dude, the weapon he used was semi automatic. no different rate of fire than a hunting rifle or a handgun or revolver. unless im mistaken and it was a fully automatic ar. it could have been a colt peacemaker and he would have had the same rate of fire.Ty wrote:
I think you're pettifogging a bit 11B. What difference do materials or measurements make really make to someone wanting to use a weapon to kill people in a movie theatre? Military grade weapons may be hardier to cope with a beating but this civilian AR-15 was no less effective in the situation it was used than a weapon deemed to be 'military'. The weapon didn't necessarily jam because it was of inferior quality and even if it did had this bloke known how to clear a stoppage it wouldn't have slowed him down.
Also if you'd read further than the first line you would have seen that I considered that in the military, at least in my admittedly limited experience, assault weapons are generally used in semi-automatic except in certain circumstances. I don't consider the civilian model's inability to be fired in automatic mode something that makes it less dangerous. I wonder if you'd agree that placing your rounds is more effective than spraying gunfire everywhere.
And newbie, people are scared of weapons like the AR-15 because they are scary, not just because of its aesthetics. A 20+ round magazine isn't designed to take out bunnies. You don't need semi-automatic fire to take out a deer. These 'civilian' models are deemed as such as a pointless attempt to differentiate them from the military weapons from which their design is based. And military weapons are designed to kill humans.
'kay I really mean it now, I'm going to shut up. I don't want to stay late at work tonight.
and your thought on semi auto fire being the standard in the military is incorrect.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-07-23 20:13:48)
Tu Stultus Es
