Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think anyone with a small amount of practice couldn't do this? 20 rounds 12 seconds with a reload, NO detachable magazine, "low" 10 capacity fixed magazine. 4 seconds to reload. You people just can't grasp that it's not the tool and banning 130 year old technology isn't ever going to solve anything.
Can he sustain this for 10 minutes straight? Even at the pace in the video he might get what 100 rounds per minute? with 20 rounds for every 12 seconds. Pales in comparison to what an AR-15 can achieve and it can do so with much less effort.
The army did tests on the M1 Grand (8 round clip)and determined it would average between 16 to 24 rounds per minute for the average soldier. The AR-15 (30 round mag)averages 400 rounds per minute (once over 400 rounds in a minute the gas tube will war, hence why the Vegas shooter used multiple guns)
Assuming we have 10 minutes before the police arrive.
M1 - at its full limit might get to 240 rounds in that time.
AR-15 - at its full limit might get to 4000 rounds in that time.
Which is going to do more damage in that period of time?
The video below is not a M1 Garand, it's an SKS......a comparable internal magazine rifle from the same era.
But it certainly looks like the guy in the video could get off more than 16-24 rounds in a minute if he wanted to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
You think anyone with a small amount of practice couldn't do this? 20 rounds 12 seconds with a reload, NO detachable magazine, "low" 10 capacity fixed magazine. 4 seconds to reload. You people just can't grasp that it's not the tool and banning 130 year old technology isn't ever going to solve anything.
400 rounds in that time is too......most commercially available AR15 barrels would melt down trying to fire that many rounds in that short a time span.
Even if you cut the RPM of the AR-15 in half it's still magnitudes greater then what can be achieved with an M1.
Also you can find videos of guys putting 600 rounds through an AR-15 in a minute. So the 400 RPM is high but possible.
The 2nd amendment says that all have the right to "keep and bear arms". It does not say that everyone has the right to own police or military style arms.
IMO all of the common "hunting" weapons meet the intent of the 2nd amendment. Military/police style weapons do not. They are all designed for maximum kill rate of any human target. THAT is not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Under today's thinking machine , and/or fully automatic, weapons are illegal to for private citizens to own without a special permit with good reason. So it should be with any other military/police designed weapons.
Congress could, and should, outlaw all military/police style for citizen's private ownership. Owing common "hunting" weapons is more than enough for any person of sane and sound mind to own for their personal use.
Isn't military/police style weapons an "arm" though? Technically they are, and while the founding fathers didn't know they would exist, since they are technically and legally considered an "arm" then it should stay.
Repealing the 2nd amendment would be a legal mess, therefore I doubt it happens.
The video below is not a M1 Garand, it's an SKS......a comparable internal magazine rifle from the same era.
But it certainly looks like the guy in the video could get off more than 16-24 rounds in a minute if he wanted to.
I wasn't commenting on that video, I was highlighting the difference mag size and feeding systems makes when being able to put rounds down range and used two different military weapons as examples.
The argument is a matter of how much damage someone can do in a period of time. Nobody can put forth the kind of firepower an AR-15 delivers from a revolver and a lever action rifle. If it was possible and easy to do so our soldiers in Iraq would be using them.
People are shooting back at soldiers......the kids in that school may as well have been paper targets for all the defense they could put up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
As impressive as the guy in the video was, he could not sustain that pace for more then a few seconds before getting exhausted. The AR-15 makes it easy to put lots of rounds down range and on target over a long period of time.
Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people.
He could have killed 17 people in one classroom with a revolver and a speed loader in practically the same time frame.
Because his victims were somewhat captive and unarmed.
You and others keep intentionally missing the point.
Gun free zones make the rate of fire and period of time mostly irrelevant.
It depends. The M1 Garand shoots a .30-06 round which is MUCH more powerful than the AR-15's 5.56mm. You are much more likely to survive a hit by a 5.56 round than a .30-06 round. This isn't a reasonable, or rational comparison. Have you ever seen what a .30-06 round can do?
The name of the game is RPM. Its the crux of military doctrine post WW2, its why the assault rifle was invented in the first place.
Also the energy in a bullet does not always mean = more deadly. The bottom heavy 5.56 NATO round has a tendency to twirl when it hits flesh and does immense tissue damage. The tissue damage causes people to bleed out quickly, it makes removing the bullets more difficult then a straight through and through. Its one of the reasons why the soviets moved away from the 7.62mm to the 5.45mm Add to this the fact that shooters can carry a lot more ammo due to the lighter bullet weights, you have deadlier weapons platform.
I wasn't commenting on that video, I was highlighting the difference mag size and feeding systems makes when being able to put rounds down range and used two different military weapons as examples.
Again......only relevant in a combat situation when people are shooting back at you.
Maybe not.....but he would have had time to aim his shots too.
Many of his rounds hit no one.
If he took cursory time to aim instead of firing wild with a bump stock, he would still have killed a lot of people....arguably maybe more casualties and less injuries anyway,.
Cops didn't break down the door for what? Half an hour?
His period of time wasn't all that short.
Again, the shooter chose defenseless people with limited avenue of escape and no way to fight back.
He hit over 800 people with 1100 rounds in about 10 minutes.
He hit over 800 people with 1100 rounds in about 10 minutes.
. . . and that is truly unfortunate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
