Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[phrodeau]

Hydrogen cars are totally street legal.

That's nice. *pats head*

 

[Hypoxia]

Ooh, rocket fuel. Is that street legal?

Jet fuel is kerosene, low octane stuff. Rocket fuel is... well, it's even lower octane, and you need a lot of it. (*) Better to stick to nitromethanol or other weird and toxic blends.

Do you understand the concept of street legal?

That's when you can't get caught.
_____

(*) The most common liquid propellants in use today:

Liquid oxygen (LOX) and highly refined kerosene (RP-1). Used for the first stages of the Saturn V, Atlas V and Falcon, the Russian Soyuz, Ukrainian Zenit, and developmental rockets like Angara and Long March 6. Very similar to Robert Goddard's first rocket, this combination is widely regarded as the most practical for boosters that lift off at ground level and therefore must operate at full atmospheric pressure.

LOX and liquid hydrogen, used in the Space Shuttle orbiter, the Centaur upper stage of the Atlas V, Saturn V upper stages, the newer Delta IV rocket, the H-IIA rocket, and most stages of the European Ariane 5 rocket.

Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and hydrazine (N2H4), MMH, or UDMH. Used in military, orbital, and deep space rockets because both liquids are storable for long periods at reasonable temperatures and pressures. N2O4/UDMH is the main fuel for the Proton rocket, older Long March rockets (LM 1-4), PSLV, and Fregat and Briz-M upper stages. This combination is hypergolic, making for attractively simple ignition sequences. The major inconvenience is that these propellants are highly toxic, hence they require careful handling.

Monopropellants such as hydrogen peroxide, hydrazine, and nitrous oxide are primarily used for attitude control and spacecraft station-keeping where their long-term storability, simplicity of use, and ability to provide the tiny impulses needed, outweighs their lower specific impulse as compared to bipropellants. Hydrogen peroxide is also used to drive the turbopumps on the first stage of the Soyuz launch vehicle.

Historical propellants

These include propellants such as the letter-coded rocket propellants used by Germany in World War II used for the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet's Walter HWK 109-509 motor and the V-2 pioneer SRBM missile, and the Soviet/Russian utilized syntin, which is synthetic cyclopropane, C10H16 which was used on Soyuz U2 until 1995.[citation needed] Syntin develops about 10 seconds greater specific impulse than kerosene.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Jet fuel is kerosene, low octane stuff. Rocket fuel is... well, it's even lower octane, and you need a lot of it. (*) Better to stick to nitromethanol or other weird and toxic blends.


That's when you can't get caught.
_____

(*) The most common liquid propellants in use today:

Liquid oxygen (LOX) and highly refined kerosene (RP-1). Used for the first stages of the Saturn V, Atlas V and Falcon, the Russian Soyuz, Ukrainian Zenit, and developmental rockets like Angara and Long March 6. Very similar to Robert Goddard's first rocket, this combination is widely regarded as the most practical for boosters that lift off at ground level and therefore must operate at full atmospheric pressure.

LOX and liquid hydrogen, used in the Space Shuttle orbiter, the Centaur upper stage of the Atlas V, Saturn V upper stages, the newer Delta IV rocket, the H-IIA rocket, and most stages of the European Ariane 5 rocket.

Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and hydrazine (N2H4), MMH, or UDMH. Used in military, orbital, and deep space rockets because both liquids are storable for long periods at reasonable temperatures and pressures. N2O4/UDMH is the main fuel for the Proton rocket, older Long March rockets (LM 1-4), PSLV, and Fregat and Briz-M upper stages. This combination is hypergolic, making for attractively simple ignition sequences. The major inconvenience is that these propellants are highly toxic, hence they require careful handling.

Monopropellants such as hydrogen peroxide, hydrazine, and nitrous oxide are primarily used for attitude control and spacecraft station-keeping where their long-term storability, simplicity of use, and ability to provide the tiny impulses needed, outweighs their lower specific impulse as compared to bipropellants. Hydrogen peroxide is also used to drive the turbopumps on the first stage of the Soyuz launch vehicle.

Historical propellants

These include propellants such as the letter-coded rocket propellants used by Germany in World War II used for the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet's Walter HWK 109-509 motor and the V-2 pioneer SRBM missile, and the Soviet/Russian utilized syntin, which is synthetic cyclopropane, C10H16 which was used on Soyuz U2 until 1995.[citation needed] Syntin develops about 10 seconds greater specific impulse than kerosene.

