It has no rifling but that's besides the point, still not the question I'm asking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....
- Thread starter SA Huguenot
- Start date
It has no rifling but that's besides the point, still not the question I'm asking.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Still not getting it.... the words not the actual gun
We Never Know
No Slack
If you really want to get serious, get a minigun
(1200 rounds in less than 20 seconds)
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
I don't think they are. There are many assault weapons more and less frightning/dangerous than an assault rifle.
Yep so I'm still wondering why someone mistakenly saying assault rifle is more frightening then them saying correctly assault weapon. Just curious as to his thought process. I don't think we use either term in Australia, just semi auto or fully auto.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There were minigun clips in the video that I linked too. And yep. I would neve want to be on the wrong end of a minigun.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Those that do not know the difference tend to be deathly afraid of all guns. Those that know the difference know that an the term "assault weapon" is tied to a piece of failed feel good legislation.
Sometimes when we have an episode as we had with the Rittenhouse case there is much hand wringing and the claim "We have to do something". Doing something in such a case often solves nothing. I see that a big part of it is that the antigun people try to place all of the blame on Rittenhouse. They did not put any blame on the rioters. They could not even be honest enough to call them rioters. And the news was highly biased in this case too. They called the people that died "victims". What is wrong with that term is that in the context used a "victim" was one that suffered from a crime. They were assuming Rittenhouse's guilt before the trial even began. News sources are not supposed to do that. I have seen extreme cases where murders occurred and they were sure of who did it, yet they always would use the term "alleged killer" until the trial was over.
We Never Know
No Slack
Try this...
Assault weapon vs. assault rifle: What is the difference?
https://www-ajc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rifle-what-the-difference/1PIr7lJ5gHqEhlOK4bmI9I/?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16374700392120&referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s&share=https://www.ajc.com/news/national/assault-weapon-assault-rifle-what-the-difference/1PIr7lJ5gHqEhlOK4bmI9I/
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subscription needed to read the article
We Never Know
No Slack
Subscription needed to read the article
It lets me read it without one. Just try scrolling down
We Never Know
No Slack
Subscription needed to read the article
In short it says....
"The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are used a lot, but when it comes to the two separate types of weapons, there is a great deal of difference.
What is an assault weapon, how does it work and how is it different from an assault rifle? Here’s a quick look.
What is an “assault rifle”?
An assault rifle is a rapid-fire, magazine-fed rifle designed for military use. It is a shoulder-fired weapon that allows the shooter to select between semi-automatic (requiring you pull the trigger for each shot), fully automatic (hold the trigger and the gun continuously fires) or three-shot-burst modes.
What is an "assault weapon?"
Technically, there is no such thing. What’s called an assault weapon (or sometimes an assault rifle) in reports on gun violence is a semi-automatic rifle that looks similar to the assault rifles used by the military. An AR-15 rifle, like one that has been used in some mass shootings, is an example of this type of weapon."
What’s the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon?
An automatic weapon (“assault rifle”) can shoot more than one round when you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon (“assault weapon”) does not.
Automatic weapons have not been used in recent mass shootings. In the shootings in Orlando, New Town, Connecticut, and San Bernardino, semi-automatic weapons, one requiring you to pull the trigger each time to fire a cartridge, were the weapons used.
The weapon used in some of those shootings was an AR-15. Doesn’t “AR” stand for “automatic rifle”?
No, “AR” in the gun’s name stands for Armalite Rifle. That is the company that first developed the weapon nearly 60 years ago. The company sold the rights to the firearm to the Colt company which, in turn, modified the rifle and sold it to the military as the M-16. The M-16 is an automatic weapon: Hold the trigger and multiple rounds can be fired. The AR-15, like the Sig Sauer, requires that you pull the trigger to fire each cartridge.
If it is not an automatic weapon, how does a shooter fire so many shots?
Semi-automatic rifles can accommodate high-capacity magazines – compartments that hold cartridges. That allows the shooter to fire off dozens of rounds in a short period of time. A Sig Sauer and an AR-15 magazine generally holds 20- 30 rounds. There are magazines that can hold more.
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Do you fantasize about these kind of things often?
Well... I know they are not much to to look at, but the feral Portland rioters will just have to do.
Probably. The last sex offender who tried to get his hands on him got blasted onto the pavement and never got up.
Once again not arguing with any of that lol. Just wondering why someone would think saying assault rifle is more frightening than saying assault weapon.
Prison should never be a place for suffering just for the sake of it. Your comment seems to imply tacit approval of abuse of prisoners by other inmates, which I think is a markedly cruel and counterproductive status quo of the American prison system.
It seems weird to talk about "fantasizing" when you also give the impression that you're glorifying death and violence. Whether or not anyone who died that night had to be shot doesn't mean loss of life wasn't both an undesirable and unfortunate outcome of the whole situation.
Preventing harm to everyone without death would have been the ideal outcome, and Rittenhouse himself said in his testimony that he didn't intend to kill (which, true or not, underlines that fatal shootings were far from a good outcome for anyone involved).
At least in many places outside the U.S., taking a firearm to a place of unrest to "protect people and property" when you don't have to be there is indeed acting as a vigilante. It's basically an attempt to take the work of the police into one's hands.
Justified or not, it's a textbook example of vigilantism.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
The merciless machines humans come up with the kill each other.
It always amazes me how much of our intelligence is put in weaponry and not other, more useful things.
Wow, one out of how many millions? Can he afford the ammunition?
Last edited:
There's a meme going around that raises a good point about Kyle Rittenhouse. We have terms for someone not acting on behalf of a government who:
- travels to a place where violence is happening
- comes prepared for violence
- actually engages in violence
And those terms are things like "willing combatant" and "insurgent."