Stephen Crowder, Top 5 AR-15 myths...banning them is a Trojan Horse...

[jon_berzerk]

I prefer greatly reducing their need for defense, and any need for defense beyond that be something that won't make things worse. Giving each of the kids a knife and a baseball bat makes as much sense as what you are proposing.

And we all hope and pray that a shooter never gets into a classroom. But we're not talking hypothetically here, because shooters DO get into classrooms, and when they do, the teacher is the last defense the kids have. Do you deny that?

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively. How can you object to that?

Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.

The shooter comes into the room. Do we see him run away because he gets return fire, fall because he's hit, or do we see the children fall one by one and the shooter move on to the next room because there's no defense for them?

In that case, then arm all the little kiddies too. I guess they would have to put the taller ones in the back so everyone would get an equal chance at making a kill shot.

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

leftards lie so it isnt surprising to see such claims made by them

 

[BULLDOG]

I prefer greatly reducing their need for defense, and any need for defense beyond that be something that won't make things worse. Giving each of the kids a knife and a baseball bat makes as much sense as what you are proposing.

And we all hope and pray that a shooter never gets into a classroom. But we're not talking hypothetically here, because shooters DO get into classrooms, and when they do, the teacher is the last defense the kids have. Do you deny that?

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively. How can you object to that?

Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.

The shooter comes into the room. Do we see him run away because he gets return fire, fall because he's hit, or do we see the children fall one by one and the shooter move on to the next room because there's no defense for them?

In that case, then arm all the little kiddies too. I guess they would have to put the taller ones in the back so everyone would get an equal chance at making a kill shot.

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

 

[BULLDOG]

And we all hope and pray that a shooter never gets into a classroom. But we're not talking hypothetically here, because shooters DO get into classrooms, and when they do, the teacher is the last defense the kids have. Do you deny that?

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively. How can you object to that?

Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.

The shooter comes into the room. Do we see him run away because he gets return fire, fall because he's hit, or do we see the children fall one by one and the shooter move on to the next room because there's no defense for them?

In that case, then arm all the little kiddies too. I guess they would have to put the taller ones in the back so everyone would get an equal chance at making a kill shot.

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

leftards lie so it isnt surprising to see such claims made by them

Interesting that you just assume shit that you might misunderstand, and pretend it's true.

 

[hadit]

And we all hope and pray that a shooter never gets into a classroom. But we're not talking hypothetically here, because shooters DO get into classrooms, and when they do, the teacher is the last defense the kids have. Do you deny that?

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively. How can you object to that?

Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.

The shooter comes into the room. Do we see him run away because he gets return fire, fall because he's hit, or do we see the children fall one by one and the shooter move on to the next room because there's no defense for them?

In that case, then arm all the little kiddies too. I guess they would have to put the taller ones in the back so everyone would get an equal chance at making a kill shot.

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

 

[BULLDOG]

In that case, then arm all the little kiddies too. I guess they would have to put the taller ones in the back so everyone would get an equal chance at making a kill shot.

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

 

[hadit]

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

 

[BULLDOG]

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

Are you sure about that? I listen to Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and a few other fox idiots a good bit, and that seems to work quite well for all of them.

 

[hadit]

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

Are you sure about that? I listen to Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and a few other fox idiots a good bit, and that seems to work quite well for all of them.

Are they your gold standard? They're not mine.

 

[BULLDOG]

Forgive me. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't mean that you were headed toward arming children. I meant you were headed toward stupid.

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

Are you sure about that? I listen to Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and a few other fox idiots a good bit, and that seems to work quite well for all of them.

Are they your gold standard? They're not mine.

They are the Trumpbot standard.

 

[hadit]

I wasn't headed there either. You proposed arming the children, I did not. Therefore, a sane observer would certainly hand you a stupid stamp long before me. Now, I've made two statements you have ignored, so I'll make them again. Refute them if you can. If not, they'll stand as the defining difference between your approach to classroom security and mine. At one point you said that you want to prevent the shooter from ever getting to the classroom. Great, I'd love it if no teacher ever had to pull a weapon, but we know from reality that shooters do indeed gain access to classrooms. Thus, this reality cannot be ignored.

It's very simple. I want that teacher to have whatever defensive measures he/she is comfortable with/capable of using effectively.
Obviously, you believe that teacher should have no defensive measures beyond what YOU are comfortable with them having access to.​

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

Are you sure about that? I listen to Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and a few other fox idiots a good bit, and that seems to work quite well for all of them.

