A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

Repeatedly done so.

 

And pretending full autos are not more dangerous than semi autos is just silly.

 

You have your opinion, I have actual case law.

 

His objective in general isn’t to explain his answer his posts honestly and defend his answers, but to simply make a false statement, deny anything can show he’s wrong, and dishonestly claim he has produced evidence in support of his claim repeatedly without producing the evidence, but saying de did repeatedly and refuse to to prove that statement. The objective isn’t about truth, or even to provide legitimate arguement for an anti gun position, but to perpetuate post exchanges... a tactic of a paid troll (note the numbers of posts by him and others sharing the same tactics). Whether the topic is the interpretation of the Constitution or full auto guns, the tactic is the same. It’s frustrating as intended, but, because truth eventually emerges in rebuttle to crush his arguements and his credibility, two things occur which are contrary to any legitimate anti gun patron of his trolling. First, the inanity of his posts reflect on the anti gun clack showing their arguements are dishonest, baseless, and the product and perpetuation of ignorance (to any LW living in ignorance wanting affirmation of their ignorance) and second, provides opportunity educate by those calling BS on his assertions. Nothing he posts can be judged to have any merit given his obvious exhibition of repeated dishonest exchanges.

As for his assertions regarding full auto operation, here are some links to show how a couple full auto gun types work...

My first pistol was a Walter PPK acquired before I was 10. I had a think for taking everything apart to understand how it works (still so afflicted). I came to understand how a blowback operation worked and wondered what would haspen and if an auto could be built by removing a sear from a straight blowback design. So, working in my uncle’s shop I built several simple experiments with that thought in mind and using a simple slam fire concept based on .22 we were creating for zip guns. And I did make a successful smooth barrel design that had no sear, no trigger, just a bolt trip (same as our zip guns). It took quite a bit of tinkering and adjusting and balancing of the weight of the bolt, an adapted mag, and the recoil spring to get it to fire in full auto, learning a great deal about what was required for it to work. After many weeks and failures I got it to work, nearly jam free and it fired incredibly fast. The experiments were many as were the failures and many of those potentially dangereous, but considering they didn’t kill me (did get hurt though) I pressed on (not a huge amount of adult oversite in Ireland in those days). Here is an experiment I saw online doing a similar type of blow back design (no sear, no trigger, bolt release slam fire).



The was much nicer than mine, but very similar. Mine looked more like the Stens I saw the security forces sometimes carrying in those days... a side fed tube (no handle).

About a year or two later, I got plans for a Sten MKII from somewhere, prob pilfered them knowing me in those days. I had built up machining skills working in my Da’s and uncle’s shop and later working for a German Machinist in my area of Belfast, so, in my breaks, before and after work, I built a crude module from adapted parts (mag, rifled 9mm barrel, trigger parts) and those I fabricated. It took me some months, but I made a version that ultimately worked, and was marginly reliable, made so by the continual adjustment of relevant parts (bolt, mag (stolen or dropped Sten mag, recoil spring (couple dozed of those), mag feed depth and angle, etc.). Simple design, but a magnitude more difficult for a 14 year old sneaking about. Getting the trigger group, particularly the trigger bar function right was very difficult for me. I got it to work, taught me a lot about guns, and ultimately captured my interest, resonsible for working on guns for over 40 years. That Sten, along with a few other weapons is still secreted in South Antrim.

Here is a Sten MKIi (no full auto sear)
M3 (a US full auto using Sten design principles an no auto sear)

How a trigger group with M16/M4 works

And a brilliant, illegal if not registered, but simple device (easily made) to convert AR15 to full auto. Note the lightning link is registered with ATF as a matching gun in itself, selling on the market for thousands and requiring ATF paperwork for transfer... silly considering it’s simplicity. But, also Note, it can be made to work with an AR 15 trigger group and no selector (but that’s another topic).

Here’s how an AK works... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYXF3B23wo
Now can any one explain how a full auto sear regulates ROF other than assist in enabling operation of full auto as opposed to semi auto (in some auto variants) with the other relevant, more relevant components, I.e., selector, trigger bar, disconnector, etc.) ? Just using the simplest design, a Sten, what components can be adjusted to control ROF.

Also, after viewing, in general what things would affect ROF with bumpfire in a semi Auto? I have a 3gun Geissele FC, it is faster than a Mil Spec and also fires a bit faster in bumpfire. There is a reason.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr0rSaFgZE
Notice the control.

