http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Danivon,
Yes he did call it a fully automatic weapon when he called it an assault rifle.

It could be that his ignorance of a subject is showing, though.

I'm sure I know less about guns than any of you. This is what Ricky posted:

I know it fires a round for every squeeze of the trigger and that it can fire 50 to 60 rounds a second.

If a round has 30 bullets (help?) then, Ricky is suggesting that a gun can fire 1,800 bullets a second and 108,000 in a minute.

A round is 1 bullet cartridge (powder and projectile in a fixed (non-detached) configuration).

He is saying (Help?) that it can fire 50-60 rounds per second, and that would make it 3600 rounds/minute. That coupled with a need to have 3600 trigger pulls per second to put out that many rounds make it inconceivable. The link to semi-automatic fire I provided earlier shows 1 round a second for moderate accuracy. Of course many use the "spray and pray" method firing about 3 times a second and not hitting much of anything.

bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Danivon,
Yes he did call it a fully automatic weapon when he called it an assault rifle.

Let us trade Wiki links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment.

So the legal definition of 'assault weapon', which had not appeared before the ban, included types of semi-automatic weapon.

So an 'assault rifle' would be an 'assault weapon' that it also a 'rifle'.

So, semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P 15s would have fallen under that definition if they were:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally

The weapon definitely had the first, because he was using detachable magazines, and most appear to have a 6-point collapsable stock. So all it would need to have been covered by the old ban law would be one of the others. I've not seen which actual model he used, or whether it was modified before he used it, but so far no-one can prove Ricky a liar.

On what is, after all, a pretty minor and picky point.

Ray Jay wrote:If a round has 30 bullets (help?) then, Ricky is suggesting that a gun can fire 1,800 bullets a second and 108,000 in a minute.

[/quote]I have to say I read it that a round is one bullet or shell, not a full clip/magazine. The standard magazine/clip size for that weapon seems to be 30 rounds, our killer in Aurora had a drum that held 100 rounds.

(cross-posted with Bbauska)

It is pretty much going to be impossible to shoot at 50-60 shots per second for more than a couple of shots, but it would depend on how sensitive the trigger was how fast it could get to.

bbauska wrote:He is saying (Help?) that it can fire 50-60 rounds per second, and that would make it 3600 rounds/minute. That coupled with a need to have 3600 trigger pulls per second to put out that many rounds make it inconceivable.

Given the magazine contained 100 rounds, it's impossible to maintain 50-60 for a full minute. Even withou jamming the rounds would have been used up very quickly (up to 2 secs).

The link to semi-automatic fire I provided earlier shows 1 round a second for moderate accuracy. Of course many use the "spray and pray" method firing about 3 times a second and not hitting much of anything.

I think there's a difference between the physical limits of the machinery and the physical limits of a person using it.

Of course, given that he was in a confined space with a large group of people (and a lot of smoke), I doubt he'd have needed accuracy.

Anyway, enough about the details of how guns work. I fell a bit icky thinking about that stuff when we are talking about real people being shot (and only a week ago).

There are serious questions about whether current gun laws are adequate to protect Americans from various kinds of threat, whether that's illegal weapons or legal ones. None of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights appear to be utterly limitless (the 1st has two limits - Free speech does not allow endangering people; free religion did not allw Mormons to continue to practice polygamy legally).

It worries me that the first concern some people have after a tragedy like this is that all the guns will be taken away. Which seems to lend itself to coming up with all kinds of 'alternative explanations' which conveniently avoid the direct method used to kill people.

Are there no possible ways to improve the way that guns are legally held that will not infringe the 2nd Amendment?

You are noting the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon. You link describes assault weapons, and does include the semi-automatic varieties. I took RickyP and his choice of words which was assault rifle. Surely someone as meticulous as you would make sure RickyP is held to the same standard that you hold me.

So an assault weapon that is also a rifle is not an assault rifle? I'm not noting the 'difference', I'm noting the 'similarity'. I'm sorry, but all this strikes me as incredibly petty semantics, just to try and negate everything Ricky says.