Interesting topic and an unwitting departure from the norm of this thread. Normally I would protest, but in this situation I will embrace it. I embrace it mostly because it appeals to my thirst for knowledge and directly addresses fuels we use daily w/out thought and applies to our ignorance as we so readily consume it carelessly and depend upon it as a necessity.

Having said that, Did you know WD-40 is not whatever it was intended to be? WD-40 is the result of 40 failed attempts to create the product - "Water Displacement, 40th Formula".

It was originally designed to be used by Convair to protect the outer skin which comprised the paper-thin balloon tanks of the Atlas missile from rust and corrosion. It was later found to have many household uses. There's been a flurry of different debates about WD-40 as to it's origins and whomever invented it. The "WD-40 Company" was originally known as "Rocket Chemical Company".


Also, I'm Rocket Man.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Oh look no proof or even attempted reasoning...just more shit talk because you.

BTW I'm liberal, I just don't jump behind every "sounds good!" idea proposed that infringes on our rights without thinking about what it actually means or how it's practical application will effect things.



So then you think the past and current standards for what constitutes an "assault weapon" are totally bunk then?

You don't consider any semi-automatic (the actual performance/functional determination) to be an "assault weapon" then?? Not even the AR-15??

What standard do you think should define "assault weapon" then?

Or are you just leaving that out in the "reasonable people" judging things based upon appearance/feelings nether?

It is you and your buds who continue to reframe my and other’s arguments by insisting that we are only looking at the appearance of the weapon. Not true. As we have stated countless times, it’s not the appearance that concerns us but the ability to kill many people easily. My preference would be that any weapon that is not auto or semi auto should be classified as weapons of mass destruction.

If we had a real functioning federal government, experts from both sides would be able to come together to thoroughly examine the performance of each weapon and decide if it is too dangerous to be owned by civilians.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It is you and your buds who continue to reframe my and other’s arguments by insisting that we are only looking at the appearance of the weapon. Not true.

So far it seems to be, you can't seem to come up with any sort of definitive class of weapon you want banned.

As we have stated countless times, it’s not the appearance that concerns us but the ability to kill many people easily.

That is in no way a definitive class of weaponry...that could be a car or a rice cooker....or a led pipe.

You could not put out a more vague/obtuse definition leaving anything and damn near everything open for prohibition.

My preference would be that any weapon that is not auto or semi auto should be classified as weapons of mass destruction.

So....you think muskets should be WMD's....but not military grade belt fed machine guns??

LOL that makes sense, I'm just going to assume you fucked that up.

Also they don't meet the requirements of a WMD.

If we had a real functioning federal government, experts from both sides would be able to come together to thoroughly examine the performance of each weapon and decide if it is too dangerous to be owned by civilians.

We do have a real functioning federal government, the biggest, best funded, most powerful one that's EVER existed.... and it still sucks at doing it's job.

They have, your side didn't like what they had to say so it's been ignored in favor of Hollywood celebrities commentary.

That's because there is no definitive measure as to what is "too dangerous" to be owned by civilians.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

So far it seems to be, you can't seem to come up with any sort of definitive class of weapon you want banned.

Can you come up with any definitive classes of weapons? They all seem to be the same to you.

 

[Hypoxia]

Can you come up with any definitive classes of weapons? They all seem to be the same to you.

A botanist should be familiar with taxonomy (classification) and so should be able to whip this out.

A: Weapons.
A1: Old weapons.
A2: New weapons.
B: Things that go boom.
B1: Open explosives.
B2: Closed explosives.
B2A: Explosives that burst containers.
B2B: Explosives that propel stuff ballistically.
B2B1: Muzzle-loaders.
B2B2: Magazine-loaders.
B2B2A: Single-shot guns.
B2B2B: Multi-shot guns.
B2B2C: Malfunctioning guns.
C: Things that stick and chop.
C1: Things with sharp points.
C2: Things with sharp edges.
D: Things that crush.
D1: Things swung to crush.
D2: THings dropped to crush.
E: Things that ruin your day.
E1. Nuclear weapons.
E2: Biological weapons.
E3. Chemical weapons.
F: Things that fuck your head.
F1. Propaganda.

That's just a rough outline. I didn't even mention cacti or tobacco.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

F2: Sandy Hook
F3: Parkland
F4: Orlando
F5: Las Vegas

Need we go on?

A botanist should be familiar with taxonomy (classification) and so should be able to whip this out.

