons". Hence you get the uneducated trying to ban semi-automatic fire arms, or equating larger capacity clips with mass murder. So with this logic, my 35 year old semi-automatic .22 with a tubular magazine has just become an assault weapon.
As far as looks, I can buy enough after market plastic to make my pinto look like a Porsche, but lets be honest, its still nothing more than that, a pinto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I stated it was a "military style assault rifle." I didn't say it was an assault rifle.

---

In what language is a "military style assault rifle" not an "assault rifle"? Nevermind since it's neither military nor a assault rifle of any kind.

Quote:

---

Besides, I could easily make the argument that GI's carried a semi-auto assault rifle in WW II and Korea. Prior to that, the main assault rifle used by the American military was a bolt action.

---

No, actually, you couldn't make that argument. The Germans fielded the first archtypical assault rifle in WWII but the US military didn't adopt one until Vietnam (AR-15/M-16). Bolt actions cannot be assault rifles by definition.

Quote:

---

Personally I believe you are arguing semantics meant to demean the argument knowing full well the term being used and what it means. Especially given that even in a semi-auto capability, an individual can deliver a lot firepower in a very short period of time.

---

I'm arguing that you need to have some idea of what you're talking about before you get into a serious debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I stated it was a "military style assault rifle." I didn't say it was an assault rifle.

Okay let's look at this sentence: I stated it was a "military style assault rifle." I didn't say it was an assault rifle.

Um, yes you did. Putting military style in front of it only makes you MORE WRONG. It is a civilian, semi-automatic, version that is completely incapable of fully automatic fire. Sorry you are wrong again and you even made it easy by proving it in your own post.


Besides, I could easily make the argument that GI's carried a semi-auto assault rifle in WW II and Korea. Prior to that, the main assault rifle used by the American military was a bolt action.

Actually, your ignrance is showing through once again. The M1 Garand that was adopted by the US military in 1936 was a shoulder fired, gas operated, semi-automatic, clip fed, MAIN BATTLE RIFLE that fired the full power 30-06 round. The 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle before it was also a MAIN BATTLE RIFLE because it fired the full power 30-06 round. They were called MAIN BATTLE RIFLES because they fired a full power cartridge, not the intermediate size cartridge of true assault rifles. The first true assaut rifle used by the US military was the M16, although some might try to claim the M14 was an assault rifle even though it fired a full power cartridge and doesn't meet the true definition.

The first TRUE assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr adopted by the German Wermacht in 1943 and used through the end of the war. What this revolutionary weapon did was give the infantryman a rifle capable of semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. It was more controllable than attempts to make a rifle capable of fully automatic rifle using the full power 7.92x57 round because it used an intermediate cartridge 7.92x33.

It really is a shame how ignorant you are on this topic...

Personally I believe you are arguing semantics meant to demean the argument knowing full well the term being used and what it means. Especially given that even in a semi-auto capability, an individual can deliver a lot firepower in a very short period of time.

Personally, I think you are using diversion because you can't even define what it is you want to ban. You find it easier dance, sing, and try to excuse your complete lack of understanding of the topic than do any real research to actually be able to speak in an educated manner about the topic.

No matter how fast you pull the trigger, or how many rounds the magazine holds, a semi-automatic rifle is not, no matter how much you want it to be, an assault rifle. By pure, undeniable definition, what you are calling an assault rifle is simply not an assault rifle

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
.

---

I won't apologize for being far more knowledgeable than you on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbzep

Your grammar in "military style assault rifle", states you called it an assault rifle. What type of assault rifle? Military style.

As for assult rifles in WWII and Korea, GI's did not have them. An assault rifle by definition uses a smaller capacity intermediate rifle cartridge than a battle rifle and it fires full auto or in bursts. The M1 Garand was a battle rifle, semi-auto only, and fired a full size 30-06 cartridge. The BAR was full auto but used the same full power cartridge, therefore not an assault rifle. The M1 Carbine used a small, low performance pistol style round (it often didn't penetrate winter clothing of the North Koreans and Chinese) and was semi-auto. The M2 Carbine was an M1 Carbine modified to fire fully auto, but still used the pistol round and was not an assault rifle. The M-14 used the .308 cartridge, which is essentially a 30-06 with a shorter casing, therefore it was not an assault rifle. The Germans had an assault rifle in WWII, the Sturmgewher 44. It was full auto and had the intermediate cartridge. The USA didn't get an assault rifle until they adopted the M-16 in the Vietnam era. The AR-15 used in the school shooting is not an assault rifle.

