Depends on your definition of “sporting”. 
Yeah, if I could use a bazooka to hunt, I might take up hunting.
Sure, I think it is Ok to ban "destructive devices’ such as flamethrowers or a howitzer, or a bazooka, or a machine gun* or a handgrenade, etc.
That’s cool. So you are alright with limiting the things I can possess and use to defend myself?
I know the Garand is a semi. I cited a book where the Garand was being compared to The Lee Enfield Mark IV. The test in 1927 came out to 10 rounds a minute at a 300 yard target for a well trained person versus 15 a minute for the accomplished marksmen with The Enfield.
You are wrong. Military tests confirm you are wrong, my personal experience confirms you are wrong, and basic logic confirms that you are wrong. A semi-auto does the job of expelling the empty shell and loading a fresh own for the shooter, so the shooter does not have to perform this task. Not only does it it remove a task from the shooter giving one less thing he has to do before he fires, but it does it mechanically faster than human could, and it does so instantly at the time of fire without delay.
Also, the more general the target, the less one needs to aim (like firing into a crowd of concert goers) the greater the mechanical aid of the semi in raising Rof.
Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
Why were semis and autos invented in the first place? Simply to increase Rof.
As of Feb. 18 there have been 1,624 mass shootings in 1870 days. A mass shooting is 4 or more people.
I guess that’s rare, but that’s a lot of lives lost. I see nothing silly in reducing that number
So, your own cite shows a semi-auto has a lower aimted rate of fire than a bolt action.
Then you go on to say I am wrong. Yes, the RoF is faster, but not the AIMED RoF.
Yes, and the increase was to allow for better covering fire.
Of course, one can define “mass shooting” anyway you want.
Mother Jones very reasonable definition shows “only”
21 since 2017. That’s 7 a year. There are 10000 or so murders a year.
That’s not what it says. It says an accomplished shooter can get 10 and an expert can get 15 with a bolt action. The Ar-15 gets 45.
And better shooting into crowds.
Look. I own over a dozen guns. I’ve been a shooter all my life. I have gotten so many positive and great things out of riflery, and hunting, and I have a true love for it.
But… the lowest thing on that list is the fun and utility of firing semi or auto rifles. It is fun to spray a clip at the range, but for hunting or target shooting or home defense, or any other legitimate use, the Added utility from having a semi, is either marginal or nonexistent.
However, it is ideal for shooting into a crowd, or taking out a roomful of people.
I am a good and responsible enough hunter that I don’t fire if I can’t do the job in a single shot. I don’t need a semi rifle for that. I can work a bolt target shooting. I don’t need a semi rifle for that. For home defense, I use a shotgun, a pistol, or a baseball bat. A semi-auto rifle is the wrong tool for that.
What could I use a semi-auto rifle for? I suppose if my home were being assaulted by a roving motorcycle gang it might be nice to climb on the roof and pick them off quickly. I probably don’t have to worry about that too much though
Other than that, any other use besides just shooting it off real fast for fun is frankly pretty sketchy.
It’s good for shooting into a crowd, or holding off the police, or assaulting a building, or robbing a bank, or attacking a school, or going to war.
It is the perfect tool for that last group, and that is not a good group of things to want a gun for.
So, I am quite happy to give up the small amount of fun and utility a semi-auto rifle gives me, because it would save some lives.
I don’t really lose anything I need or that is important, and a bunch of other people don’t die.
That’s a good trade in my book.
What utility do you get out of a semi auto that you couldn’t get out of a single action rifle? How many lives of other people is that worth?
I cited a book where the Garand was being compared to The Lee Enfield Mark IV*8. The test in 1927 came out to 10 rounds a minute at a 300 yard target for a well trained person versus 15 a minute for the accomplished marksmen with The Enfield.
*
The aimed RoF for a AR15 wasn’t cited, appeared to be a WAG.
Look, if you do wanna stop “spray and pray” shootings, then ban the sale of high capacity magazines. That’s what a AR15 has over a Garand. Quite a few semi-auto hunting rifles don’t have a detachable magazine. And a ban on semi-auto’s would ban many .22 plinkers.
- semi-auto.
** bolt action.
The 45 per minute aimed ROF was a cite from a manufacturer.
High capacity mags are easily fabricated or can even be 3d printed.
Again. What utility do you get from a semi-auto rifle that you don’t from a bolt action? How many lives is it worth?
Like the smog claims from VW? :dubious: Yeah. Come back with better cites. Your own cite compared a semi-auto to a bolt action and the bolt action had a higher AIMED RoF than the semi-auto.
