Terrorist attack in Orlando

Discussion in 'Everything Else' started by cmdrmonkey, Jun 12, 2016.

  1. Revolvers are essentially semi-automatic though. Every time you pull the trigger, they fire. Some of them are even hammerless and can be fired just as quickly as a semi-automatic. Some of them hold more than 6 rounds.

    Oh and they can be loaded with things like .44 magnum and .50AE that are far more deadly and better at going through armor than anything a semi-auto can fire.
  2. Semi-automatic = no manual action required to get the next round ready for firing. So revolvers are not semi-automatic.
  3. #43 cmdrmonkey, Jun 14, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
    There is no manual action required with a revolver. You just pull the trigger and it fires. It's a longer trigger pull than with a semi-auto because you have to engage the hammer with the trigger pull.

    I think you are under the misconception that you need to pull the hammer back on a revolver between shots. You don't need to touch the hammer at all. People who have never used one seem to think that but that's not how they work. Pulling the hammer back just gives you a shorter trigger pull. Revolvers can be rapid fired just as fast as semi-autos.

    So you can't come up with any concrete examples of defensive weapons that aren't semi-auto or at least rapid firing.

    You basically think people should only be allowed to carry muskets.

    The semi-auto thing is a slippery slope that will lead to pretty much all guns being banned.
  4. Nope. A semi-automatic gun moves the next bullet into position without any action from the user. A revolver moves the next bullet into position through the manual action of pulling the trigger. Revolvers are not semi-automatic.
  5. I don't follow. When you fire a semi-auto it chambers the next round on trigger pull. How is that different with a revolver. The hassle after 6 rounds would be good for gun control, I will agree.
  6. Maybe. But with speed loaders they can be reloaded just as quickly as semi-autos.

    Alterego doesn't know much about guns. He thought revolvers needed to be cocked between shots. Now he's just backpedaling.
  7. If you fire a fully-loaded handgun and the chamber remains empty after you've fired, then it's not semi-automatic.
  8. It's still rapid firing and can be fired and reloaded just as fast as a semi-auto. You are arguing semantics at this point.

    Also revolvers can be chambered for much more powerful rounds than semi-autos. .44 Magnum and .50AE will kill most anything in one hit.
  9. No, because the average person isn't going to be like the guy in that video. There's a reason the mass murderers all go for things like the AR-15 and semi-auto hand guns with huge clips.
  10. #51 cmdrmonkey, Jun 14, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
    It's a delicious irony to see all of these Republicans who have been nothing but horrible to gay people in the past but who also want to look tough on terror and like they support the victims. They're now all saying they support gay rights and always have even though their records say otherwise.


    The shooter wanted to terrorize gays, but if anything the shooting has made everyone more tolerant and accepting of gays than ever. ISIS will surely disown him for being gay, so he won't get the martyrdom he was after. He accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do. He probably just pushed gay rights ahead by decades. Pam Bondi supports gay marriage? The Republican presidential candidate saying he supports the gay community? These are things I didn't think we would see for years, or maybe ever.
  11. After careful consider I've concluded that my initial assessment was the most accurate.

  12. Which means that there's no self-defense reason or Constitutional rights reason to object to gun control that bans automatic and semi-automatic weapons. It's all the same, right? Glad that's settled.
  13. I disagree with you about pretty much everything. Bad guys will get a hold of guns regardless. This shooting was carried out in a gun free zone. It took five hours for the police to properly respond. It was an absolute bloodbath. It goes to show you that the police can't protect you in these situations. If even a few people in the nightclub had guns, they could have shot back and stopped this guy. People like you want to take away our second amendment right to protect ourselves at a time when we need it most. You are just as bad a Trump wanting to ban an entire group of people from the country. If we abandon our values, the terrorists win. The terrorists are also laughing at us for our response being to stupidly disarm ourselves. We could have made it a little harder for this guy with better background checks. There were many warning signs that went ignored. But he was determined and probably would have gotten a gun regardless. If not in a store then on the black market out of the trunk of a car.
  14. No, I'm suggesting a win-win for everyone. You just spent this page of the thread posting videos and arguing that there really isn't a difference between semi-auto and non semi-auto guns. Great. If that's what you believe, then that means you're covered when it comes to the 2nd amendment and self-defense. That's a win for gun rights. And people who don't believe that and consider banning semi-auto weapons to be important to lowering the death tolls from these types of rampages…another win. The only people that lose are the gun manufacturers who have suckered people into buying semi-automatic weapons that they don't really need for self-defense. And like I said before, that's the real reason for opposition to gun control. The money. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or self-defense.
  15. #57 cmdrmonkey, Jun 15, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
    Obama isn't talking about the kind of gun ban alterego is talking about though. He just wants better background checks, and maybe to require people to take safety courses and go through some kind of licensure (although he didn't seem to be pushing the licensure idea that hard, probably because it's been a complete failure in Chicago). What alterego is talking about would leave people defenseless. The bad guys are going to have semi-automatics. His argument doesn't even make sense because he seems to be arguing that shotguns and revolvers are weaker. So if he really believes those weapons are weaker, why would he want law abiding citizens to be left with weaker guns than the bad guys? People like alterego would turn the entire country into Chicago, where only bad guys have guns, the murder rate is insane, and law abiding citizens can't protect themselves from gangs of gun toting thugs who don't care about gun laws. People make comparisons to the UK and Australia with regard to gun control, but those countries are nothing like the US with regard to guns and crime. Chicago is place where the extreme left has already had its way, and we can see what strict gun control would look like in America, and it's been a disaster.
  16. I already brought up Chicago: the guns don't come from within Chicago itself because they actually have gun control within city limits. The guns come from other areas of Illinois that don't have gun control. Chicago is not actually a failure. It's the rest of Illinois (and most of the rest of the United States) that's the failure. There's no will to act and people just rinse/repeat the same stuff about "if I can't waste my money on weapons I don't actually need, how can I be safe".

    Gun control does actually work. Gun violence doesn't rise. It goes down.

  17. #59 cmdrmonkey, Jun 15, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
    So what you're saying is bad guys will still get guns regardless of the laws and only law abiding citizens will be without them. And bad guys will come into the gun free zone and murder people because they can get away with it. This is currently happening in Chicago, and what would happen all over the country if you banned guns.

    Chicago is a perfect example of "if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them."

    I'm also not convinced you believe your own bullshit about revolvers and shotguns being enough for defense. You and people like you just flat out want to take away all of the guns.
  18. I actually agree with @alterego about the net outcome of strict gun control. Banning weapons would prevent senseless gun deaths.

    Criminals may only have guns in Chicago, but they are most likely to use them to shoot other criminals. Randomly killing civilians, especially 50 at a time, is bad for business.

    But there is 0% chance of a gun ban happening in the next 8 years. So it's a bit of an idealist fantasy.