---

Dang it Dude, you beat me to it!! Nice work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Dang it Dude, you beat me to it!! Nice work.

---

Thanks. Since war and history has been brought up, I'd venture to guess that more people have been wounded or killed in war time with bolt actions than all the semi-auto and full auto battle rifles and assault rifles combined. The bolt action served armies from the late 1800's into WWI and WWII and even later for many countries and is still used today in many sniper units and in 3rd world countries. The USA was the only country that issued a semi-auto battle rifle in WWII. All other countries used bolt actions.

Like I said, I'm just guessing based on the huge casualties of the two world wars. Someone else that enjoys military history might be able to refute or verify without having to research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Um, yes you did. Putting military style in front of it only makes you MORE WRONG. It is a civilian, semi-automatic, version that is completely incapable of fully automatic fire. Sorry you are wrong again and you even made it easy by proving it in your own post.

---

I can assure you the mass of people who don't own guns and don't care to own guns could care less about your semantic slicing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Actually, your ignrance is showing through once again. The M1 Garand that was adopted by the US military in 1936 was a shoulder fired, gas operated, semi-automatic, clip fed, MAIN BATTLE RIFLE that fired the full power 30-06 round. The 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle before it was also a MAIN BATTLE RIFLE because it fired the full power 30-06 round. They were called MAIN BATTLE RIFLES because they fired a full power cartridge, not the intermediate size cartridge of true assault rifles. The first true assaut rifle used by the US military was the M16, although some might try to claim the M14 was an assault rifle even though it fired a full power cartridge and doesn't meet the true definition.

---

Ha ha ha. Now you really arguing semantics. The AK-47 is considered an assault rifle. The ballistics of its cartridge aren't much different from either the M1 or the M14. Both are .30 cal. But keep up with this argument. No one but folks like you care. By the way, I said I could make a case for the M1 being an assault rifle. What it was officially called isn't relevant to folks other than those like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

The first TRUE assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr adopted by the German Wermacht in 1943 and used through the end of the war. What this revolutionary weapon did was give the infantryman a rifle capable of semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. It was more controllable than attempts to make a rifle capable of fully automatic rifle using the full power 7.92x57 round because it used an intermediate cartridge 7.92x33.

---

Yawn. So what? Besides, using the criteria you are establishing I would submit the first assault rifle (according to your definition) was the B.A.R.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

It really is a shame how ignorant you are on this topic...

---

Wow? That I don't possess knowledge on gun trivia? The bottom line is the person on the receiving end of being shot to death by a semi-automatic rifle doesn't care what you are naming the weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Personally, I think you are using diversion because you can't even define what it is you want to ban. You find it easier dance, sing, and try to excuse your complete lack of understanding of the topic than do any real research to actually be able to speak in an educated manner about the topic.

---

What education do I lack? That people are being killed with weapons designed to resemble military rifles utilizing magazines that are not legal for hunting big game? At least in CA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

No matter how fast you pull the trigger, or how many rounds the magazine holds, a semi-automatic rifle is not, no matter how much you want it to be, an assault rifle. By pure, undeniable definition, what you are calling an assault rifle is simply not an assault rifle

---

Bovine Scatology. I already made my point with the M1. You decided it wasn't applicable based upon a standard that is mere terminology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

---

I bet the parents of those children in Newtown, CT aren't splitting the same hairs of terminology as folks like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I won't apologize for being far more knowledgeable than you on this topic.

---

And I'm betting that folks pushing for the regulation of these types of firearms could care less.

[QUOTE=SPFDRum;1351542]Painfully obvious you have never gone squirrel hunting in Minnesota. Many of us use a .22 with a tubular magazines, saves having a pocket full of loose ammo. Unless you hunt, you won't get it.

I do hunt and have used all kinds of weapons from a recurve to a slug gun that can drop a round in something at 300 yards. no I have never and will never hunt squirrels in minnesota.

I killed some squirrels with my recurve this year " try that one time" then you can say you have been squirrel hunting, hunting just is not that hard dude despite how magic people try to make it.

