Recent mass shootings in the U.S.

Watch
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
:cry:@ Gunsplaining
0
reply
Djtoodles
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by QE2)
1. How is a semi-auto AR15 and a full-auto M16 stuck in semi-auto mode different in practical terms?
2. Where have I claimed that there is no factual difference between a semi and a full auto?

I include my original post for you to read again as you seem to have entirely missed it. Feel free to ask for help if you are still struggling.

Given that they can be identical in every way, apart from one small change which removes the need to pull the trigger for each shot, and that full-auto can become semi-auto at the flick of a switch, perhaps you could explain how a full-auto and semi-auto rifle is so completely different?

It's also worth pointing out to the pedants that "automatic rifle" applies to both semi-auto and full-auto versions.
The AR-15 that can be legally bought over the counter in the US is an "automatic rifle".


Oh yes, and *ssprroiinnggg!*
Well, the major difference in your first point would be that one rifle is clearly broken. It’s a pretty dumb question to be honest because you are comparing an item designed with X capability to another item designed with XY capability but asking what is the difference between the two if you took away the Y capability. Well, none because if we take away all the differences in functionality, they become functionally the same.

The clue is in the name in terms of practical difference. The semi-automatic lacks the capability for fully automatic fire, as a result of differences in the trigger pack relating to the engagement of the sear.

Also by the textbook definition automatic rifle has the ability for fully automatic fire. I’m unsure of the legal terminology as it pertains to the US, but clearly the US uses some other nomenclature to legally differentiate between a full-auto and a semi-auto firearm as the distinction between two remains even in the US.

As for differences in terms of shooting the main one is volume of fire, which is why bump-stocks were such a hot topic.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by QE2)
1. How is a semi-auto AR15 and a full-auto M16 stuck in semi-auto mode different in practical terms?
2. Where have I claimed that there is no factual difference between a semi and a full auto?

I include my original post for you to read again as you seem to have entirely missed it. Feel free to ask for help if you are still struggling.

Given that they can be identical in every way, apart from one small change which removes the need to pull the trigger for each shot, and that full-auto can become semi-auto at the flick of a switch, perhaps you could explain how a full-auto and semi-auto rifle is so completely different?

It's also worth pointing out to the pedants that "automatic rifle" applies to both semi-auto and full-auto versions.
The AR-15 that can be legally bought over the counter in the US is an "automatic rifle".


Oh yes, and *ssprroiinnggg!*
You have tried to argue that semi and full auto are the same, theyre not. I get this really isnt your area of expertise, such as you have one at all these days bar ranting about 'gammons' and 'muslims' but this really shouldnt be that hard to understand for you. Semi-automatic is not the same as full automatic in any way, shape or form. The fact the only "argument" you can make in support of your absurdity is some odd comments on a platform rather proves the point.

I have no idea why you're saying 'sproing' at me. One can only assume its your usual policy of deflecting when people call you out on your rubbish and trolling.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Djtoodles)
Well, the major difference in your first point would be that one rifle is clearly broken. It’s a pretty dumb question to be honest because you are comparing an item designed with X capability to another item designed with XY capability but asking what is the difference between the two if you took away the Y capability. Well, none because if we take away all the differences in functionality, they become functionally the same.

The clue is in the name in terms of practical difference. The semi-automatic lacks the capability for fully automatic fire, as a result of differences in the trigger pack relating to the engagement of the sear.

Also by the textbook definition automatic rifle has the ability for fully automatic fire. I’m unsure of the legal terminology as it pertains to the US, but clearly the US uses some other nomenclature to legally differentiate between a full-auto and a semi-auto firearm as the distinction between two remains even in the US.

As for differences in terms of shooting the main one is volume of fire, which is why bump-stocks were such a hot topic.
The point I am making is that they are physically almost identical, and with the flick of a switch, are absolutely identical in practical terms.
This is in response to the people using the difference as a means of deflection during debate on gun control. "Ha! The AR-15 isn't a fully automatic rifle. You lose!" is a meaningless argument.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Napp)
You have tried to argue that semi and full auto are the same
No I haven't. I pointed out that in practical terms they can be identical.

Semi-automatic is not the same as full automatic in any way, shape or form. The fact the only "argument" you can make in support of your absurdity is some odd comments on a platform rather proves the point.
Ironic really, given that you only seem to be able to repeat the same flawed assertion without providing any cogent argument.
An AR15 and an M16 are exactly the same apart from a slight difference in the lower receiver.
Now, if you disagree, perhaps try presenting and argument rather than just bleating "T'ISN"T!"

