Yes, but you posted "
“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.”
The obvious conclusion here is the Garand is being compared to the Enfield.
Now, maybe that’s not what you meant, and that’s fine, **but you still ain’t got no cites. **
Your reading lacks comprehension. The cite never said anything about the Garand being the weapon fired at 10 rounds a minute. You’ve somehow pigeonholed that idea into Scylla’s cite. The 10 and 15 difference is somehow who knows which way to point the rifle versus someone who’s lived with it next to him for years.
Dr. Deth:
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are deliberately misreading my quote.
At the same time, for one who acts as if he’s knowledgeable about firearms, you are taking on a ridiculous position.
One does not have to be knowledgeable to understand that all other things being equal, a bolt action will fire faster than a muzzleloader. A semi-automatic will fire faster than a bolt action. A full automatic will fire faster than a semi. That is the purpose of the innovations. Each progressively automates the firing procedure, so the shooter has less tasks to perform each time he fires.
You should know this because it is straightforward and obvious. Why on earth would you argue against it?
FWIW, the world record for a “mad minute” with a bolt action is 35 rounds fired.
A semi-auto ar-15 Managed 7.5 rounds a second with the shooter using the “belt loop bump” technique.
I think those are two good examples of the maximum rate of fire achievable from each platform.
The semi-auto is 15 times faster at pure Rate of fire.
Absolutely and I have even posted as such. **A semi-automatic will fire faster than a bolt action. ** However, the aimed rate of fire is about the same. I finally got thru to a old buddy of my Dads, who was a armorer, Expert marksman and instructor. And decorated Vet. He said that the AIMED RoF is about the same. That the time you take to take careful aim outweighs any speed bonus you may get.
Absolutely, but what has that got to do with aimed rate of fire?
Aiming is useful for people who want to take out a particular target. Really useful if they want to avoid hitting anything else.
Aiming has nothing to do with mass shootings.
For mass shootings RoF is what is most important.
The NRA is touting a gun on their website that resembles a cell phone.
https://www.nraam.org/attend/featured-product-center/
I believe you have to jump it first.
That’s nice, but that wasn’t the question.
But except in the case of the LV shooter, I dont think you are correct.
Not that this is what the thread is about, nor that most of my fellow 'dopers don’t agree with you, but I disagree. Aimed fire is more effective than the spray and pray method. I actually think we dodged a bullet, so to speak, in the LV shooting, since I think that someone using aimed semi-automatic fire into a crowd of 22k for nearly 10 minutes could have done a lot more damage than 51 dead and a bit over 900 wounded. Horrible as it is to say, it could have been much worse…IMHO, and I’m definitely in the minority on this one on this board.
I’m just glad that this crazy idiot also seemed to subscribe to the Rambo school of mass shooting where it’s all about firing as fast as you can and don’t worry about any of that silly aiming stuff.
Hopefully we will never have to find out what someone who knows what they are doing could do in such a situation. 
I agree. Spray and pray is for suppression - and perhaps causing panic. LV was a outlier in mass shootings anyway- thank God.
Giving cops the perfect excuse to shoot people that have cellphones in their hands or pockets.
I seriously doubt the average criminal is going to have something like that, so I doubt it will be enough of a think to give cops such an excuse. That said, it’s kind of a silly product.
Did you notice the hip hugger holster further down? I wonder what that marketing was oriented towards? 
Yeah, it was. I keep hoping that this sort of thing will stop happening or become unfashionable to the crazy asshole fraction of the population…but I worry about what they will think of next or will become the new fashionable method to kill a bunch of random people for no apparent reason.
It seems like one reason is the publicity, their name will be remembered.
We could of course ban their names being made public, but that would cause issues with the 1st Ad. However, it would certainly save more lives than any gun control measures currently proposed.
Some people decide to commit suicide quietly, and make as little mess for others to clean up as possible.
Others want to make as big amess as they can on their way out.
Copycatting does make me nervous.
We already do know, from the innumerable attacks on unarmed civilians by soldiers acting under government authority, all over the world.
Throw some thoughts and prayers into it too, willya?
Ban the AR-15 argument just got blow up. Obviously they are not needed for a mass shooting. What is the ‘ban guns’ wackos move now since this one failed miserably?
Ban pipes for pipe bombs, pressure cookers, shotguns and hand guns?