[QUOTE=L-Webb;1351557]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Painfully obvious you have never gone squirrel hunting in Minnesota. Many of us use a .22 with a tubular magazines, saves having a pocket full of loose ammo. Unless you hunt, you won't get it.

I do hunt and have used all kinds of weapons from a recurve to a slug gun that can drop a round in something at 300 yards. no I have never and will never hunt squirrels in minnesota.

I killed some squirrels with my recurve this year " try that one time" then you can say you have been squirrel hunting, hunting just is not that hard dude despite how magic people try to make it.

---

Never made mention of how easy or hard the act of hunting is, is not or could be. I'm merely pointing out the convenience of not having a pocket full of ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Ha ha ha. Now you really arguing semantics. The AK-47 is considered an assault rifle. The ballistics of its cartridge aren't much different from either the M1 or the M14. Both are .30 cal.

---

The 30-06 round has nearly double the energy of the 7.62x39 round in the two rifles respectively.

30-06 (M1 Garand) 890 m/s (2,910 ft/s) 3,820 J (2,820 ft·lbf)
7.62x39 (AK47 round) 731.5 m/s (2,400 ft/s) 2,073.6 J (1,529.4 ft·lbf)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I can assure you the mass of people who don't own guns and don't care to own guns could care less about your semantic slicing.

---

It isn't about semantics; it's about meaningful distinctions between different guns versus arbitrarily manufactured categories with no objective basis in reality.

Quote:

---

The AK-47 is considered an assault rifle.

---

Congrats on getting a fact correct! It was bound to happen purely by chance...

Quote:

---

The ballistics of its cartridge aren't much different from either the M1 or the M14 both are .30 cal.

---

Caliber is just the diameter of the bullet. If that was crucial then the cartridges for a .22 caliber plinker would have the same ballistics as the .223 in an M-16. Caliber alone has very little to do with the overall performance of the cartridge. The ballistics of the 7.62x39 used in an AK-47 are very different from the .30-06 in an M1 or the .308 in an M14. In terms of ballistics, the 7.62x39 is probably closest to the venerable .30-30.

Quote:

---

By the way, I said I could make a case for the M1 being an assault rifle. What it was officially called isn't relevant to folks other than those like yourself.

---

Only if "like yourself" means "people who choose facts over opinions". One of the defining characteristics of an "assault rifle" is the use of an intermediate cartridge such as the 7.62x39 mentioned above or .223 (or it's NATO 5.56 cousin). The M1 fires the significantly more powerful .30-06 (or upgraded .308). Another defining characteristic of an "assault rifle" is a removable magazine. M1s don't have those. Lastly, "assault rifles" have selective fire capability. Guess what? The M1 doesn't have that either. IOW, it's not an assault rifle by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:

---

That I don't possess knowledge on gun trivia?

---

This stuff isn't trivia; it's basic gun facts 101 level stuff that you should understand if you're going to get into a discussion with any expectation of being taken seriously.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is the person on the receiving end of being shot to death by a semi-automatic rifle doesn't care what you are naming the weapon.

---

Is being shot to death by a semi-automatic somehow more fatal than being shot to death by a matchlock musket?

Quote:

---

And I'm betting that folks pushing for the regulation of these types of firearms could care less.

---

Whether they care of not, it makes a difference if "these types of firearms" are an actual logical type and not just some sort of arbitrary shopping list based on ignorant opinions without supporting facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbzep

The 30-06 round has nearly double the energy of the 7.62x39 round in the two rifles respectively.

30-06 (M1 Garand) 890 m/s (2,910 ft/s) 3,820 J (2,820 ft·lbf)
7.62x39 (AK47 round) 731.5 m/s (2,400 ft/s) 2,073.6 J (1,529.4 ft·lbf)

---

I love how you guys keep moving the goal line. Now the determining factor is energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I love how you guys keep moving the goal line. Now the determining factor is energy.

---

You tried to claim that "the ballistics of its cartridge aren't much different" when, in fact, they're worlds apart by any relevant measure. Why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong? Seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

It isn't about semantics; it's about meaningful distinctions between different guns versus arbitrarily manufactured categories with no objective basis in reality.

---

Again, the non gun owning populace doesn't care when they are being shot at by someone with a semi-auto rifle with a large capacity magazine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

Congrats on getting a fact correct! It was bound to happen purely by chance...