Are they your gold standard? They're not mine.

They are the Trumpbot standard.

And yours as well, as you cited them approvingly.

 

[BULLDOG]

Lots of things to do short of turning Miss Carter into Dirty Harry. Limited entrance doors with a camera, metal detector, and perhaps an attendant to push the button to let someone in the building would be a good start. I have a few other ideas that might or might not be practical and effective, but fortunately, I'm not responsible to make the safety plan. There are experts who are well qualified to devise a security plan for the buildings where our children are taught. It would make more sense to consult them before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk.

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

Are you sure about that? I listen to Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and a few other fox idiots a good bit, and that seems to work quite well for all of them.

Are they your gold standard? They're not mine.

They are the Trumpbot standard.

And yours as well, as you cited them approvingly.

Just because I am aware of their tactics doesn't mean I approve of their actions

 

[jon_berzerk]

In that case, then arm all the little kiddies too. I guess they would have to put the taller ones in the back so everyone would get an equal chance at making a kill shot.

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

leftards lie so it isnt surprising to see such claims made by them

Interesting that you just assume shit that you might misunderstand, and pretend it's true.

fuck you leftards falsely claim that 2nd Amendment supporters want to arm the children

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really then how come people can fire the AR 15 faster than 45 rounds per minute?

Dumb ass.

Ruger Mini 14 Tactical Rifle

Ruger® Mini-14® Tactical Rifle Autoloading Rifle Model 5846

Tell me where in the specs does it say 40 rounds per minute

Find a page with the complete list of specs dumb ass. That one doesn't have them all.

You mean the one from the Ruger web site?

Why don't you post your source and we can debate which source is better

Shut up you big baby. I gave you a credible source for the info. Not my fault if you don't want to accept factory specs.

And I gave you info from the actual manufacturers of both the Mini 14 and the Colt Ar 15

Now tell me do you think that any school shooter only fires one round every 1.33 seconds?

Saying that the AR is more dangerous because it has an "effective rate of fire" of 5 rounds per minute which is more than any other semiauto because none of them can fire as fast just once again highlights your ignorance about the subject of firearms

 

[Skull Pilot]

I bet you don't know what a 6.8 is.

I'm sure you bet on a lot of stuff. Care to make a bet that cosmetics are the only thing that makes the AR15 different from any other .223 rifle? Why is the effective firing rate on an AR15 45 rpm, and the firing rate on that mini14 in the picture above in .223 caliber only 40rpm? Does that sound identical to you?

Please post links to those firing rates,

I can tell you that I can fire more than 40 rounds in one minute with a Ruger Mini 14 as can anyone else who owns one

View attachment 179124

That seriously defies common sense.

Here's 39 rounds in the Mad Minute with a semi-auto .06 with an 8-round mag.



This is a "Weapon of war".

You'll have to talk to the manufacturer about that. I'm pretty sure they know at what rate and amount of fire. their guns are subject to melt down, and when they are able to continue firing without melt down..

Are you really trying to say that shooting an Ar 15 at 46 rounds per minute will cause the barrel to melt down?

Now I know you are either trying to be stupid or are just plain stupid

I'm leaning towards the latter.

In 30 + years of shooting rifles I have never seen any rifle melt a barrel because of firing too fast.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Them silly "Iraqveteran" crackers do meltdowns all the time.

Yes, I think they're silly crackers.

Don't know about that. I do know what the manufacturers say about their products though.

You really don't know much about much, do ya?

So educate me with credible evidence. We both know all guns aren't the same, and "because I say so" isn't a credible source.

Buy one and test it for yourself with a stopwatch while videoing it. Do give us an accuracy report as well.

"The mad minute" is supposed to be done on a target @ 300 yards.

Got it. You have nothing credible to offer. I'm not the one that claimed all rifles were the same and equally suited for a combat attack situation like a mass shooting. Come back if you ever come up with something.

SO again do you really think in combat soldiers only shoot one round every 1.33 seconds?

 

[hadit]

And there you go again. You just can't help leaping to the extremes, can you? We ALL want shooters unable to access class rooms, and advocate measures making it more difficult to do so. Minus your insane first sentence (complete with yet another straw man), you were doing fine.