I have no idea why you're saying 'sproing' at me. One can only assume its your usual policy of deflecting when people call you out on your rubbish and trolling.
I am more than aware of your inability to understand basic concepts, so this comes as no surprise.
Last edited by QE2; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Djtoodles
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by QE2)
The point I am making is that they are physically almost identical, and with the flick of a switch, are absolutely identical in practical terms.
This is in response to the people using the difference as a means of deflection during debate on gun control. "Ha! The AR-15 isn't a fully automatic rifle. You lose!" is a meaningless argument.
Its that switch that makes all the difference in practical terms though, just because a full-auto can be semi-auto doesn’t mean much. A Ferrari F8 and a Vauxhall Corsa are identical in functional terms if you don’t press the accelerator very much in the Ferrari lol.

In the same way that the "Ha! The AR-15 isn't a fully automatic rifle. You lose!" argument is meaningless (and I do agree its meaningless), so is trying to claim that a full-auto and semi-auto are the same in practical terms when they are not. If you really want try and debate those kinds of people then acknowledging the differences is more productive than digging your feet in that there are none.

As for the US, its problems are more complex that just blaming everything on having access to firearms. Plenty of countries have access to firearms but don’t have the same kind of problems. Although guns play a part, even if they did implement gun control now, it would be ineffective in stopping these kinds of shootings. There are so many guns floating about that any criminal would still have easy access to them gun control or not. The US needs to fix its deep social issues if it ever wants to get away from horrible occurrences like these shootings, but I think me getting superpowers is more likely.

Just personally id like access to firearms in the UK for the purposes of collecting and competition shoots like 2GACM. I don’t mind if it requires strict controlled implementation such as storing them in secure areas of a range and not being allowed to take them home etc, but shooting is one of my favourite things to do when I go on my holidays to the US.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Djtoodles)
Its that switch that makes all the difference in practical terms though, just because a full-auto can be semi-auto doesn’t mean much. A Ferrari F8 and a Vauxhall Corsa are identical in functional terms if you don’t press the accelerator very much in the Ferrari lol.
Not really. Every component of the Ferrari is different from the Corsa. An AR15 and an M16 are literally the same gun, apart from one component that is slightly different.
A better analogy would be a Ferrari in road mode and the same Ferrari in track mode. Would you argue that they are fundamentally different cars? Obviously not.

In the same way that the "Ha! The AR-15 isn't a fully automatic rifle. You lose!" argument is meaningless (and I do agree its meaningless), so is trying to claim that a full-auto and semi-auto are the same in practical terms when they are not. If you really want try and debate those kinds of people then acknowledging the differences is more productive than digging your feet in that there are none.
You seem to be committing the same mistake as Napp , merely asserting that they are not essentially the same without providing any explanation why, or addressing my argument.

As for the US, its problems are more complex that just blaming everything on having access to firearms. Plenty of countries have access to firearms but don’t have the same kind of problems.
No one is claiming that guns are the only problem, but they are certify a major one. To argue otherwise is to deny reality.

Although guns play a part, even if they did implement gun control now, it would be ineffective in stopping these kinds of shootings.
*cough*Australia*cough*
And even if stricter gun controls only had a small impact on fatalities (say reducing them by 10%). What is your objection to preventing 3000 deaths a year?

There are so many guns floating about that any criminal would still have easy access to them gun control or not.
Mass shootings are not generally carried out by career criminals. They are usually just regular people who lose it and use their legally owned guns to kill a load of people.

Also, the "you can't make a law if people might break it" argument is stupid beyond belief.

The US needs to fix its deep social issues if it ever wants to get away from horrible occurrences like these shootings, but I think me getting superpowers is more likely.
And one of those issues is the ridiculously easy access to high-velocity, rapid-fire weapons with high-capacity magazines.

Just personally id like access to firearms in the UK for the purposes of collecting and competition shoots like 2GACM. I don’t mind if it requires strict controlled implementation such as storing them in secure areas of a range and not being allowed to take them home etc, but shooting is one of my favourite things to do when I go on my holidays to the US.
Penis enlargement surgery is also available.
0
reply
Djtoodles
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
QE2
I feel as though I’m wasting my time here; talking to a fanatical anti-gun loon is as fruitless as talking to a fanatical 2a loon. One side think passing a law to ban guns will make all 400 million of the untraceable guns disappear overnight, crimes will stop and the crops will grow and the other thinks more guns are the cure for everything. So I’ll just leave you to your soapbox about how guns are bad and how you can save the US by banning them.