---

I've gotten all my facts correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

Caliber is just the diameter of the bullet. If that was crucial then the cartridges for a .22 caliber plinker would have the same ballistics as the .223 in an M-16. Caliber alone has very little to do with the overall performance of the cartridge. The ballistics of the 7.62x39 used in an AK-47 are very different from the .30-06 in an M1 or the .308 in an M14. In terms of ballistics, the 7.62x39 is probably closest to the venerable .30-30.

---

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......and the people shot by them are no less dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

Only if "like yourself" means "people who choose facts over opinions". One of the defining characteristics of an "assault rifle" is the use of an intermediate cartridge such as the 7.62x39 mentioned above or .223 (or it's NATO 5.56 cousin). The M1 fires the significantly more powerful .30-06 (or upgraded .308). Another defining characteristic of an "assault rifle" is a removable magazine. M1s don't have those. Lastly, "assault rifles" have selective fire capability. Guess what? The M1 doesn't have that either. IOW, it's not an assault rifle by any stretch of the imagination.

---

See above response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

This stuff isn't trivia; it's basic gun facts 101 level stuff that you should understand if you're going to get into a discussion with any expectation of being taken seriously.

---

See above response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

Is being shot to death by a semi-automatic somehow more fatal than being shot to death by a matchlock musket?

---

Nope. And at one time I'm betting folks considered the Kentucky rifle an assault weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

Whether they care of not, it makes a difference if "these types of firearms" are an actual logical type and not just some sort of arbitrary shopping list based on ignorant opinions without supporting facts.

---

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......and the people shot by them are no less dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I've gotten all my facts correct.

---

Only in your own mind. Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I can assure you the mass of people who don't own guns and don't care to own guns could care less about your semantic slicing.


Ha ha ha. Now you really arguing semantics. The AK-47 is considered an assault rifle. The ballistics of its cartridge aren't much different from either the M1 or the M14. Both are .30 cal. But keep up with this argument. No one but folks like you care. By the way, I said I could make a case for the M1 being an assault rifle. What it was officially called isn't relevant to folks other than those like yourself.


Yawn. So what?


Wow? That I don't possess knowledge on gun trivia? The bottom line is the person on the receiving end of being shot to death by a semi-automatic rifle doesn't care what you are naming the weapon.


What education do I lack? That people are being killed with weapons designed to resemble military rifles utilizing magazines that are not legal for hunting big game? At least in CA.


Bovine Scatology. I already made my point with the M1. You decided it wasn't applicable based upon a standard that is mere terminology.


I bet the parents of those children in Newtown, CT aren't splitting the same hairs of terminology as folks like yourself.


And I'm betting that folks pushing for the regulation of these types of firearms could care less.

---

Okay, let me embarass you one last time. The AK-47 fires an intermediate round. It is 7.62x39, the previous MAIN BATTLE RIFLE round for the former Soviet Union was the 7.62x54. The US military currently uses the 5.56x45mm round, which is another intermediate round.. It replaced the 7.62x51mm round of the M14 a MAIN BATTLE RIFLE. The 7.62x51 replaced the 30-06 which was 7.62x63mm and was used in the M1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield. Both of which were MAIN BATTLE RIFLES.

Your complete ignorance of this topic makes you nothing more than another ultra leftist anti-gunner of the worst type. You can't intelligent define or defend your position so you resort to nonsense and drivel. You know like the purchase and ownership of candy and potato chips are heavily regulated by the government. (Yeah, Yeah, I heard you try to say that regulation of manufacture of candy s the same as regulation of what you can buy and what quantity. Sorry, that is just plain stupid and even you know it and that is why you dropped that line of drivel.) Like comparing the use of commercial explosive to legal gun ownership. Like calling something a "military style assault weapon" isn't calling that very same thing an assault weapon.

You see this is why I believe you are just trolling here. You have been stomped by not only me, but multiple people on this topic nd all you do is divert. Try to do what you kept yelling at the guy in the politics topic about...stay on topic. But, I don't think you can because you expected to go up against a bunch of good old boy gun guys that don't know the law or the actual definitions of what you are poorly attempting to talk about. It must really hurt your ego to see you can't bluff or bully people on this topic because we know more than you do...but then again that has never had any meaning to knee jerk poiliticos anyways.