A: Weapons.
A1: Old weapons.
A2: New weapons.
B: Things that go boom.
B1: Open explosives.
B2: Closed explosives.
B2A: Explosives that burst containers.
B2B: Explosives that propel stuff ballistically.
B2B1: Muzzle-loaders.
B2B2: Magazine-loaders.
B2B2A: Single-shot guns.
B2B2B: Multi-shot guns.
B2B2C: Malfunctioning guns.
C: Things that stick and chop.
C1: Things with sharp points.
C2: Things with sharp edges.
D: Things that crush.
D1: Things swung to crush.
D2: THings dropped to crush.
E: Things that ruin your day.
E1. Nuclear weapons.
E2: Biological weapons.
E3. Chemical weapons.
F: Things that fuck your head.
F1. Propaganda.

That's just a rough outline. I didn't even mention cacti or tobacco.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

A botanist should be familiar with taxonomy (classification) and so should be able to whip this out.

A: Weapons.
A1: Old weapons.
A2: New weapons.
B: Things that go boom.
B1: Open explosives.
B2: Closed explosives.
B2A: Explosives that burst containers.
B2B: Explosives that propel stuff ballistically.
B2B1: Muzzle-loaders.
B2B2: Magazine-loaders.
B2B2A: Single-shot guns.
B2B2B: Multi-shot guns.
B2B2C: Malfunctioning guns.
C: Things that stick and chop.
C1: Things with sharp points.
C2: Things with sharp edges.
D: Things that crush.
D1: Things swung to crush.
D2: THings dropped to crush.
E: Things that ruin your day.
E1. Nuclear weapons.
E2: Biological weapons.
E3. Chemical weapons.
F: Things that fuck your head.
F1. Propaganda.

That's just a rough outline. I didn't even mention cacti or tobacco.

F2: Sandy Hook
F3: Parkland
F4: Orlando
F5: Las Vegas

Need we go on?

G9: Graviton Beam Emitter

https://static.zerochan.net/Killy.full.2234111.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/64/36/a264367534b7c9dd6aa4bd8e155811e2.jpg

https://img00.deviantart.net/6ad0/i/2017/234/b/f/blame__gravitational_beam_emitter_ver__2_0_by_haylents-dbkxbgr.jpg

 

[coachdb18]

It appears that the UK having given up its guns was a very bad move. For the first time, London’s murder rate exceeds that of NYC.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-for-first-time-ever-after-spate-of-fatal-stabbings-and-a3803566.html

Article graciously reposted from another thread

 

[My I]

A botanist should be familiar with taxonomy (classification) and so should be able to whip this out.

A: Weapons.
A1: Old weapons.
A2: New weapons.
B: Things that go boom.
B1: Open explosives.
B2: Closed explosives.
B2A: Explosives that burst containers.
B2B: Explosives that propel stuff ballistically.
B2B1: Muzzle-loaders.
B2B2: Magazine-loaders.
B2B2A: Single-shot guns.
B2B2B: Multi-shot guns.
B2B2C: Malfunctioning guns.
C: Things that stick and chop.
C1: Things with sharp points.
C2: Things with sharp edges.
D: Things that crush.
D1: Things swung to crush.
D2: THings dropped to crush.
E: Things that ruin your day.
E1. Nuclear weapons.
E2: Biological weapons.
E3. Chemical weapons.
F: Things that fuck your head.
F1. Propaganda.

That's just a rough outline. I didn't even mention cacti or tobacco.

Where in your classification list would you put something like this:

 

[KimGordon67]

It appears that the UK having given up its guns was a very bad move. For the first time, London’s murder rate exceeds that of NYC.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-for-first-time-ever-after-spate-of-fatal-stabbings-and-a3803566.html

Article graciously reposted from another thread

From Busybody's thread.

So two things have happened there - NY's rate has decreased dramatically since the 199s, while London's has increased dramatically in the last three years. Has NY loosened their gun laws since the 1990s or is there some other (far more likely) explanation for the decrease in murder rates? Like, maybe the socio-economic make up of the city has shifted?
Similarly, the spike in London's rate has been in the last three years. As far as I can gather, the current UK gun control legislation was passed in 1988, with a further amendment in 1997 (source). This would tend to suggest that the recent spike in murders is not related in any meaningful sense to shifts in legislation. Has something else happened ... like years of increasingly grinding poverty for example (see the London riots).