Ill try one last time to explain to you why a full auto and semi auto firearm are different in practical terms. Your example of a “sports button” isn’t very good because it doesn’t require any mechanical differences where a semi/full does so more accurately it is the same model of car but different engines and therefore different capabilities (speed). I’ve never claimed an AR15 and an M16 are substantially different physically or require massive mechanical changes because it’s pretty irrelevant how much a mechanical difference there is if the capabilities are change substantially as a result of it. In this case its rate of fire where you go from 300 (one of the fastest shooters in the world theoretical rate of fire) to 700 – 900. This is the main practical difference and the reason why things like drop in auto sears are already illegal.

“Penis enlargement surgery is also available.” – tsk-tsk but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of a perfectly legitimate sport which is enjoyed all over the world including Europe. More importantly though your narrow-mindedness means you’re missing out on something that is great fun and great exercise. Its also worth mentioning women enjoy shooting sports as well so it was a piss poor attempt at an insult all round really.


Have a nice weekend you colossal dickbag.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Djtoodles)
QE2
I

Ill try one last time to explain to you why a full auto and semi auto firearm are different in practical terms. Your example of a “sports button” isn’t very good because it doesn’t require any mechanical differences where a semi/full does so more accurately it is the same model of car but different engines and therefore different capabilities (speed). I’ve never claimed an AR15 and an M16 are substantially different physically or require massive mechanical changes because it’s pretty irrelevant how much a mechanical difference there is if the capabilities are change substantially as a result of it. In this case its rate of fire where you go from 300 (one of the fastest shooters in the world theoretical rate of fire) to 700 – 900. This is the main practical difference and the reason why things like drop in auto sears are already illegal.
Whilst you and the other posters are right on the technicalities, I am afraid on the bigger picture QE2 is right. The rate of discharge of the available magazine of a semi-automatic weapon makes the difference in performance of a fully automatic weapon irrelevant.

In the 1920s the different in performance of a Bugatti and an ordinary Austin made a huge difference to how lethal each car was. The difference in performance between today’s Bugatti and any middle class saloon makes no difference. Both cars can be driven beyond the reaction times of their drivers.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by QE2)
No I haven't. I pointed out that in practical terms they can be identical.


Ironic really, given that you only seem to be able to repeat the same flawed assertion without providing any cogent argument.
An AR15 and an M16 are exactly the same apart from a slight difference in the lower receiver.
Now, if you disagree, perhaps try presenting and argument rather than just bleating "T'ISN"T!"


I am more than aware of your inability to understand basic concepts, so this comes as no surprise.
So your only reply is some queer little attempt at insults? Very on brand for you i guess.
Either way, if you're really so impressively ill-educated as to not know the extremely simple engineering differences thats on you. You can carry on trying to argue an apple is an orange simply because theyre both fruit but that doesnt make it any more true, or your attempts to appear smart any more self defeating. It really does boggle the mind that you dont know what the difference is between something that can empty a magazine with a single trigger pull and something that requires a trigger pull per round. Like this really isnt rocket science, even by your tenuous grasp of the matter.
But hey, you believe whatever you like. At least the other good users on this particular thread can take note you're talking rubbish.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Djtoodles)
QE2
I feel as though I’m wasting my time here;
You are kinda wasting your time because you are not saying anything remotely worthwhile. But don't worry, you aren't the first and won't be the last.

talking to a fanatical anti-gun loon is as fruitless as talking to a fanatical 2a loon. One side think passing a law to ban guns will make all 400 million of the untraceable guns disappear overnight, crimes will stop and the crops will grow and the other thinks more guns are the cure for everything.
But no one opposed to the easy availability of firearms makes any of those claims. Ironically they belong exclusively to the fevered minds of the pro-gun loons.
However, if you have a cogent argument as to why restricting the availability of firearms to the general public will not reduce the incidence of shootings in any way, we would all love to hear it.
Or are you one of those "if we can't cure everyone of cancer, why bother with anyone" loons?

