HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » A Revealing In-Person Dem...

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:29 PM

A Revealing In-Person Demonstration Of What 32 Shots In 16 Seconds Means

Unleashing thirty-two shots in sixteen seconds is only good for one thing.


Found on BradyCampaign’s YouTube channel/MoveOn.org

41 replies, 4063 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Revealing In-Person Demonstration Of What 32 Shots In 16 Seconds Means (Original post)
Playinghardball Feb 2013 OP
FirstLight Feb 2013 #1
Squatch79 Feb 2013 #2
FailureToCommunicate Feb 2013 #3
Squatch79 Feb 2013 #4
mikeysnot Feb 2013 #6
montanto Feb 2013 #9
Tx4obama Feb 2013 #7
Recursion Feb 2013 #19
MynameisBlarney Feb 2013 #8
baldguy Feb 2013 #10
we can do it Feb 2013 #13
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #14
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #12
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #17
Recursion Feb 2013 #18
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #20
Benton D Struckcheon Feb 2013 #35
Recursion Feb 2013 #37
Squatch79 Feb 2013 #22
AndyA Feb 2013 #30
Squatch79 Feb 2013 #33
uppityperson Feb 2013 #38
Recursion Feb 2013 #5
baldguy Feb 2013 #11
Recursion Feb 2013 #15
baldguy Feb 2013 #21
Recursion Feb 2013 #24
grantcart Feb 2013 #41
SCVDem Feb 2013 #16
Recursion Feb 2013 #23
Squatch79 Feb 2013 #25
jjewell Feb 2013 #26
Recursion Feb 2013 #27
Squatch79 Feb 2013 #28
jjewell Feb 2013 #31
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #34
Benton D Struckcheon Feb 2013 #36
Travis_0004 Feb 2013 #29
jjewell Feb 2013 #32
micraphone Feb 2013 #39
jjewell Feb 2013 #40

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:56 PM

1. scary and powerful

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:41 PM

3. Like flies to honey




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #3)


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:47 PM

6. what ever you fricken call them

we are going to ban em... they serve no purpose in a civilized society.

How about we call them rambowannabepenisextendors.

Would that work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeysnot (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:58 PM

9. if you call them rambowannabepenisextendors

then you might be able to get rambowannabepenisextendors banned. Call them clips, you may get clips banned. Terms and definitions are crucial to law, until you get the terms right, you ban the wrong thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:50 PM

7. You left out the part about they can kill 20 kids in under a minute.


The amount of carnage/death that can be caused with those weapons is the most important thing to know.

What the clip/magazine is 'called' is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:01 PM

19. Then your issue is with "magazines". All of them.

No need to make up a new term. If you want to make killing 20 people in a minute impossible, you need to ban (and actually get rid of) all magazine-fed guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:52 PM

8. "Not trolling"

says the new guy with 2 posts.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MynameisBlarney (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:03 PM

10. I wonder what his old screen name was?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:10 PM

13. BigSUV AR15?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:10 PM

14. You know what's weird?

I could swear that awhile back I got into it about gun control with somebody named "Squatch." And now we have Squatch79.

Squatch, trust me, one of you is more than enough. We don't need 78 more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:08 PM

12. I also know that their fans tend to be morons

Does that help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:51 PM

17. And you were proving that point by pretending to not understand what an

assault clip was?

And maybe a lot of the general public dont know an assault weapon from a semi-automatic, they do know that there are weapons that are easy to obtain that can kill humans a lot faster than necessary to have in society. If the assholes that know the difference had a fucking ounce of decency they would help instead of ridiculing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:57 PM

18. Making up a term and then mocking people for not knowing it is tiresome

It's not a thing. Somebody made the term up. Badly, I might add (seriously, what is so difficult about saying "magazine"? I don't get that)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)


Response to Recursion (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:18 PM

35. Ya know, I've been debating this on multiple msg boards...

...and every single muther f'in time, some wiener has to come in with this nonsense about defining the proper terms. Like anyone really cares. All it is is a form of bragging: I know what you don't. Neener neener neener!

Does that show you how stupid this crapola is? Does anything show you guys how stupid you're being? Honestly, get on with it already. We don't care what you call the friggin things. It can be simply defined in the coming ban as "any device that allows more than x (pick a number) of rounds to be fired from a gun without reloading."
Or, a clip. Or, a magazine. Or, a revolver with more than x chambers.

OK? Satisfied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Benton D Struckcheon (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:29 PM

37. Yes, thanks

Why not just start out like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #17)


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:22 PM

30. The correct technical terms don't mean a thing.

Anything that allows a gun to fire that many bullets in that short of time is UNNECESSARY. There is absolutely no reason a person NEEDS something like that unless they're fighting a war.

The fact that people don't know much about them is NOT IMPORTANT. Your point, proven or not, means NOTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyA (Reply #30)


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:57 PM

38. And if he's carrying a bunch of grenades, you need them also. At least the playing field is even.

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:49 PM

5. The meaning seems to be "magazines with capacity greater than ten"

Yes, it irritates me when people make up words, too, but that ship has sailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:05 PM

11. it irritates you when people use words that are descriptive & accurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:14 PM

15. I'll leave aside calling a magazine a clip

"assault clip" as far as I can tell was a phrase coined last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:26 PM

21. No worse than pretending the 2nd Amendment is only about private gun ownership.

Ignoring all that "well regulated" stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:52 PM

24. I think the 9th is more relevant

At least as I read Heller, the only thing the 2nd actually precludes is complete bans like DC and Chicago tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

41. typical gun nuttery


you are going to argue about semantics and metrics.


ban anything that can take out a dozen people in 15 seconds.


There, everyone's right to own a gun for hunting, protection, sport, is still in place.


So glad that you rushed to join DU so you could continue to undermine rational discussion by making it seem that there is no metric that can be established to differentiate a reasoned justification for owning a fire arm and owning something that has the potency of a machine gun, we just don't have enough of you guys stirring shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:30 PM

16. That was pretty damned fast!

So where do you think the armed guard would be?

Obviously to be effective, the armed guard would need to stand near the shooter with his gun drawn.

The only time the armed guard would stick his head up is when the shooter stops to reload.

Any questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:49 PM

23. The post I was replying to got deleted

And I worked a while on it an wanted it here:

I want the two sides to stop poking each other in the eye.


Gun people are often jerks. I get that, and don't like it. And too many discussions turn into fact vomiting (though this is a feature of a lot of tech cultures).

That said, if gun people are universally (if tactlessly) giving technical reasons that your proposal is fudamentally misguided, shouldn't that at least give you pause? What if the subject were computers rather than guns?

The "gun" side gets irked at all this "assault weapon" and "assault clip" stuff because, just bluntly, we know that there really isn't much difference in the killing abilities of any modern gun and people trying to divy them up into OK and not-OK guns don't. There really aren't faster classes of guns available to civilians right now, and the technology is over 100 years old. We're telling you this is the wrong tack because it is. Magazine size limits are probably te best bet if we must have a scalp on this front, but it's not nearly as important as people think.

The changes in gun murder rates are not based on underlying change in technology but in behavior; hunters were using guns that can fire as quickly as an AR-15 in 1900.

I want to help, but right now the help I have to offer sounds depressing: there's not a technical solution here, and most murders use one or two bullets anyways.

Also, look at what the "gun" side is suggesting: universal background checks, anti-trafficking laws, tracing of all guns used in crime with real punishments for already-illegal transfers. That's what I think would help.

Also, seriously: "magazine". Saying "clip" is like saying "democrat party": even if you mean no harm, it comes off like you're trying to get under people's skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:04 PM

26. Serious question...

I know the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine". I also know the difference between an automatic weapon and
a semi-automatic weapon. What I'd like to know is this: Is there any discernable difference between a "semi automatic rifle" and an "assault rifle", or are the terms synonymous?

I know that an AK-47 and an AR-15 are both termed "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" as well as "semi automatic rifles", but are there any semi-automatic rifles that do not fall under the terminology of "assault weapon/ assault weapon"? If so, could you please name one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jjewell (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:09 PM

27. Well, as a descriptivist, the distinction has vanished in actual use

Strictly, an "assault rifle" is used by militaries and capable of firing in fully-automatic mode.

All assault weapons are semi-automatic only. So if you're being strict, a gun cannot be both an assault rifle and assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jjewell (Reply #26)


Response to Squatch79 (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:38 PM

31. Thank you both...

for the informative reply. I did not realize there was a distinction between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jjewell (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:57 PM

34. here

Assault rifle=rifle that can fire semi-automatic and has select fire full automatic or burst mode. AK-47 or M-16 Military rifles.

Assault weapon=semi-automatic weapon that can only fire semi-automatic and has certain features like pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug and removable magazine. Some exact same weapons are not labeled assault weapons due to no pistol grip. AR-15 falls in this category. Not military rifles but in appearance may look like them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:24 PM

36. Gabby's hubby answered your tired bs...

...re there not being much difference:

"On January 8th of 2011, a young man walked up to Gabby at her constituent event in Tucson, leveled his gun and shot her through the head," Kelly said, referring to gunman Jared Loughner.

"He then turned down the line and continued firing. In 15 seconds, he emptied his magazine. It contained 33 bullets and there were 33 wounds," Kelly said.

Kelly said that Christina Taylor Green, 9, was killed with the 13th shot.

"Others followed," Kelly said. "As the shooter attempted to reload, he fumbled" a second magazine. "A woman grabbed the next magazine, and others tackled and restrained him."

Kelly said he believed that if the magazine had no more than 10 rounds - a limit proposed by Democratic President Barack Obama after the killing of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut school last month - Christina Green likely would not have been killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:20 PM

29. He didn't fire 32 shots

By my count, he fired about half that amount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:46 PM

32. You're right...

By my count, he only fired off 16 shots. I estimate his rate of fire at approximately 1 per second. The video heading is misleading, he did not get off 32 shots in 16 seconds...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jjewell (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:19 PM

39. Wrong... actually over 2 per second

Count "One Thousand And One" (1 second) out loud while playing the clip and you will see how many he gets off during you speaking it.

They had to fit script to 30 second TVC so they would not use full 32 rounds firing for 16 seconds - if they did it would restrict time for voice-over.

The fact remains that the shooter can easily fire off full mag in 16 seconds,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to micraphone (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:29 PM

40. I stand corrected...

Firing commenced at 00:07 seconds into the video and the magazine was empty at 00:12. Sixteen shots in five seconds...
Easily capable of emptying a 32 round magazine in less than 16 seconds.

Of course, no one has proposed banning or restricting the purchase or use of semi-automatic pistols, which is what was used in the video...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread