Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

School attack in Canadaland.Follow

#52 Feb 26 2016 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
If that's the case, we gotta have the most 90s person.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Feb 26 2016 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, my bluff backfired. I'm out until this thread is about Veruca Salt or The Breeders or something...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Feb 26 2016 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
The things mass attackers have in common are that they are isolated and aggrieved. Neither of those is a mental health issue. They are social issues, difficult to identify and correct.
Maybe Gbaji is on to something when he talks about "Buy everyone a puppy" laws!
You force me to take in a puppy, I swear to God within a week I'm going to Pet Smart with a halberd and a couple morning stars to make you regret that decision.

If you make it a cat, I'll instead spend all my time trying to make lolcat pictures, so that would probably be safe. Though it might die of due to a diet of cheeseburgers.
#55 Feb 26 2016 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Did you see that Veruca Salt came out with a new album last year? They also played at Wicker Park Fest; I was pretty bummed that I missed it considering I live less than a mile away.

Also, this.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#56 Feb 26 2016 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
What's that, a new album every twenty years?

Not quite legit.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Feb 26 2016 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
.

Also, I listened to Fresh Prince and Jazzy Jeff in high school in the 80s, when they had their huge hit Parent's just don't understand

Edited, Feb 26th 2016 10:59am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#58 Feb 26 2016 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Huh, I always associated Jeff and Will to the 90s. Probably because of the show. This one though is definitely '91.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Mar 04 2016 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which are *not* assault rifles since they are semi-automatic
M16 and M4 are semi-automatic and assault rifles.


What makes something an assault rifle is the capability of firing more than one shot per pull of the trigger (automatic or burst mode).

Your logic is torturous. Since (some?) assault rifles can fire in semi-automatic mode, all rifles that can only fire in semi-automatic mode are assault rifles? That's... crazy. Even for you. I guess that since all poodles are dogs, then all dogs are poodles now too? Logic has left the building!

Edited, Mar 4th 2016 4:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Mar 04 2016 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Your logic is torturous.
It only seems torturous for you because it's a fact, and we all know how you react to those.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Mar 04 2016 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Before the definition of assault rifle became political fodder I had always defined it as a rifle that hold smaller rounds than standard rifles but larger and more powerful than handgun rounds so that a magazine can hold a decent amount without being too heavy so you can...uh.. assault (storm) things..
Select-fire capability is irrelevant. It can hold as many rounds as a hand-gun and fire as far as a standard rifle.
I own 3 so maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot here.

Edited, Mar 4th 2016 7:54pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#62 Mar 04 2016 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
"Ban Guns" is a much more effective rally cry. It's something people "can fix" without too much change for most Americans.


I suppose that technically, something that would directly affect about a third of all households in the US can be said to not be too much change for "most Americans". That's still a pretty large percentage. And there's the whole 2nd amendment thing you'd have to deal with. I agree that "ban guns" is a more effective (and simplistic) rallying cry. That does not remotely make it a good course of action though.

Yodabunny wrote:
Our guns aren't "cool" so they don't become something people want to spend money on, as such few people have guns and the ones that do have them for very specific purposes (hunting) and don't really show them off or talk about them. There's no gun culture because we don't allow weapons to become toys.


That's not wholly fair though. There are basically two gun cultures in the US. One is based on traditional gun ownership for hunting, defending the home, etc. And focuses (almost obsessively) on gun safety, responsibility, rules of gun handling and ownership, viewing guns as an important but dangerous tool to be handled properly, etc, and passes that culture to their children. The other has grown up in a media environment that portrays guns as powerful scary things that makes you into a badass if you have one. This culture thinks they are objects to be waved around, kept in your belt to be flashed when you need to build your cred, an includes talk of putting caps in people as though it's just some casual thing to do because you're cool.

