The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:14 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Then you should be aware just about any gun can fire more than ten times in a minute.

I was throwing a number out. 10 rounds per minute, 15, etc. If a rifle has a maximum capacity of 8 rounds, and takes 30 seconds to reload (without rushing), then it would have a firing rate of less than 10 rounds a minute, assuming the person is aiming between each shot instead of firing at will just to fire at a high rate.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
No magazine fed gun takes 30 seconds to reload... Even manually loading a tube fed shotgun can be done in ten seconds.

Are you familiar with the mad minute? 5-shot, manually loaded bolt action rifles were used by British soldiers, who were required to be able to put 15 shots within a 12" circle at 300 yards in the space of one minute. Most soldiers did better than that, around 20-30 shots inside that 12" circle at 300 yards, in one minute. I think that qualifies as both aimed fire, and it includes reloading. That's 20-30 rounds. And that's not elite soldiers or anything, that's the standard infantryman of World War 1.

Firing rate is a useless tool for determining the "dangerousness" of a firearm.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:25 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  No magazine fed gun takes 30 seconds to reload... Even manually loading a tube fed shotgun can be done in ten seconds.

Are you familiar with the mad minute? 5-shot, manually loaded bolt action rifles were used by British soldiers, who were required to be able to put 15 shots within a 12" circle at 300 yards in the space of one minute. Most soldiers did better than that, around 20-30 shots inside that 12" circle at 300 yards, in one minute. I think that qualifies as both aimed fire, and it includes reloading. That's 20-30 rounds. And that's not elite soldiers or anything, that's the standard infantryman of World War 1.

Firing rate is a useless tool for determining the "dangerousness" of a firearm.

It defines its ability to deal out ammunition in a given amount of time. It is one of the defining characteristics that should be taken into consideration. Just like a car has a 0-60 time, or a 40-60 time, or a 0-100 time, or a 60-0 time. These all say something about the car for comparisons sake. I just say that the firing rate, plus barrel length, plus grip-style, plus detachable components, plus magazine fed vs. tube fed, plus ammo capacity/magazine capacity, etc, should all be considered.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 12:25 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  No magazine fed gun takes 30 seconds to reload... Even manually loading a tube fed shotgun can be done in ten seconds.

Are you familiar with the mad minute? 5-shot, manually loaded bolt action rifles were used by British soldiers, who were required to be able to put 15 shots within a 12" circle at 300 yards in the space of one minute. Most soldiers did better than that, around 20-30 shots inside that 12" circle at 300 yards, in one minute. I think that qualifies as both aimed fire, and it includes reloading. That's 20-30 rounds. And that's not elite soldiers or anything, that's the standard infantryman of World War 1.

Firing rate is a useless tool for determining the "dangerousness" of a firearm.

It defines its ability to deal out ammunition in a given amount of time. It is one of the defining characteristics that should be taken into consideration. Just like a car has a 0-60 time, or a 40-60 time, or a 0-100 time, or a 60-0 time. These all say something about the car for comparisons sake. I just say that the firing rate, plus barrel length, plus grip-style, plus detachable components, plus magazine fed vs. tube fed, plus ammo capacity/magazine capacity, etc, should all be considered.

The problem is that it is entirely dependent on the operator, not the gun. Any semiautomatic will fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled. A bolt action or similar can be fired as fast as the action can be worked. If you introduce the even more nebulous idea of the "aimed shot" then the entire measure becomes a measure of operator skill than of the firearm. There are people who can fire and reload a lever action rifle faster than other people can fire a Glock. It's useless.

That's the PROBLEM, TBD. You're not thinking any of your ideas through. Firing rate is what you're worried about? Then come out and say you want to ban semi-automatics. You're worried about ammunition hoarding? Then tell me how much I can buy before I should be investigated by the FBI. Stop playing games, sit your ass down, and figure out your position BEFORE touching your keyboard. Don't try to figure it out as you go, it's a waste of our time arguing you if you'll change your position after two posts. Hobo

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:37 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It defines its ability to deal out ammunition in a given amount of time. It is one of the defining characteristics that should be taken into consideration. Just like a car has a 0-60 time, or a 40-60 time, or a 0-100 time, or a 60-0 time. These all say something about the car for comparisons sake. I just say that the firing rate, plus barrel length, plus grip-style, plus detachable components, plus magazine fed vs. tube fed, plus ammo capacity/magazine capacity, etc, should all be considered.

The problem is that it is entirely dependent on the operator, not the gun. Any semiautomatic will fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled. A bolt action or similar can be fired as fast as the action can be worked. If you introduce the even more nebulous idea of the "aimed shot" then the entire measure becomes a measure of operator skill than of the firearm. There are people who can fire and reload a lever action rifle faster than other people can fire a Glock. It's useless.