One of the first things you learn when you're learning about stats is that 'correlation does not prove causation' (as you can readily see here). I think this is a pretty good example of that. Maybe it's linked to gun control, but even the article Coach is citing here doesn't suggest that, and you'd want some much clearer evidence than it provides.

(Again, Coach won't see this ... but oh well.)

 

[StrangerDuJour]

Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

"Zombiecon shooting suspect ... living in Immokalee."

Was he using Hornady Zombie-Max ammunition?

 

[coachdb18]

Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

"Zombiecon shooting suspect ... living in Immokalee."

Was he using Hornady Zombie-Max ammunition?

Evidently sniffing glue is still a ‘thing’

 

[Hypoxia]

Where in your classification list would you put something like this:

Unloaded, it's an inefficient hammer i.e. a bludgeon. Loaded, it's probably overkill for hunting non-alien squirrels. But those ET squirrels from Zeta Reticula, now, they're another story...

 

[Carnal_Flower]

We need a Gun Violence Commission/Agency/Task Force like the NTSB.

It should cover everything, including firearms + legal experts who can combat the nickel and dime'ing of the NRA.

Of course the NRA has stifled any research or knowledge into itself, firearms, or gun violence.

It should get to the point that anytime a mass shooting happens, it should be like a plane crash where they investigate what went wrong down to the last screw and issue new requirements and "corrections." Right now, all this information comes out afterwards but nothing seems to be being done with it.

It is you and your buds who continue to reframe my and other’s arguments by insisting that we are only looking at the appearance of the weapon. Not true. As we have stated countless times, it’s not the appearance that concerns us but the ability to kill many people easily. My preference would be that any weapon that is not auto or semi auto should be classified as weapons of mass destruction.

If we had a real functioning federal government, experts from both sides would be able to come together to thoroughly examine the performance of each weapon and decide if it is too dangerous to be owned by civilians.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can you come up with any definitive classes of weapons? They all seem to be the same to you.

I've already told you like 15 times what they are and you continue to say the same lie "they all seem to be the same to you".....not even close.

Again...the current standard for classifying weapons is based upon their action, that is to say their mode of function.

Muzzle loaders- these you load from the muzzle, 1776 style....flint locks, muskets.

Single action - this means you gotta do some shit and then you get one shot, then you gotta do that shit again and you get one shot. Bolt actions, falling block action, break action, lever action, pump action, single action revolver (cowboy guns).

Semi-automatic - this means you load up a tube/drum/magazine and every time you squeeze the trigger the gun automatically loads up the next round, you get one shot per trigger squeeze until your ammo pool is empty. This includes guns like Pee-Pawz Huntin' rifle, "assault weapons" including the dreaded AR15 and double action revolvers. The overwhelming majority of modern guns fall into this category.

Select fire- This means you can select mode of operation from semi-auto mode to burst and/or full auto. Actual military/LE gear falls into this category....M16's, M4's, AK-47's and MP5's are all select fire rifles.

Fully Automatic- This means it operates in full auto only....these are usually (but not always) belt fed "machine" guns.

And that about covers it.

We need a Gun Violence Commission/Agency/Task Force like the NTSB.

Why?

Isn't that what your local law enforcement's job is?

It should cover everything, including firearms + legal experts who can combat the nickel and dime'ing of the NRA.

What do you mean by nickel and dime'ing of the NRA?

They can't combat that....the only thing that can combat that is congress passing legislation cutting themselves off from the mega bucks, LOL best of luck with that.

Right now, all this information comes out afterwards but nothing seems to be being done with it.

What would you have them do with it?

 

[Captainnumnuts]

A botanist should be familiar with taxonomy (classification) and so should be able to whip this out.

A: Weapons.
A1: Old weapons.
A2: New weapons.
B: Things that go boom.
B1: Open explosives.
B2: Closed explosives.
B2A: Explosives that burst containers.
B2B: Explosives that propel stuff ballistically.
B2B1: Muzzle-loaders.
B2B2: Magazine-loaders.
B2B2A: Single-shot guns.
B2B2B: Multi-shot guns.
B2B2C: Malfunctioning guns.
C: Things that stick and chop.
C1: Things with sharp points.
C2: Things with sharp edges.
D: Things that crush.
D1: Things swung to crush.
D2: THings dropped to crush.
E: Things that ruin your day.
E1. Nuclear weapons.
E2: Biological weapons.
E3. Chemical weapons.
F: Things that fuck your head.
F1. Propaganda.