One of those cultures is responsible for most of the gun violence in this country. Not hard to noodle out which. Ironically, the work of the anti-gun lobbyists are largely to blame for that second culture arising. Combine increasing gun regulation that makes it hard (and in some cases impossible) for those in urban environments to legally own guns, much less have anywhere to teach their children their proper use, with a constant drumbeat about how scary and dangerous they are, then sprinkle in high crime areas, with gangs and drugs, and is anyone surprised at the result?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Mar 04 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Select-fire capability is irrelevant
It's one of the defining features. An assault rifle is an intermediate round select-fire (single and either burst or full) weapon with a big magazine, rifle-like power but lower recoil and range. Some people debate barrel length but personally I find that to be irrelevant to the label, but to each their own. But that's the Department of Defense's definition since the 40's, and what would they know about guns, right?

So in short an M16/M4 is, but an AR15 isn't, even though they have almost the exact same specs minus the select fire mode, though you can convert the 15.

Edited, Mar 4th 2016 8:32pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Mar 04 2016 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Before the definition of assault rifle became political fodder I had always defined it as a rifle that hold smaller rounds than standard rifles but larger and more powerful than handgun rounds so that a magazine can hold a decent amount without being too heavy so you can...uh.. assault (storm) things..


Yeah. But the "assault" part of that refers specifically to the ability for automatic fire. Here's the definition of an assault rifle.

Quote:

It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine[5]
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)


Quote:
Select-fire capability is irrelevant. It can hold as many rounds as a hand-gun and fire as far as a standard rifle.
I own 3 so maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot here.


Again. Wrong. What primarily differentiates a rifle from an assault rifle is that an assault rifle can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. There are additional differences, but those revolve around the fact of being capable of firing at a higher rate. The need for smaller less powerful ammunition, for example, is due to the need to have more rounds, but still be carried and fired by a single person. Ditto with the magazine requirements. This differentiates assault rifles from machine guns, for example.

No weapon without automatic fire capability can ever be properly called an assault rifle. Ever. Period. End of story. That they may have other cosmetic similarities doesn't change that absolute fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Mar 04 2016 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Huh. I thought the M16A2 didn't have full automatic. Granted, I haven't fired on for 21 years...
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#66 Mar 04 2016 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Huh. I thought the M16A2 didn't have full automatic.
It has a three round burst, or the "Hey, watch me miss twice" mode.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Mar 04 2016 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Handguns and "really scary looking rifles" (which are *not* assault rifles since they are semi-automatic), fall into the restricted category, which makes them pretty equivalent in terms of ease to obtain as the same weapons are in most parts of the US (which again, ironically includes weapons not so restricted in Canada).

"Assault weapons" is the term you're looking for. The fact that Ugly said "Assault rifles" and you decided to harping on the specifics of what what an assault rifle was while carefully avoiding saying the term he actually meant so you could be right is... weird, really. Are you that hard up for a "win" these days? Especially after your "long rifles" embarrassment. At least Ugly has the excuse of not living in the US and being less likely to care about US legal designations of weapons (and I'm sure Ugly would happily say "assault weapons, whatever" when corrected rather than throwing a hissy fit and insisting that everyone really calls the assault rifles)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Mar 04 2016 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Huh. I thought the M16A2 didn't have full automatic.
It has a three round burst, or the "Hey, watch me miss twice" mode.
IIRC we were trained it was the "aim at the the feet and you'll hit the enemy with one of 'em" mode.


Which I realized - while I write this - that that's the same thing.Smiley: bah
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#69 Mar 04 2016 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Smiley: laugh The only time we ever use it is as an example of why we don't use it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 Mar 04 2016 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I backed you up in an argument, lolgaxe. Why didn't you rate me up?


GAWD, WHAT A JERK!!Smiley: mad
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#71 Mar 04 2016 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I don't know why I said assault rifles, when I did mean to say assault weapons. Either way, it seems that for any reasonable person, the intent was understood.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#72 Mar 04 2016 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I am soothed.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#73 Mar 04 2016 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know why I said assault rifles, when I did mean to say assault weapons. Either way, it seems that for any reasonable person, the intent was understood.