So I’ll just leave you to your soapbox about how guns are bad and how you can save the US by banning them.
While there is no rational argument for most people to possess firearms of any sort, a complete ban and confiscation in the US would be impractical - which is why no one has proposed it. However, increasing controls of the type of weapon available and how easy they are to obtain is not only possible, but absolutely necessary.
Again, if you have a rational argument against such control, feel free to present it. (Note: "but I love shooting guns!" is not a rational argument)

Ill try one last time to explain to you why a full auto and semi auto firearm are different in practical terms. Your example of a “sports button” isn’t very good because it doesn’t require any mechanical differences where a semi/full does so more accurately it is the same model of car but different engines and therefore different capabilities (speed). I’ve never claimed an AR15 and an M16 are substantially different physically or require massive mechanical changes because it’s pretty irrelevant how much a mechanical difference there is if the capabilities are change substantially as a result of it. In this case its rate of fire where you go from 300 (one of the fastest shooters in the world theoretical rate of fire) to 700 – 900. This is the main practical difference and the reason why things like drop in auto sears are already illegal.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, other than agreeing with me over the fundamental similarity between the semi-auto and full auto in the number of people they can kill and how easily it can be done in the hands of a mass shooter. (In reality, given the low casualty numbers in military exchanges where thousands of rounds are being loosed off on full auto, the semi is probably more deadly as every shot is directed at a target)

“Penis enlargement surgery is also available.” – tsk-tsk but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of a perfectly legitimate sport which is enjoyed all over the world including Europe. More importantly though your narrow-mindedness means you’re missing out on something that is great fun and great exercise. Its also worth mentioning women enjoy shooting sports as well so it was a piss poor attempt at an insult all round really.
I have no objection to bolt action rifles, held securely at licensed shooting ranges, so there goes your "sport" defence.

Have a nice weekend you colossal dickbag.
:rofl:
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Napp)
So your only reply is some queer little attempt at insults? Very on brand for you i guess.
Either way, if you're really so impressively ill-educated as to not know the extremely simple engineering differences thats on you. You can carry on trying to argue an apple is an orange simply because theyre both fruit but that doesnt make it any more true, or your attempts to appear smart any more self defeating. It really does boggle the mind that you dont know what the difference is between something that can empty a magazine with a single trigger pull and something that requires a trigger pull per round. Like this really isnt rocket science, even by your tenuous grasp of the matter.
But hey, you believe whatever you like. At least the other good users on this particular thread can take note you're talking rubbish.
So you are unable to explain why an AR15 and an M16 are not identical guns, apart from a minor difference in one component, and why they are not absolutely identical in practice when the M16 is in semi-auto mode?
Thought not.

And just in case you were unsure - no, simply crying "but you are ill-educated!!" is not actually an argument. You need to explain why if you want to be taken seriously (although I think that train has long since sailed).
Last edited by QE2; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
Given the state of things in the US, I would reluctantly support gun control if I were a US citizen. But, as with knives here in the UK, these killings are not an inevitable consequence of having access to weaponry. It reflects a deterioration in behavioural standards. When my grandfather was young, every boy carried a pocket knife and yet there were no stabbings. The same was true in Nigeria, apparently: https://youtu.be/1baGYkPIj6Q?t=440
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by -Imperator-)
Given the state of things in the US, I would reluctantly support gun control if I were a US citizen. But, as with knives here in the UK, these killings are not an inevitable consequence of having access to weaponry. It reflects a deterioration in behavioural standards. When my grandfather was young, every boy carried a pocket knife and yet there were no stabbings. The same was true in Nigeria, apparently: https://youtu.be/1baGYkPIj6Q?t=440
Read Brighton Rock or Pincher Martin and there would be a different impression.

Knives become illegal in 1953. However in 1957 the felony murder rule was abolished. Before 1957 if anyone is killed in a knife fight everyone present (18+) is facing the gallows. Gangs slashed with knives; they didn't stab.

There is quite a lot of material about older gang members keeping younger members in line, because it is the older members at risk and that was amply demonstrated in 1952, albeit with a shooting, with the execution of Derek Bentley.(it was legally irrelevant whether Bentley ever said "Let him have it Chris").
Last edited by nulli tertius; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by -Imperator-)
Given the state of things in the US, I would reluctantly support gun control if I were a US citizen.
Why "reluctantly"? What rational argument is there for not having more checks and controls on buying guns?
Why not make the processes of buying, owning and using guns as controlled and regulated as for cars, for example?