That's just a rough outline. I didn't even mention cacti or tobacco.

I picked B,D,E, and F. Everything else falls into subcategories under what was formerly known as Common Sense in my head.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

"Zombiecon shooting suspect ... living in Immokalee."

Was he using Hornady Zombie-Max ammunition?

Did you see the other NEEDS in the OP of this thread? They got lost in the clutter.

 

[coachdb18]

We need a Gun Violence Commission/Agency/Task Force like the NTSB.

It should cover everything, including firearms + legal experts who can combat the nickel and dime'ing of the NRA.

Of course the NRA has stifled any research or knowledge into itself, firearms, or gun violence.

It should get to the point that anytime a mass shooting happens, it should be like a plane crash where they investigate what went wrong down to the last screw and issue new requirements and "corrections." Right now, all this information comes out afterwards but nothing seems to be being done with it.

What we REALLY need, is to send in the National Guard to take over those state governments that are denying 2A rights to their citizens, like they did with the black kids who were rejected school entry, also in violation of their Constitutional rights. It’s long past time for states like CA, NY, NJ, CT to get put on notice, and have THEIR government operations under federal scrutiny, like they did to southern states for voting rights infractions. Time to end the bullshit, and reinvigorate Constitional law

 

[Captainnumnuts]

We need a Gun Violence Commission/Agency/Task Force like the NTSB.

How many do we need? Don't we have enough already? I thought Pewty Cat seen to all that.

 

[Tigersman]

That's why the gunmen who shot up a concert in France got to go on a 5 day shooting spree.

If no one had weapons you'd be safer? Yeah, that's why more people here are beaten to death with hands and feet than with ANY type of rifle. But let's assume for a moment you're right. Let's say you meet someone like Danny Trejo on the street and He attacks you with his bare hands. What do you think your odds are?

Let's say your wife is going to her car in a parking garage and a man twice her size decides he wants a piece of her ass. Is she an expert fighter? Or is the bad guy gonna get a piece of ass?

A person might be able to beat a couple of people to death before they are subdued, but a person armed with an assault rifle converted to full auto or affixed with a bump stock can kill 58 people and wound over 500 in a matter of minutes. This person did not become a criminal until he opened fire on the crowd so your scenario doesn't hold water.

 

[KimGordon67]

A person might be able to beat a couple of people to death before they are subdued, but a person armed with an assault rifle converted to full auto or affixed with a bump stock can kill 58 people and wound over 500 in a matter of minutes. This person did not become a criminal until he opened fire on the crowd so your scenario doesn't hold water.

This is the fundamental flaw in his whole 'you're not at risk from law-abiding gun owners' argument ... the second a gun owner (previously 'law-abiding') puts you at risk, they are then a criminal.

 

[Tigersman]

No Liberal

The real reason the Libs hate the NRA.

Libs don't like facing the truth.

I'm no liberal, maybe a radical who the NRA dislikes as I don't buy their BS. What the NRA will not tell its members or the general public is that at least two guns have already been banned, the Thompson submachine gun and the Uzi. The only way a person can own one of these is by obtaining it from a person who owned the gun prior to 1989. If the gun is sold it has to be registered by the new owner who also must be fingerprinted and photographed. If the new owner doesn't register the gun nor get fingerprinted and photographed and is caught with the gun, then it's off to prison for them.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No. They do information gathering along with the FBI but they're random, and depend on the locals. We need oversight. An agency like the NTSB which has the power to coordinate among all the different parts, write the report, figuring out exactly what went wrong and how to fix it. Staffed with experts who work only on this. They have more power.

Local law enforcement might be able to tell you ok this is how this underage kid got a gun but they can't really do anything about it.

Could have used that in the Sullivan Springs shooting. Do we KNOW if that mistake got fixed, with not reporting the guy's domestic abuse problems? What's going to happen with the FBI not acting on Nikolas Cruz? All these tidbits are floating around with no follow up.

When they find out a certain part of an aircraft has a defect they figure out a way to FIX IT and don't expect to see the problem again. if it does happen again it's a massive failure. Each accident refines their control. That's why we have such few airplane crashes.

We should never have another Adam Lanza. We need a Behavioral Wing that works with spotting and reporting psychos. And of course we need the gun experts. They should have the power to take a gun out of circulation just like the NTSB can ground a fleet.

QUOTE=BotanyBoy;88943595]

Why?

Isn't that what your local law enforcement's job is?
:[/QUOTE]