So Homes used an assualt rifle? Really?

Yet I have not once argued or even hinted that an AR-15 is an assault rifle.

You are merely projecting your need for reading comprehension lessons.

 

Sorry, when you attack us for pointing out it's not an Assault Rifle to those who claim it is it then that is indeed your argument.

 

That does not occur very often.

 

Nope.

The purpose of the thread is to educate people on using the proper terminology.

Please address the question.

 

Thank you for illustrating exactly how the whole lot of you have failed to address my point.

I was not attacking anybody for that. I was just noting that my argument to ban enormous magazines was being avoided.

 

Thankfully, we are talking about a situation that does not occur very often. How many can reach safety in those precious seconds? I'm not buying your argument that there is no difference between reloading and not having to reload.

 

Lol! Fine dude, whatever! A thread that invokes the Aurora trajedy is not the right place to discuss ways to avoid such tragedies. I think I get it now!

What question? FYI, I already knew the definition of Assault Rifle before this thread was even a thought.

 

There is a whole list of questions. Please address them.

Where did I claim there is no difference? Strawman. My claim is that the time it takes to reload is largely immaterial.

It does not take long to reloaded a firearm.

 

You can't have it both ways: either there is no difference in terms of casualties or there is. I say there is. It's doubtful that a majority can reload in 3 seconds and when each second makes a difference there is a tremendous difference between reloading and not.

 

So, what changed between this post and now? You were more than happy to talk about gun control on Thurs but not on Sat?

LMAO!!

Obviously you aren't interested in civil constructive debate, so I'll leave you to marinade in your definitions.

 

endless argument with the uneducated.......A's best defense is why, how come, really...all ad homs
he doesn't desire to learn, but to force, another ad hom
and the fact that someone on this planet is better armed than he, frightens him senseless because he keep repeating the same question.
I forgot about the third group that abhors firearms...the rude bunch......

 

Why avoid addressing the questions? Unable to substantiate your claims?

 

I'm sure you see no irony with using grammar such as yours while accusing another of being uneducated. What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing joke!

It's painfully obvious you're in over your head. I actually feel bad for you.

 

I'll check back on Thurs since that's apparently when you're willing to discuss gun control.

 

that's 5 ad homs.....keep going, thre's only 7 left

 

you know, that's 6 ad homs. You've not substantiated one claim here that supports whatever it is you talking about.
What, take away our guns?
What is it that makes you right about gun ownership?
Why should only an elite few have guns?
Are you that fearful of firearms?
Or are you really that frightened thinking someone across the continent has one?
What is it about guns that scares you the most, personally?
Just because you don't think you'll ever need one doesn't equal that outcome.
And you expect some miraculous utopia to spring forth just because no one in the world is armed?
Tell us what's really on your mind. You've already conveyed the idea you are anti-gun. Why?
You are not discussing anything here, you are flamebaiting and hiding in some little slice of heaven you call happy land where everyone just loves each other and no crime exists. There are no armies, and no religion, too
I may say your a dreamer....
...wait, that song's already been written....

 

So you get to pick the definition then "laughingly" deride those who don't agree?

A firearm with a capability to fire over 60 rounds per minute without reloading is an assault weapon.
A magazine capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading is a component of an assault weapon.

In no case can any weapon configured this way be said to be defensive, or for hunting, or for target practice, or to have any other legitimate use other than killing lots of people in a very short time.

 

..and your point is probably just your opinion. I am just as entitled to mine as you are to you. So what? Your opinion is just as important to you as is mine to me. I reamain unconvinced so you both are wasting time on me. I like guns. You are afraid of them. I can live with that.....

 

You are making this up. There is no definition of an assault weapon.

 

thanks Hoosier, but they'll just readjust and start referring to it as an "assault rilfe" once "assault weapon" has been burned up in a loose attempt to bait you......either way, their opinion has no backing and no backbone, just personal feelings.
there are some here who are UN-loving, anti-gun lovin' trolls. they will never be convinced. they are so far from right, they can't tell their left.
all they argue with are ad homs and insults and inflamatory baiting, ie. flamebaiting.
ignore button is coming real quick.......probably after their next post......

 

I suggest further reading on the technical aspects of firearms before you attempt to argue the issue.

The definitions found in the OP are not my personal definitions, they are historical definitions and legal definitions based on US law. Perhaps you should read the US firearms laws before posting again on the subject eh?

 

I would argue that they are partly responsible for what happened in Aurora. Their kind of thinking set the stage for the shooting. The theater responded to their wishes by not allowing weapons, legal weapons. Does anyone think that the shooter cared at all for what the theater wanted? Instead, he used it to his advantage. Instead of being able to defend themselves, they were reduced to becoming victims. This very scenario in Texas in 1991 in a Luby's restaurant inspired almost all states to allow conceal carry. Why? So people could respond and protect themselves. Something that the gun control crowd wants to stop because they fear law abiding citizens because they think that everyone else would be as irresponsible with guns as they think they would be.

 

I can do a mag swap in an M-14 in less than two seconds and I haven't practiced it much...I could get it to under 1 second if i did.

 

It's not really about the clip,now is it? For you, it's about descriptive vandalism and banning all firearms. At least be honest with us here.

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Assault rifles vs. "Assault weapons"
The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud
The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.

"Assault weapons" are said by gun prohibition advocates to possess certain unique features which render them far more dangerous than other firearms. This Part examines each of the various physical characteristics said to be unique to "assault weapons," and analyzes whether any of them creates a classification that can survive meaningful rational basis scrutiny.
At this point, it should be stated that this Article will not discuss assault rifles. As the United States Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, "assault rifles" are "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
No mention of a 100 round clip. Yes, more than ten round clip, but there has to be other qualifiers, not just the clip.
So again, what is it that makes you so nervous about guns? One man out of hundreds of millions gets wrong in the head, broke. Nothing could have prevented such a catastrophy. The fact that even one died is less important the the deaths of many? Do you really believed that if he wanted to do this without a gun, he couldn't have found another way? Maybe even more deadly. Passing more laws and prohibiting ownership wont stop the criminals. The criminals will know there is nothing to stop them once all the guns are seized. Just look to Australia.
This was shortly after everyone was required to turn their private guns in.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
"...•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent..."
Do you really want to be one of those statistics? Do not say it cannot or will not happen.
Even better, look to Mexico where personal ownership is only determined by money, yet the criminals are better armed than the military and the schmuck in the middle cannot protect himself. So, some flee to adjoining countries, unable to protect their homes and families, failing their responsibility to safe guard their families.
This is, in fact, the truth about gun control.
In South Africa, the natives kill police just to get their guns and ammunition
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/to...n_south_africa
This is what you get when you take away the guns......criminals will steal them just to kill somone else, but not law abiding good folk, they are the target, and without defense.
Cops are never there when the shooting starts and they always wait until it is safe before they go in. You going to trust to that? Hiring more isn't going to make you any safer.
You'll wind up locked in your house.
History backs me up. So stay unarmed and pray.

 

...and don't forget the ensuing panic....folks all heading for the same door at once. Lucky for Holmes no one was packing in there.