But, as with knives here in the UK, these killings are not an inevitable consequence of having access to weaponry. It reflects a deterioration in behavioural standards. When my grandfather was young, every boy carried a pocket knife and yet there were no stabbings. The same was true in Nigeria, apparently: https://youtu.be/1baGYkPIj6Q?t=440
This is a bit of a myth. Stabbings requiring hospital treatment in the UK have been in the 3000-4500 per year range for decades. There is currently a spike in numbers, but no more so than the one seen in the 1990s.

Also, pocket knives are not primarily designed for killing people. Guns are.
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#76
Report 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by DiddyDec)
The US is not a particularly rational place, they let citizens have anti material rifles in the first place. When it comes to US law I try not to apply reason or logic because there often is none.
I read this article around the time Steven Pinker's book came out.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenk...h=22e43fe57eed
I think it's v. interesting. It suggests that humans are wired to get a dopamine kick from guns.
I think there's some truth in this.
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by QE2)
Why "reluctantly"?
Because it's not something that's always been necessary.

(Original post by QE2)
This is a bit of a myth. Stabbings requiring hospital treatment in the UK have been in the 3000-4500 per year range for decades. There is currently a spike in numbers, but no more so than the one seen in the 1990s.
You aren't looking back far enough. Violent crime rates grew rapidly from WW2 onwards.

(Original post by QE2)
Also, pocket knives are not primarily designed for killing people. Guns are.
Guns are also used for hunting. There are communities in the US who have traditionally used guns for hunting just as children over used to carry knives.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by -Imperator-)
Because it's not something that's always been necessary.
1. Yes it has (in the recent past).
2. If it is necessary now, why the reluctance?

You aren't looking back far enough. Violent crime rates grew rapidly from WW2 onwards.
If we look far enough into the past we can always find a change in trends. Hardly makes for reasonable argument though.
Also, the problem with many offences is changes in the way in which they are classified, reported and recorded, so it is difficult to draw any conclusions. However, murders are a constant in that respect, and they fell after WW2, not reaching 1945 levels for nearly 30 years.

Guns are also used for hunting. There are communities in the US who have traditionally used guns for hunting just as children over used to carry knives.
Bolt action rifles with limited capacity (2 rounds should be enough for any capable marksman), securely held at licensed premises would cater for them.

Still no rational argument for people to keep high-velocity, high-capacity, rapid-fire, assault-style rifles in the home.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by QE2)
So you are unable to explain why an AR15 and an M16 are not identical guns, apart from a minor difference in one component, and why they are not absolutely identical in practice when the M16 is in semi-auto mode?
Thought not.

And just in case you were unsure - no, simply crying "but you are ill-educated!!" is not actually an argument. You need to explain why if you want to be taken seriously (although I think that train has long since sailed).
You still cant understand that semi-automatic is not full automatic? Why exactly? Aside from asking some weird irrelevant side question that has, and i cannot stress this enough, nothing to do with the key detail you cant seem to wrap your head around? Or are you one of those delightfully naive people who think there's something unique to an AR-15 outside of it being a design platform and thus, in the context of how it works, no different from any other MSSA.
There really is no hope for you though if all you can do is try and troll in response to your ******** being called out so i'll leave you to fulminate on how guns, muslims, gammons and so on are bad and whatever your other hackneyed hysterical complaints might be these days.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by Napp)
You still cant understand that semi-automatic is not full automatic? Why exactly? Aside from asking some weird irrelevant side question that has, and i cannot stress this enough, nothing to do with the key detail you cant seem to wrap your head around? Or are you one of those delightfully naive people who think there's something unique to an AR-15 outside of it being a design platform and thus, in the context of how it works, no different from any other MSSA.
There really is no hope for you though if all you can do is try and troll in response to your ******** being called out so i'll leave you to fulminate on how guns, muslims, gammons and so on are bad and whatever your other hackneyed hysterical complaints might be these days.
Seriously? Are you high? I have explained the distinction a long time ago. You really seem to have no idea what is going on here.
And genuinely baffled why you keep bringing up "gammons and Muslims". Are you ok?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (144)
4.87%
Uncertainty around my education (434)
14.68%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (332)
11.23%
Lack of purpose or motivation (410)
13.87%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (137)
4.63%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (179)
6.06%
Loneliness (255)
8.63%
Financial worries (109)
3.69%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.09%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.57%
Lack of real life entertainment (159)
5.38%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (261)
8.83%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (280)
9.47%

Watched Threads

View All