Dr.
That’s not what it said. You read it wrong and I already corrected you.
The Slate agrees with the 45 effective rounds.
I figure I could shoot45 rounds from a semi auto with the same accuracy and time I could do 15-20 from a bolt, and I do have both a semi and bolt action 22 with the exact same set up, and 2-3 times effective rate of fire sounds right.
So, what cites do you have?
What is so useful about a semi, anyway?
So far you’ve offered plinking. Who needs to plink fast?
No, let me quote you again:"I cited a book where the Garand was being compared to The Lee Enfield Mark IV**. The test in 1927 came out to 10 rounds a minute at a 300 yard target for a well trained person versus 15 a minute for the accomplished marksmen with The Enfield.*
(* are mine)
- semi-auto.
** bolt action.
You have not yet come up with any other cites about a AIMED RoF with a semi-auto. You have your opinion, not a cite.
A Garand is a semi-auto rifle. A Enfield is a bolt action. Your very own cite (not some WAG) shows the Bold ation faster in* aimed *RoF.
I keep bringing this up and I feel like it keeps getting ignored every time: couldn’t you do just as much damage to a crowd of people with a pump shotgun loaded with buckshot, as an AR-15? An AR-15 is certainly going to rack up a higher body count than a bolt action rifle or a revolver or a Garand with 8 rounds, but these discussions always seem to ignore the one non-semi-automatic weapon capable of firing multiple rounds in different directions with each shot.
I’ve already told you twice that you are reading it wrong.
So here’s number 3.
I looked for a cite to compare a bolt action to an Ar-15. Couldn’t find one. I did however find data for the Enfield bolt action where it was being compared to a Garand. I also found separate data for the AR 15.
The former cite suggested that a well-trained person could fire 10 rounds a minute into a target with the Enfield. An accomplished marksmen could make 15 with that same Enfield. So, for this test the range was between 10-15 with The Enfield ONLY.
Two other separate cites put the number for the Ar-15 at 45.
If you are curious, the Garand came in between 40 for well trained and 50 for accomplished, which really impressed the armed forces which is why they use semi-autos and autos these days, because you can shoot more accurately faster than you can with a bolt action.
Clear?
No. OO buckshot contains usually 8 shot. They all tend to go in the same direction within the confines of the spread which is determined by the choke on the shotgun. You have a range of about 50 yards. Within that range you are probably going two hit only one target because of the narrow spread. Maybe two if you are lucky.
Pump or auto shotguns are typically limited to 5 shots even with sporting plug removed.
So, no. It’s not comparable.
There are other kinds of buckshot besides 00 though. I’ve never actually used buckshot, the only shotgun shooting I’ve done has been shooting clays. But I just did some googling, and this appears to be the results of #4 buckshot…on a car door.
That picture does not exactly reassure me that a shotgun-wielding killer wouldn’t be able to cause much carnage. The range is irrelevant, a classroom packed with kids is much shorter away than 50 yards. Jesus, could you imagine someone standing 10 feet away from a massed group of people, firing those pellets at them? Even if they “only” had 5 shots, the results would not be pretty.
00 is the largest commonly used (though there is 000.) It has the greatest range and does the most damage. As you move down the scale you have smaller pellets that do less damage with less range. Smaller pellets also give you larger coverage. The whole thing is a series of trade offs depending on what you want to shoot at and at what range, and at what kind of coverage you want and what kind of stopping power you need. Many shotguns have an adjustable choke which also lets you adjust the spread.
Can a shotgun be a fearsome weapon? Absolutely, particularly close in.
It doesn’t have the mass standoff killing power and sustained rate of fire of an Ar-15.
I draw the line arbitrarily at a dozen potential fatalities. That would be tough to achieve with a shotgun regardless of load even under ideal circumstances.
As we have unfortunately seen a semi-auto is simply 8n a different league.
Generally yes, but not in the rather unique Las Vegas shooting. In this last mass shooting, Waffle house, certainly. In most mass shootings likely, in fact a bolt action rifle or a revolver or a Garand with 8 rounds would have done fine.
That doesn’t match what you originally posted and you are light on actual cites. Got any?
It matches the first sentence of post 314 exactly.
“In Testing bolt action rifles in the 1927 the Marine Corps believed a well trained able bodied shooter could put 10 rounds per minute on target. A gifted marksmen could do as many as 15.”
You have apparently been boggled by this simple sentence.
I have nicely tried to explain it to you three times. That’s enough.