quade 3
Recommended Posts
You are so wrong it does not even dignify a response.
BYE
BYE
QuoteQuoteYou trying to tell me about firearms and how knowledgeable you are is like you bragging that you are a great skydiver to Rook.
Show me where I've ever claimed to be an expert and you might have a point.
Now, were you going to deny what I said? I haven't heard it yet.
So where did you get all your knowledge on the topic?
Or will you admit you know either nothing or next to nothing.
quade 3
QuoteYou are so wrong it does not even dignify a response.
BYE
Really? I'm wrong? Awesome. I'd LOVE to see your math on that.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 3
Quote
So where did you get all your knowledge on the topic?
You. You've been a font of knowledge. Always so willing to do the math for us mere mortals.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteAdding a 1 to 2 second magazine change every 10 rounds certainly WOULD cut down on the kinetic energy per minute being delivered from the weapon.
Most gun owners want to maximize KE/min. You're barking up the wrong tree. Fail.
You just reiterated Quade's point for him. Is it his argument or your own that you don't understand?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
You bore me.
Go back to your self professed omnipotence and live in your dream world.
You have been exposed as knowing nothing on this topic.
Go back to your self professed omnipotence and live in your dream world.
You have been exposed as knowing nothing on this topic.
quade 3
Still skirting the issue I see. Still can't do the math?
I'm sorry I don't meet your standards of expertise on the topic. Maybe you can review what would be an appropriate curriculum for me. Would I need, for instance, the Doctorate you obviously possess?
I'd really like to see that. Can you scan that and post it for me?
I'm sorry I don't meet your standards of expertise on the topic. Maybe you can review what would be an appropriate curriculum for me. Would I need, for instance, the Doctorate you obviously possess?
I'd really like to see that. Can you scan that and post it for me?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 3
QuoteSeriously, though, I think the cops have so many advantages that cutting down the mag size available to every citizen is too draconian a measure.
You and I have discussed at least one way we might come to a compromise and NOT limit it from every citizen.
I'd like to see a more holistic and tiered approach. Again, we have written about this before. Loosening restrictions on those that have proven themselves is certainly ok as far as I'm concerned if we can ensure the tools are still in place to restrict those that aren't allowed to legally have them at all.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteStill skirting the issue I see. Still can't do the math?
You completely skirted my response.
The math is the problem - it's a contrived concept you've put up that has no bearing in the real world. And as he suggested, if you think it does, you really are not knowledgeable enough to spend time on.
TomAiello 25
QuoteDoesn't really matter what you personally think of the tactic. It's out there and it works.
"It works" is pretty relative.
What does it work for? Putting a lot of bullets in the air?
In order to hurt people, the shooter has to aim the bullets.
I'm curious if you've ever bump fired a rifle? How was your accuracy? Personally, I've found that in terms of getting within a few feet of the target, even at close range, shooting every few seconds is far, far more effective than bump firing. It's just really hard to aim at all when you're bump firing.
I'm a lot more afraid of a guy who looks through the sites and shoots at specific things than a guy who randomly sprays bullets in my general direction.
QuoteQuoteDoesn't really matter what you personally think of the tactic. It's out there and it works.
"It works" is pretty relative.
What does it work for? Putting a lot of bullets in the air?
In order to hurt people, the shooter has to aim the bullets.
I'm curious if you've ever bump fired a rifle? How was your accuracy? Personally, I've found that in terms of getting within a few feet of the target, even at close range, shooting every few seconds is far, far more effective than bump firing. It's just really hard to aim at all when you're bump firing.
I'm a lot more afraid of a guy who looks through the sites and shoots at specific things than a guy who randomly sprays bullets in my general direction.
His experience may be from the movies where everything they even point near gets hit.
quade 3
QuoteIn order to hurt people, the shooter has to aim the bullets.
I refer you back to Project SALVO. They drew different conclusions.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
TomAiello 25
QuoteQuoteIn order to hurt people, the shooter has to aim the bullets.