If Ricky was wayyyy, out, you and the other two would have a point. Hey, Ricky is prone to errors, and we all know this. He never said it was an automatic, and neither you nor he can establish whether or not it would have been subject to the 1994-2004 Federal ban. Until more facts emerge, it's just like watching bald guys fighting over a comb.

bbauska wrote:RickyP... I am going to give you an out on this one. Just say that you meant "Round per minute, not rounds per second".

Besides being obvious, this is reasonable and fair. This being such an oddity at Redscape, I felt compelled to mention it and to congratulate Bbauska. Now if Ricky will simply say, "Yes. Sorry I wrote 'per second'. I meant 'per minute'. I'll try to write more slowly in the future and take more care."

Hey, one can always hope.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:...'snipers' like Danivon, ...no intellectual merit, just argumentative mean spirited personal attacks. ...troll, ...his pitiful existence on this planet ...punk ...crap ...mindless trolling and harping. ...lonely sad freak...

I just want to add my voice to that of Bbauska and Neal Anderth (and possibly Sassenach - I can't really know to what he was referring when he wrote: "Aaaaaand I think I've seen enough from this thread. - Have fun guys.") in criticizing Ruffhaus and his post. I'm a bit surprised that more haven't done so. I've seen plenty of flame posts but this one was particularly content-free and vicious.

I did not say Ruffhaus was content free. I liked from the second paragraph until the last couple sentences. His points were correct and informed.

Purple wrote:

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:...'snipers' like Danivon, ...no intellectual merit, just argumentative mean spirited personal attacks. ...troll, ...his pitiful existence on this planet ...punk ...crap ...mindless trolling and harping. ...lonely sad freak...

I just want to add my voice to that of Bbauska and Neal Anderth (and possibly Sassenach - I can't really know to what he was referring when he wrote: "Aaaaaand I think I've seen enough from this thread. - Have fun guys.") in criticizing Ruffhaus and his post. I'm a bit surprised that more haven't done so. I've seen plenty of flame posts but this one was particularly content-free and vicious.

I think Ruffhaus' critique was overwrought. What I have learned about Danivon is that he has a particular method: he usually does not post new information, but instead demands more information. While I have previously noted his troll-ish behavior, I would not go nearly so far as Ruffhaus has. It often appears that Danivon's sole purpose is to frustrate those with whom he disagrees. That is not a particularly helpful goal to have.

As but one example, Danivon actually counted the number of forums I started that were "anti-Obama." Now, it is a small thing to be sure, but if President Obama is doing a stellar job, why not simply defend him with the facts? Were I to go into the forums, I'm sure I could find better examples--situations where post after post he demands more evidence but produces none. That is the game he plays.

And this is relevant to the topic how? But 'overwrought'?

Oddly, for such a confirmed troll, I think I have added something to this thread. I posted 'new information' about a different incident to show that even a trained professional can shoot the wrong person in error. I hope I helped clear up the question of what Ricky was and was not claiming about the use of an automatic (but it would be polite of Ricky to come back and clear up what he meant). There's one clear non-sequiteur (which was in response to one by DF). If I had been behaving badly in this thread I could understand Ruffhaus' motivation (If not the sheer nastiness of his comparison), and DF's backhanded victim-blaming as some kind of justification.

I get it, though, DF does not appreciate being asked questions. It's easier to just pronounce one way or another and hammer it out, and lets not let pesky things like details or a quest for common ground interfere with the 'debate', eh?

now (again), away from the meta-argument and back to the issue...

Since we last had any real discussion, I've seen two interesting pieces of information:

1) The suspect was apparently seeing a mental health professional
2) The suspect obtained his guns legally a few weeks prior to the act, with short checks being made

What I don't know is whether CO gun checks include mental health, whether he was actually diagnosed with anything or just seeing someone, or whether a diagnosis would actually be registered so that it could be noticed when a gun/licence is being applied for. But this would certainly seem to me to be an area where we might want to consider controls if not already in place.

I apologise that this raises questions.