That's the PROBLEM, TBD. You're not thinking any of your ideas through. Firing rate is what you're worried about? Then come out and say you want to ban semi-automatics. You're worried about ammunition hoarding? Then tell me how much I can buy before I should be investigated by the FBI. Stop playing games, sit your ass down, and figure out your position BEFORE touching your keyboard. Don't try to figure it out as you go, it's a waste of our time arguing you if you'll change your position after two posts. Hobo

Would someone who only has access to a single-shot shotgun, be capable of dealing as much damage as someone who had access to an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine?

You keep coming back to each discussion with the same insults and unnecessary rude comments. If you expect me to reply, then stop being a complete fuck-wad. You are too much like Egor in that respect. You demand respect, but reserve the right to throw in insults along with any point you attempt to make. It doesn't make me want to read anything you write. It is an assault on my senses.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 12:37 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The problem is that it is entirely dependent on the operator, not the gun. Any semiautomatic will fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled. A bolt action or similar can be fired as fast as the action can be worked. If you introduce the even more nebulous idea of the "aimed shot" then the entire measure becomes a measure of operator skill than of the firearm. There are people who can fire and reload a lever action rifle faster than other people can fire a Glock. It's useless.

That's the PROBLEM, TBD. You're not thinking any of your ideas through. Firing rate is what you're worried about? Then come out and say you want to ban semi-automatics. You're worried about ammunition hoarding? Then tell me how much I can buy before I should be investigated by the FBI. Stop playing games, sit your ass down, and figure out your position BEFORE touching your keyboard. Don't try to figure it out as you go, it's a waste of our time arguing you if you'll change your position after two posts. Hobo

Would someone who only has access to a single-shot shotgun, be capable of dealing as much damage as someone who had access to an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine?

Yes, because the 100 round drum magazine would jam after the first few shots because most of them are garbage... Now, being reasonable and assuming a 30 round magazine. I think they would be pretty equal. Because the rampage would continue until someone who did have a gun (whether that's a citizen or a cap) killed them. If it's in a densely crowded area, then the odds of someone nearby having a gun go up dramatically and the guy would be killed PDQ regardless of what he was using. If there are only a couple people around then it doesn't matter what he has, everyone's dead unless someone with a gun or other weapon can stop him.

I care as much about your senses as I do Egor's or I&I's or PleaseJesus's.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:56 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:53 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 12:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Would someone who only has access to a single-shot shotgun, be capable of dealing as much damage as someone who had access to an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine?

Yes, because the 100 round drum magazine would jam after the first few shots because most of them are garbage... Now, being reasonable and assuming a 30 round magazine. I think they would be pretty equal. Because the rampage would continue until someone who did have a gun (whether that's a citizen or a cap) killed them. If it's in a densely crowded area, then the odds of someone nearby having a gun go up dramatically and the guy would be killed PDQ regardless of what he was using. If there are only a couple people around then it doesn't matter what he has, everyone's dead unless someone with a gun or other weapon can stop him.

I care as much about your senses as I do Egor's or I&I's or PleaseJesus's.

So you define a guns abilities based on the presence of other guns? Ergo, a gun is only dangerous in someones hands who wants to use it for ill will, if there is no one around with a gun?

Cops are killed yearly be people with guns. Fort Hood. War. Hell, war should be the safest place ever since there are so many guns. Each gun should be practically harmless.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
You pose a specific situation, I respond, and you want to extrapolate my response to all situations everywhere? What's that fallacy called again? No matter, I think you're well aware...

If a madman wants to kill people he will kill people. A gun is an effective tool to do so. And that madman will continue to kill people until stopped.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 01:03 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 01:01 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You pose a specific situation, I respond, and you want to extrapolate my response to all situations everywhere? What's that fallacy called again? No matter, I think you're well aware...

If a madman wants to kill people he will kill people. A gun is an effective tool to do so. And that madman will continue to kill people until stopped.

I ask you a question about the weapon, and you deflect not once but twice. You say that the magazine I picked is garbage and you ignore it. You pick something you say is more reasonable, and then say they are equivalent since someone will shoot them irregardless of which gun they have.

You are getting good at dodging.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Disagreeing with you is a dodge? Then you're disingenuous and a liar. Thumbsup

Any gun is a deadly tool, and you can kill as many people with a shotgun as you can with a rifle. If you want to say that a guy with a rifle can shoot more people, then say so. I don't think that's the case in a realistic situation.

Would it tickle your taint if the kids at Sandy Hook were hit with double ought buck instead of two twenty three or ten millimeter? Would it make you feel better? Would it make you feel safer? If the dead children were mutilated by a slightly different weapon?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: