That "build back better" slogan is so incredibly insulting.
This is a little misleading. The example of a sniper firing from cover is quite a bit different than a man walking into a room with thirty people and opening fire at close range, like the way most school shootings play out.
You've missed the point. It only takes a matter of a couple seconds for a trained individual to swap out a mag. FWIW, those trained with speed-loaders can be pretty fast at swapping out cartridges in a revolver as well.
We don't send our ground troops into battle with semi-automatic weapons. Pretty simple.
As there are and have been plenty of instances of shooters being disarmed when reloading or clearing a jam, this seems like a silly argument to make. It doesn't matter what Jerry Miculek can do if Jerry Miculek isn't the one trying to kill people. In the real world, the kind of people that do this kind of thing are usually not tactical ninjas. In fact, they are usually morons.
All of our M-14s when I was in the Navy were blocked to semi. The Army switched all the M-16s to burst rather than full auto with the A2. The majority of firefights from the middle east show our soldiers firing single shots. The Marines just traded the high volume M249 for the closed bolt, fixed barrel M27. The US has had a long standing doctrine of low volume fire, completely unlike the use of high rpm weapons like the MG42/MG3 by other militaries.
Moving the goalposts. Your M14 is a select-fire weapon, NOT a semi-auto. You asked what the difference is. THAT is the difference. Even Bloomberg needed to have that explained to him on national television.
You still aren't getting the point. Is an axe more deadly than a sword? Well a case could be made that a sword is more versatile, but the axe may be able to inflict more blunt-force damage per strike.
There are a lot of reasons the police abandoned revolvers. The main reason is that the market for semi-auto handguns was pretty grim until the 1970s-1980s.... the only feasable options for a cop in 1974 was the 1911 or the hi-power. When sig and glock came out with double stack semi-autos it didnt take long for police to switch, not just because they were easier to reload but because they were all-around better in almost every measureable way aside from stopping power.
But the capability for select fire remains. It's not the rate of fire, it's the mechanism. The lower receivers are not identical. One is built to a spec the other isn't. The uppers also have specific requirements for military firearms.
I'm pointing out that our military has and would again send troops out with semiauto rifles if they saw reason to. The M14 was a select fire weapon only on paper. Our doctrine of controlled aimed fire gives little advantage to full auto, which is why we don't even issue full auto rifles. It wouldn't make a huge difference if all the M4s were semiauto because we don't have conscript troops. Our military has avoided fast firing weapons throughout its history.
You are switching back and forth between arguments. The point was that low capacity mags appear to create opportunities to stop murderers, not whether or not they have full auto. I already made the point that full auto has no real advantage to a murderer. Your insistence that a small group of people can perform as well with low cap mags doesn't change the obvious fact that the majority of people will perform better without having to reload as often.
This is patently untrue. An expert with a revolver is not going to be as dangerous as an amateur with submachinegun in a crowded room. Ever hear about bringing a knife to a gunfight? That's advice from our side of the room.
Which has little to do with whether the average American fairly evaluates those differences as making an AR15 not a military weapon. The military shoots semiauto all the time. It works really well.
That's just re-writing history. There were lots of reasons for the delay, including the FBI viewing autos as bad-guy guns, but the major impetus was the increased use of high capacity guns by growing drug gangs and the adoption of the M9 by the military. The switch started with Berettas and S&Ws, even though S&W had been making a single stack version of the same gun since the 1950s. Glocks weren't common until a few years later.
Red herring: You asked why the civilian AR (and variants) are not 'weapons of war' (as Biden calls them) I told you why. How they are deployed and under what circumstances does not change what they are. Here is a former mayor of New York, one-time presidential candidate, and rabid anti-gunner making exactly the kind of false statement we are talking about:
With the exception that full-auto has a military function -- Suppressive fire.
Again, you don't need to convince me. You need to be able to show someone who is not a firearms advocate or lover of rhetoric that an AR15, which is identical to an M16 except for the trigger, is IMPORTANTLY not a military weapon - even though the military has been issuing semiautomatic only rifles since the 1930s.
Not at all. Machinegun regulation started because of criminal mass shootings and public revulsion to them. Not as a result of some carefully constructed legal argument.
