More Gun Nut Crazy - Forced Reset Triggers

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's called overkill. Full auto fire means you really hammer one target, but you very quickly run out of ammo. Good if you want to be sure one target is really dead, not very good if you want to kill a bunch of people.

And you really believe that? I fired an M60 in bursts and an M16 in bursts. I never heard the expression "hammer one target." Where did you acquire this information? "One target" was the enemy. Could be a squad of guys or one soldier or an emplacement manned by a team of the enemy. Could be low flying aircraft. You don't appear to know what you are talking about.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Per

Loren, would you be willing to run around in a field while I fire a machine gun at you?

If not, why not?

perhaps the question would be if given a certain time to cross that field would he rather be fire upon by a fully automatic machine gun version or a standard AR-15

You're both looking at it wrong.

If you're one target, yes, a machine gun is a greater threat. However, the issue is mass shootings--and if you have many people on that field I'd prefer the shooter be armed with a machine gun. He's going to hit fewer targets that way.

So we should legalize machine guns and glamorize them enough that they become the new bestseller. According to your logic that should reduce casualties of mass shootings.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So we should legalize machine guns and glamorize them enough that they become the new bestseller. According to your logic that should reduce casualties of mass shootings.

You are missing the point. No one knows what a machine gun is because it's not been defined. Understand? Until a machine gun is defined then they should be for sale at the local gas station. The same goes for claymore mines, napalm, grenades, artillery and plastic explosives. We need definitions. There is no difference between a pistol and a machine pistol until we have a definition. I want my definitions! Until we have definitions I will feel much safer if everyone starts carrying machine guns. If mass shooters are armed with machine guns (whatever they are because we don't have a definition) we will all be safer.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So we should legalize machine guns and glamorize them enough that they become the new bestseller. According to your logic that should reduce casualties of mass shootings.

You are missing the point. No one knows what a machine gun is because it's not been defined. Understand? Until a machine gun is defined then they should be for sale at the local gas station. The same goes for claymore mines, napalm, grenades, artillery and plastic explosives. We need definitions. There is no difference between a pistol and a machine pistol until we have a definition. I want my definitions! Until we have definitions I will feel much safer if everyone starts carrying machine guns. If mass shooters are armed with machine guns (whatever they are because we don't have a definition) we will all be safer.

So, you’re saying that definitions are the problem? Well I don’t see where definitions are protected in the Constitution so we should just ban those to solve all our problems.

 

[bilby]

It does sound an awful lot like a machine gun, but in most situations it's not going to do much to increase the casualties.

You obviously have evidence of this and I am completely sure you will share that with us in due time, but are you saying an increased volume of fire doesn't increase casualties?

I know you love some semantics so let's be clear; casualties involve killed and wounded and things like ricochets but you want to stick with "in most situations" so as to make this casual or typical?

It's called overkill. Full auto fire means you really hammer one target, but you very quickly run out of ammo. Good if you want to be sure one target is really dead, not very good if you want to kill a bunch of people.

The entire reason why machine guns became popular was that they were highly effective at killing a very large enemy force, making a machine gun an extremely powerful force multiplier.

Before machine guns, the army with the most men on the field had the advantage. After machine guns, tiny forces armed with them were able to defeat massive enemy formations.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Before machine guns, the army with the most men on the field had the advantage. After machine guns, tiny forces armed with them were able to defeat massive enemy formations.

No. The enemy felt much safer if the other side had machine guns. And we'd all be much safer if shooters were all armed with machine guns.

But we don't know what machine guns are because they've never been defined.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's called overkill. Full auto fire means you really hammer one target, but you very quickly run out of ammo. Good if you want to be sure one target is really dead, not very good if you want to kill a bunch of people.

And you really believe that? I fired an M60 in bursts and an M16 in bursts. I never heard the expression "hammer one target." Where did you acquire this information? "One target" was the enemy. Could be a squad of guys or one soldier or an emplacement manned by a team of the enemy. Could be low flying aircraft. You don't appear to know what you are talking about.

Consider your ammo supply.

Also, in a military situation only a tiny, tiny percentage of rounds actually hit anyone. One hit from one magazine would be considered a success in combat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The entire reason why machine guns became popular was that they were highly effective at killing a very large enemy force, making a machine gun an extremely powerful force multiplier.

Before machine guns, the army with the most men on the field had the advantage. After machine guns, tiny forces armed with them were able to defeat massive enemy formations.

Before the machine gun charging through enemy fire was a dangerous but viable tactic. The machine gun ended that, charging became pretty much impossible unless you could drop a lot of artillery on the heads of those you were attacking. It caused a change in tactics, it didn't make tiny forces able to defeat large forces that didn't rely on old tactics.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In modern warfare, atacking an enemy can get you ambushed. A few of your troops are authorized to use full auto. That is to force ambushers to take cover. Giving your troops an opportunity, to take cover, locate the enemy and use your rifle's sights to destroy them. Not full auto. Heavier weapons are for defense or indirect fire, or for things like helicopters. Or drones, or enemy vehicles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In modern warfare, atacking an enemy can get you ambushed. A few of your troops are authorized to use full auto. That is to force ambushers to take cover. Giving your troops an opportunity, to take cover, locate the enemy and use your rifle's sights to destroy them. Not full auto. Heavier weapons are for defense or indirect fire, or for things like helicopters. Or drones, or enemy vehicles.

Yup, full auto is far more for suppression than for actual targeting.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is vague on purpose. Because if they specify brands, slightly cosmetically models with new brands will pop up. A game of whack-a-mole. We do not want these things falling into the hands of lil gangbangers for more effective drive-bys. Or to arm the marijuana farming gangs in this nations's forests. Or arm homophobic crazies.

I linked to a short video that demonstrates how effective they are. Watch that one.

The problem is they didn't give a definition adequate to let someone consider any given item and decide whether it was legal or not. It feels to me that the concept inherently either is or is not a machine gun, how can "some" of them be machine guns?

As for effectiveness--effective at sending a lot of bullets downrange, yes. Effective at causing mass casualties, no. A mass shooter will be far more effective if they don't blast their whole magazine at a target or two. There's a reason soldiers have burst mode but not full-auto fire!

Automatic fire weapons bear the greatest danger to grouped targets.

Soldiers rarely expect to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

Burst fire is for long range suppression and lane control, to keep people from closing while flanking is attempted.

Mass shooters have a different mechanic, with one of the most disgusting and successful tactics to those aims involving spraying as many bullets as possible into groups of people.

 

[bilby]

Soldiers rarely expect to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

...because machine guns exist.

Before machine guns were invented, soldiers almost invariably expected to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

Once soldiers learned not to clump together against enemies armed with machine guns, new doctrines for how machine guns should be used were developed. But that doesn't mean they're no longer effective against clumped groups of people.

 

[Jarhyn]

Soldiers rarely expect to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

...because machine guns exist.

Before machine guns were invented, soldiers almost invariably expected to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

Pretty much. Granted machine guns effective in a modern theater of war are ponderously heavy things on account of the weight being useful for preventing barrel rise.

An automatic assault rifle won't serve the task.

There's no use for an automatic military grade soldier's rifle except killing bunches of stupid civilians who are all clustered in a group right in front of you, which is the action of an evil monster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is vague on purpose. Because if they specify brands, slightly cosmetically models with new brands will pop up. A game of whack-a-mole. We do not want these things falling into the hands of lil gangbangers for more effective drive-bys. Or to arm the marijuana farming gangs in this nations's forests. Or arm homophobic crazies.

I linked to a short video that demonstrates how effective they are. Watch that one.

The problem is they didn't give a definition adequate to let someone consider any given item and decide whether it was legal or not. It feels to me that the concept inherently either is or is not a machine gun, how can "some" of them be machine guns?

As for effectiveness--effective at sending a lot of bullets downrange, yes. Effective at causing mass casualties, no. A mass shooter will be far more effective if they don't blast their whole magazine at a target or two. There's a reason soldiers have burst mode but not full-auto fire!

Automatic fire weapons bear the greatest danger to grouped targets.