Now, where you go off the rails is here: "before we pass out fire arms with those little cartons of milk". No one can take you seriously when you say stupid stuff like that. No one, and I mean no one, has advocated any such thing, yet you continue to act as if they have. I certainly have not, and you have yet to even address what I've said, which is to allow qualified teachers to carry if they want the responsibility. Nowhere have I even advocated we supply the weapons. Instead, you substitute a straw man, then proceed to pummel it and think you're making a point. You are not.

Are you sure about that? I listen to Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and a few other fox idiots a good bit, and that seems to work quite well for all of them.

Are they your gold standard? They're not mine.

They are the Trumpbot standard.

And yours as well, as you cited them approvingly.

Just because I am aware of their tactics doesn't mean I approve of their actions

So now we're backtracking to where I was pointing out why you can't be taken seriously.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Dumb ass.

Ruger Mini 14 Tactical Rifle

Ruger® Mini-14® Tactical Rifle Autoloading Rifle Model 5846

Tell me where in the specs does it say 40 rounds per minute

Find a page with the complete list of specs dumb ass. That one doesn't have them all.

You mean the one from the Ruger web site?

Why don't you post your source and we can debate which source is better

Shut up you big baby. I gave you a credible source for the info. Not my fault if you don't want to accept factory specs.

And I gave you info from the actual manufacturers of both the Mini 14 and the Colt Ar 15

Now tell me do you think that any school shooter only fires one round every 1.33 seconds?

Saying that the AR is more dangerous because it has an "effective rate of fire" of 5 rounds per minute which is more than any other semiauto because none of them can fire as fast just once again highlights your ignorance about the subject of firearms

once again highlights your ignorance about the subject of firearms

it is on purpose

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you TRYING to be stupid?

That is the direction you were headed.

Oh, no. You do not get to put up a straw man and pretend I was trying to make that argument. No sir, not at all. I've said all along that teachers who are willing to be trained, have CC permits, and want the responsibility to be the last line of defense for the kids should be allowed to do so. NOWHERE have I said ANYTHING about children being armed. That is all you, not me.

leftards lie so it isnt surprising to see such claims made by them

Interesting that you just assume shit that you might misunderstand, and pretend it's true.

fuck you leftards falsely claim that 2nd Amendment supporters want to arm the children

Tissue?

 

[BULLDOG]

Dumb ass.

Ruger Mini 14 Tactical Rifle

Ruger® Mini-14® Tactical Rifle Autoloading Rifle Model 5846

Tell me where in the specs does it say 40 rounds per minute

Find a page with the complete list of specs dumb ass. That one doesn't have them all.

You mean the one from the Ruger web site?

Why don't you post your source and we can debate which source is better

Shut up you big baby. I gave you a credible source for the info. Not my fault if you don't want to accept factory specs.

And I gave you info from the actual manufacturers of both the Mini 14 and the Colt Ar 15

Now tell me do you think that any school shooter only fires one round every 1.33 seconds?

Saying that the AR is more dangerous because it has an "effective rate of fire" of 5 rounds per minute which is more than any other semiauto because none of them can fire as fast just once again highlights your ignorance about the subject of firearms

My entire point from the first of this discussion is that all guns are not the same. Some are more capable of extended combat like fire than others. The Ar15 is more suited for that than most. I have proven that.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sure you bet on a lot of stuff. Care to make a bet that cosmetics are the only thing that makes the AR15 different from any other .223 rifle? Why is the effective firing rate on an AR15 45 rpm, and the firing rate on that mini14 in the picture above in .223 caliber only 40rpm? Does that sound identical to you?

Please post links to those firing rates,

I can tell you that I can fire more than 40 rounds in one minute with a Ruger Mini 14 as can anyone else who owns one

View attachment 179124

That seriously defies common sense.

Here's 39 rounds in the Mad Minute with a semi-auto .06 with an 8-round mag.



This is a "Weapon of war".

You'll have to talk to the manufacturer about that. I'm pretty sure they know at what rate and amount of fire. their guns are subject to melt down, and when they are able to continue firing without melt down..

Are you really trying to say that shooting an Ar 15 at 46 rounds per minute will cause the barrel to melt down?

Now I know you are either trying to be stupid or are just plain stupid

I'm leaning towards the latter.

In 30 + years of shooting rifles I have never seen any rifle melt a barrel because of firing too fast.

As I have said many times, It is more capable of combat type firing than most. You can nibble around the edges and say "but what if" all you want, but you can't change that fact.