As for inherent danger of full auto...https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pnKd6iXHTQg
If inherent danger and concern of collateral casualties is a concern that is used as a factor for restrictions according Rahl,

Why are NY triggers required by some PDs?
Why are Shotguns not restricted?

What are the accuracy requirements for any gun not to be restricted and how is unsafe accuracy defined?
Number of shots per minute hitting a specific size?
Normal combat distance 7-10 yards?
100 yards and beyond? Ruger lcp vs tuned, scoped Win 300 at 600 yards?

Most auto operators fire in semi auto mode or short bursts, does anyone assume those owning full auto means owners will only fire in full auto mode until a mag is empty and not use semi auto mode or fire in bursts?

If semi auto is more accurate, would The LV shooter hit more victims by firing in semi auto than with a bumpfire stock, particularly at the distance he was firing?

 

You have an obligation to prove you aren’t lying when challenged by many here

 

No its a form and it' s about saving lives

 

Quite literally nothing has been proven by yourself on this particular matter, and no claims to the contrary will ever serve to change that fact. The position being presented by myself is at least based on Newton's third law of motion to explain how the rate of fire is actually controlled and affected.

 

You probably think newton's third law has been proven. Lol

 

Along with the need of well over one trillion dollars a year just to try and enforce the paperwork requirement, with no guarantee that the return will justify the expenditure necessary.

 

In this particular case, such as the rate of fire for a fully-automatic firearm, it most certainly has been. The heavier the bolt and stiffer the recoil spring used in the design, the lower the rate of fire. If one were to install a tungsten bolt and an extremely stiff recoil spring, the rate of fire for a fully-automatic firearms could be slowed down to one hundred rounds a minute, as there is greater mass that must be moved to achieve the same action.

 

I find that claim hilarious

 

a faith based claim that has no ability to be proven correct by evidence. Since I don't worship at the church of saint Sarah Brady, I don't buy into your religious claims

 

It is not a mere claim, it has been proved through citations from the ATF itself, regarding the number of agents currently on staff, the number of federally licensed firearm dealers in the united states, the annual salary of an ATF agent, and the mathematics of what it would cost to bring the ATF staff size up to the point where there are only four federally licensed firearm dealers to each agent, just to make the annual audit a possibility. Along with pointing out that the study claiming certain firearm-related restrictions could save approximately one thousand seven hundred lives was based on forty years of data, meaning that more than one trillion dollars would have to be allotted to the annual ATF budget for no less than forty years, just to see if the theory actually plays out.

Beyond such, the more than one trillion dollars would have to be taken from another source in need of funding by the federal government, meaning the annual budget of another source is going to suffer as a result.

 

It is absolutely hilarious because other countries have done it at a tiny fraction of that cost. Your post is laughable

 

A science based claim that pope la Pierre does not believe. Lol

 

sorry, the church of Sarah Brady and its catechisms are not valid evidence. There is no proof that the stupid gun laws you want to impose on the USA will decrease crime

 

Gun deaths gun deaths gun deaths. They reduce them. Fact

 

denied as a faith based assertion you cannot prove

what we all know is TRUE is that the crap you want to pass does harass honest gun owners

your claim that such harassment also decreases violent crime is a faith based assertion that you cannot prove nor even meet a preponderance of the evidence standard

in other words, its way too speculative and too costly in terms of the rights of honest people

 

Nah. It's about saving lives. The Luca study was clear on this. It's a massive study. You lose

 

Looks like we have a gang problem.

 

No matter which country is referred to by yourself for the sake of making a comparison, not a single one of them possesses even close to the nearly one hundred and forty thousand federally licensed firearm dealers operating. No other country in the world possesses even ten percent of the total number of firearms possessed in the united states. Therefore no other country is in need of a dedicated task force of such a significant scale, just to try and enforce easily circumvented paperwork requirements.

the comparison on the part of yourself fails on the premise of basic logic and economics.

 

No, it's about undermining Constitutional liberties without just cause.

I guess we can require people to fill out paperwork, pay fees, and submit proper identification to vote. It's just a form, right?

 

and you of course know this is false.

 

Wow. Still feeding the troll.

 

Yet another false claim, as nothing has been presented that would constitute proof of myself intentionally engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

In case it is not understood by yourself, the word of yourself carries absolutely zero value in this discussion, as no effort on the part of yourself has ever been made to back up the citations being made by yourself.