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.
Is it just me or am I the only one who notices all the gun chatter unrelated to the topic at hand in these threads having to do with the problem of gun violence? Some just can't help themselves it seems. Not sure I have ever read a gun thread that didn't include the likes.
Would be like a thread about the opioid epidemic, and instead of a focus on the problem, people begin discussing the "how to" make different kinds of drugs with different chemistry sets in their basements.
Breaking Bad was far more entertaining...
And you would think that when people come into a thread, they would know what they are talking about....but as you see in many threads..not the case....(not particularly you, but many have no clue)
The "silliness" is your argument about rate of fire. There is no difference in the "capability" of the rate of fire between full auto, semi auto, revolver, slide/pump action, or lever action firearms. While all of those listed (except for full auto) are manually operated, they are "capable" of firing at the same rate (or even faster) than a full auto.
Your "silliness" is being driven by your lack of knowledge/understanding about firearms.
Wrong, but nice try. Well not even that really...
Obviously you are trying to argue I have made any comment about any particular type of weapon by name as you are trying to suggest, or if so, please quote me -- verbatim. I made no comment about "full auto, simi auto, revolver, slide/pump action," etc. Your ongoing insults about me being silly is certainly unfair as well, because you simply can't understand what I have been explaining. That doesn't make me silly...
If we want to go that route, however, clearly you are thick-headed. Not much I can do about that anymore than any of us can do much about all the other yahoos running around...
Then you don't need to quote me. Problem solved. I just don't want to cause misunderstanding. I don't need to be scolded here.
Problem solved? What problem? At ease...
Just an exchange of opinion, perspective, facts, reason and logic along with the usual good dose of gun enthusiast chatter and silliness about all things guns...
Just an exchange of opinion, perspective, facts, reason and logic along with the usual good dose of gun enthusiast chatter and silliness about all things guns...
You really don't need to quote me all the time if you are not interested in my "opinion."
This post is going to be problematic because you didn't use the term "assault weapon" so there is reason to respond by quibbling over semantics or posting stupid memes while failing to address the thrust of the issue. Maybe you ought to edit it?
Hey..., for what I'm getting paid, any more effort to explain what should be simple to understand here is asking a bit much as far as I'm concerned...
The answer to the question goes to the heart of your silly "rate of fire" argument.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance, and it hurts your credibility. But hey, carry on. It's entertaining for the rest of us.
I'm no stranger to this dynamic, of people who won't admit to the obvious once they are so heavily invested in trying to prove and insult to the contrary. Usually by way of the straw man arguments you have attempted rather than using my words -- verbatim, you twist mine and then can't admit you have done so.
Not sure that's all too entertaining for me, but nothing I'm not used to, that's for sure, and imagine if we were discussing something that was really difficult to understand or comprehend? I wouldn't dare venture that with some of the people who repeat themselves ad nauseam in these gun threads.
Obviously you are trying to argue I have made any comment about any particular type of weapon by name as you are trying to suggest, or if so, please quote me -- verbatim.
I have neither said nor suggested any such thing. If you disagree, please quote me--verbatim.
Quote:
I made no comment about "full auto, simi auto, revolver, slide/pump action," etc.
No you didn't. But the method of operation goes directly to YOUR argument about rate of fire. Strange that it is your argument, but you steadfastly refuse discussion about it.
Quote:
Your ongoing insults about me being silly is certainly unfair as well, because you simply can't understand what I have been explaining. That doesn't make me silly...
You have continually demonstrated a lack of knowledge/understanding about the topic being discussed. Your lack of knowledge has been explained to you, many times, but you continue to try to make the same tired arguments. I call it silly, but you can use any adjective you'd like to describe it.
And you would think that when people come into a thread, they would know what they are talking about....but as you see in many threads..not the case....(not particularly you, but many have no clue)
Wow again, only this time a positive note!
I certainly appreciate what you put in parenthesis, especially from you.
I know what I know, and I'll readily admit what I don't, but all too often the issue is NOT so much whether we know certain specifics but how we go about processing what information is important to know. Yes, there are obviously people who participate in gun threads who don't know the difference between rate of fire and rate of interest, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to decide whether investing in the space program is a good idea or not.
Right?
If, on the other hand, we were actually a part of a congressional committee, charged with developing sound gun control legislation, we would all be required to know WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW about how to accomplish that goal, if possible.
I'm no stranger to this dynamic, of people who won't admit to the obvious once they are so heavily invested in trying to prove and insult to the contrary.
What is the obvious thing that I should admit to?
Quote:
Usually by way of the straw man arguments you have attempted rather than using my words -- verbatim, you twist mine and then can't admit you have done so.
What straw man arguments have I made? Quote me verbatim.
And you continue to refuse to discuss YOUR issue of rate of fire capability.
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.
You really don't need to quote me all the time if you are not interested in my "opinion." 