Smiley: flowers
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Mar 04 2016 at 9:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Huh. I thought the M16A2 didn't have full automatic.
It has a three round burst, or the "Hey, watch me miss twice" mode.


Yeah. I've referred to selective fire mode as "automatic fire", which isn't technically correct. So my bad. What I'm trying to get across is that if a weapon has any firing mode that allows more than one bullet to be fired with a single trigger pull, then that weapon meets at least one of the requirements to be an assault rifle. Any weapon that does not have that capability is not an assault rifle. We don't need to go on to other criteria because it's already failed one.

And this capability (whether full auto, or burst fire) is the primary distinction between a rifle and an assault rifle. If you're starting with a single person rifle, and thinking "How to I convert this so it can fire faster, without running out of ammo too fast, and without being too heavy for one person to fire", you arrive at the assault rifle. Which sacrifices some hitting power and long range accuracy for the ability to put far more lead down field in a given period of time. It's useful because it can be fired at that high rate, effectively providing suppression, even while moving rapidly (something that machine guns can't do). It also retains some of the accuracy of a rifle, allowing it to be more multi-use than a sub-machine gun (like say a Thompson), but doesn't need as much accuracy and range because in those sorts of assault conditions, you're rarely shooting at anything more than a couple hundred yards away. Being able to put out more rounds in an area is more important than accuracy or power.

In short. It's ideal for infantry assaults. Hence the name.

The problem is that gun control advocates love to conflate the name and apply it to weapons that simply don't qualify. They do this so they can play on the "full automatic" scariness of military weapons in order to pass regulations on weapons that do not actually possess the qualities that make people afraid of "assault weapons" (note the change of the second word from "rifle" to "weapon", designed to cause confusion and incorrect association at the same time). I have on many occasions had people defend the need for an "assault weapons ban" on the grounds that "no one should be able to own a weapon that can fire <insert automatic weapons fire rate> rounds per minute". I then have to tediously explain to them that such weapons have actually been illegal for general private ownership since the 1930s, and thus has no bearing at all on the discussion of the merits of any particular weapons ban being discussed today.

Of course, that's usually followed up with an assertion that even if they aren't full auto capable (or burst capable), they're still "assault weapons", so they should be banned anyway. At which point we go around and around trying to even come up with a definition for what an "assault weapon" is (which, um... usually boils down to a circular definition based on whatever the writers of the ban in question want to ban), only to at some point have someone forget that I already countered the whole "automatic fire" bit, and bring up rate of fire again ("spraying bullets" or some other similar language) as though we're talking about military weapons. And we go around in circles again.

Edited, Mar 4th 2016 7:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Mar 04 2016 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't know why I said assault rifles, when I did mean to say assault weapons. Either way, it seems that for any reasonable person, the intent was understood.


Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Mar 04 2016 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Handguns and "really scary looking rifles" (which are *not* assault rifles since they are semi-automatic), fall into the restricted category, which makes them pretty equivalent in terms of ease to obtain as the same weapons are in most parts of the US (which again, ironically includes weapons not so restricted in Canada).

"Assault weapons" is the term you're looking for. The fact that Ugly said "Assault rifles" and you decided to harping on the specifics of what what an assault rifle was while carefully avoiding saying the term he actually meant so you could be right is... weird, really. Are you that hard up for a "win" these days? Especially after your "long rifles" embarrassment. At least Ugly has the excuse of not living in the US and being less likely to care about US legal designations of weapons (and I'm sure Ugly would happily say "assault weapons, whatever" when corrected rather than throwing a hissy fit and insisting that everyone really calls the assault rifles)


It's not weird. The term "assault weapons" has absolutely no meaning or purpose whatsoever except to make people think they're the same as "assault rifles". The fact that Ugly even used one term when he meant the other is part of your proof. I see these two terms used more or less interchangeably. And that's not an accident. There is no actual definition for "assault weapon". It's a phrase invented by the anti-gun crowd to get people to confuse semi-automatic only rifles with military style weapons that they see in movies so that they'll more readily support bans on whatever weapons they've labeled "assault weapons".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 348 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (348)