Soldiers rarely expect to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

Burst fire is for long range suppression and lane control, to keep people from closing while flanking is attempted.

Mass shooters have a different mechanic, with one of the most disgusting and successful tactics to those aims involving spraying as many bullets as possible into groups of people.

But rarely will they be facing crowds dense enough that they would be clumped targets. There's also the issue that it's not a videogame--once you kill a target they don't magically vanish. The rest of your burst is going to hit the same person.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is vague on purpose. Because if they specify brands, slightly cosmetically models with new brands will pop up. A game of whack-a-mole. We do not want these things falling into the hands of lil gangbangers for more effective drive-bys. Or to arm the marijuana farming gangs in this nations's forests. Or arm homophobic crazies.

I linked to a short video that demonstrates how effective they are. Watch that one.

The problem is they didn't give a definition adequate to let someone consider any given item and decide whether it was legal or not. It feels to me that the concept inherently either is or is not a machine gun, how can "some" of them be machine guns?

As for effectiveness--effective at sending a lot of bullets downrange, yes. Effective at causing mass casualties, no. A mass shooter will be far more effective if they don't blast their whole magazine at a target or two. There's a reason soldiers have burst mode but not full-auto fire!

Automatic fire weapons bear the greatest danger to grouped targets.

Soldiers rarely expect to be going against clumped groups of combatants.

Burst fire is for long range suppression and lane control, to keep people from closing while flanking is attempted.

Mass shooters have a different mechanic, with one of the most disgusting and successful tactics to those aims involving spraying as many bullets as possible into groups of people.

But rarely will they be facing crowds dense enough that they would be clumped targets. There's also the issue that it's not a videogame--once you kill a target they don't magically vanish. The rest of your burst is going to hit the same person.

Are you kidding? You're kidding right? The barrel travel alone from the walk up will, in most grips, pull in a direction hard enough to hit adjacent targets for a clustering like a nightclub or even a classroom.

Are you under the impression that groupings on full auto are controlled, all three bullets in the same place kinds of affairs?

Even with a rifle as easy to fire as an AR-15, it's gonna walk up and to the side all on its own. It takes a lot of focus to keep it from walking.

 

[Elixir]

It takes a lot of focus to keep it from walking.

With an AR it just takes a couple hundred rounds, then compensating becomes fairly automatic/unconscious.

 

[Jarhyn]

It takes a lot of focus to keep it from walking.

With an AR it just takes a couple hundred rounds, then compensating becomes fairly automatic/unconscious.

Yeah, but I don't count on people stealing their mom's AR or buying one and getting a drop-in auto-seer, or forced reset trigger, spending 200 dollars and spending hours and hours at the range practicing to eliminate barrel walk from auto fire.

I don't even see them taking the time to learn how to reliably hit exactly the thing they are trying to aim at.

I expect to see folks buy a rifle, get some control, and then to spend most of the time jerking off while looking at it fantasizing about shooting people with it.

 

[Elixir]

I don't count on people stealing their mom's AR or buying one and getting a drop-in auto-seer, or forced reset trigger, spending 200 dollars and spending hours and hours at the range practicing to eliminate barrel walk from auto fire.

I wouldn’t know, never having fired any full-auto anything. I figure that person gets their instructions where they get their ideas - online videos - Ideas that are usually warped as hell. So he’s just hoping to blanket an area with fire for as many seconds as possible. Spraying is probably a great release, and yer bound to hit a few if there’s a crowd.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't count on people stealing their mom's AR or buying one and getting a drop-in auto-seer, or forced reset trigger, spending 200 dollars and spending hours and hours at the range practicing to eliminate barrel walk from auto fire.

I wouldn’t know, never having fired any full-auto anything. I figure that person gets their instructions where they get their ideas - online videos - Ideas that are usually warped as hell. So he’s just hoping to blanket an area with fire for as many seconds as possible. Spraying is probably a great release, and yer bound to hit a few if there’s a crowd.

Yup--hit a few. They could hit a lot more with semi-auto. We've seen most mass shooters aren't very competent at all.