I refer you back to Project SALVO. They drew different conclusions.
Project SALVO was concerned with infantry engagements between groups of armed soldiers. It's a big stretch to try to apply it to lone criminal gunmen assaulting unarmed civilians.
jcd11235 0
QuoteIt's a big stretch to try to apply it to lone criminal gunmen assaulting unarmed civilians.
Why should we only be concerned with that single scenario?
I seem to remember more than a single scenario in which the police fired many shots at unarmed civilians, scoring hits with only a small proportion of them. If trained police need to rely on quantity of shots rather than quality of shots, then it would appear that the conclusions drawn from Project SALVO can indeed be applied to civilian applications.
I wonder what the gunmen's average ratio of shots fired to hits was for the last ~25 mass murders in the US.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
TomAiello 25
QuoteQuoteIt's a big stretch to try to apply it to lone criminal gunmen assaulting unarmed civilians.
Why should we only be concerned with that single scenario?
It's not a single scenario. It's _every_ possible scenario except the one considered by Project SALVO.
Unless we are trying to regulate the weapons used by organized infantry units for military engagements, I don't think that the SALVO results are going to provide much meaningful guidance for regulation.
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's a big stretch to try to apply it to lone criminal gunmen assaulting unarmed civilians.
Why should we only be concerned with that single scenario?
It's not a single scenario. It's _every_ possible scenario except the one considered by Project SALVO.
Unless we are trying to regulate the weapons used by organized infantry units for military engagements, I don't think that the SALVO results are going to provide much meaningful guidance for regulation.
It's certainly convenient for you to think that.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteI do not own a firearm.
And the reason for that is?
Randall, perhaps if you answered this it would be relevant to the question you posed in your OP.
jcd11235 0
QuoteIt's not a single scenario. It's _every_ possible scenario except the one considered by Project SALVO.
Bullshit. If you really believe that (and I don't think you do), it would be damning evidence that you don't know what the phrase "_every_ possible scenario except the one considered by Project SALVO" actually implies.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteQuoteIt's not a single scenario. It's _every_ possible scenario except the one considered by Project SALVO.
Bullshit. If you really believe that (and I don't think you do), it would be damning evidence that you don't know what the phrase "_every_ possible scenario except the one considered by Project SALVO" actually implies.
Have you actually read the link Quade provides?
Your turn - tell us how that is applicable here. It's not.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI do not own a firearm.
And the reason for that is?
Randall, perhaps if you answered this it would be relevant to the question you posed in your OP.
Conjecture Counselor?
Law Rocket could easily figure this one out, so could Bluto.
You might also figure out this conundrum if you view it without an agenda of your own.
Do not be blinded by seeing only what you want to see.
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI do not own a firearm.
And the reason for that is?
Randall, perhaps if you answered this it would be relevant to the question you posed in your OP.
Conjecture Counselor?
Law Rocket could easily figure this one out, so could Bluto.
You might also figure out this conundrum if you view it without an agenda of your own.
Do not be blinded by seeing only what you want to see.
Since you seem determined not to give us a straight answer. You leave us no choice other than speculation.
I'll list some possible answers in no particular order, just say yes or no to each one.
1) You have been found to be mentally unfit.
2) You have a criminal background and therefore are unfit.
3) You see the admission of owning firearms as a form of registration and are therefore unwilling to tell the truth for fear that someone in the future may use this information to take away your weapons.
4) You're trying to be ironic.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Wrong on all accounts.
A child could figure this out, go get one and get them to help you out.
A child could figure this out, go get one and get them to help you out.
billvon 2,478
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>A child could figure this out, go get one and get them to help you out.
Now now, no reason to get nasty just because no one here wants to keep you from getting guns.
Now now, no reason to get nasty just because no one here wants to keep you from getting guns.
Show me where I've ever claimed to be an expert and you might have a point.
Now, were you going to deny what I said? I haven't heard it yet.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites