Originally Posted by playwrite

You've just stated that the issue is whether a revolver has the same kill capacity as the AR, and just one sentence after you said I imagined it.

Funny. If you look through my writings, you will notice no reference whatsoever to the AR-15. What you were trying to claim was that the Sandy Hook shooting (those kids' pictures you were flogging back when you thought it would score points to pretend to give a shit about human lives) would not have been possible were it not for large magazines. So the comparison is not "tools of Sandy Hook versus other tools" -- rather it is "results of Sandy Hook versus capacity of other tools". As I stated at the outset, the results of Sandy Hook are, quite contrary to your repeated nonsensical claims, quite reasonably achievable with tools that you want to pretend are 'reasonable' to the 'unreasonable' of your fevered mind. That is, the tools you want to blame for having 'made the massacre possible' in fact did no such thing.

You prefer your imaginary friend, though. He probably even agrees that you were right all along after you pound on him for a while. That must be gratifying for you.

Carry on.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Funny. If you look through my writings, you will notice no reference whatsoever to the AR-15. What you were trying to claim was that the Sandy Hook shooting (those kids' pictures you were flogging back when you thought it would score points to pretend to give a shit about human lives) would not have been possible were it not for large magazines. So the comparison is not "tools of Sandy Hook versus other tools" -- rather it is "results of Sandy Hook versus capacity of other tools". As I stated at the outset, the results of Sandy Hook are, quite contrary to your repeated nonsensical claims, quite reasonably achievable with tools that you want to pretend are 'reasonable' to the 'unreasonable' of your fevered mind. That is, the tools you want to blame for having 'made the massacre possible' in fact did no such thing.

You prefer your imaginary friend, though. He probably even agrees that you were right all along after you pound on him for a while. That must be gratifying for you.

Carry on.

Let's review -

The "tool" WAS large capacity clips, and as I stated from the get go, there's no way Newtown would have been carried out to the extend it did if the shooter had only a revolver. That's my argument; I haven't changed it. Your suggesting that I have just makes you look silly if not dimwitted.

You've tried to dispute my argument by showing a revolver can be switched out fast. I countered that it could not be switched out and fired at a rate any where near equivalent to that done by "tools" using the large capacity clip. I supported that counter with historical facts of police being "outgunned" ("tools" using large clips vs revolvers) and with a video.

Your grounds for your difference with me has been clearly trounced. It is up to you to come up with another that may be credible, you haven't done so. And your faux intellectual "quite reasonably achievable with tools" is just some silly obfuscation horseshit; it's not an argument.

Try a different argument. I'm here to help you get at least a rudimentary understand of what critical thinking should be.

Have you found that last incident of mass killing by a revolver yet?

T'his belongs more over on an economics thread of one sort or another, but I believe it to be exemplary of the 'thinking' by those attracted to the Libertarian or Anarchist mindset.

A hat tip to Brad DeLong on catching one of the current gods of such "though"

AUSTRIAN NON-ECONOMIC REASONING: ROBERT MURPHY REJECTS P(A|B) = [P(B|A)P(A)]/P(B)]: THURSDAY HOW NOT TO MARK YOUR BELIEFS TO MARKET WEBLOGGING

Non-economic reasoning? Economic non-reasoning? Non-economic non-reasoning. I'm not sure what to call rejecting Bayes's Rule…

Suppose that for some reason--never mind why--you were back in 2009 confident--70% sure--that Bernanke's policies were inappropriate and disastrous, because if they were adopted they were near-certain--90%--to bring 10%/year if not 20%/year inflation soon--by 2012.

Then 2012 rolls around. No inflation. What, then, come 2013 is your subjective probability that Bernanke's policies are inappropriate and disastrous?

Your confidence that Bernanke's policies are inappropriate and disastrous should drop. According to Bayes’s Rule--which is a simple principle designed to guard yourself from being vulnerable to Dutch Book attacks--it should drop from 70% to 19%.

Not, however, if you are Robert Murphy.

Austrian economists, you see, don't need no stinking Bayes's Rule.

To suggest that they ought or might change their minds in response to evidence is, in some bizarre way, to impugn their character:

Robert Murphy:

Rather than have a long series of posts discussing the fallout from my (price) inflation bet with David R. Henderson, I decided to do one comprehensive reply.... [T]hey are publicly impugning my character.... I am being accused of ideological dogmatism.... Simply put, my price inflation wager has nothing to do with Austrian business cycle theory.... Back in late 2008 and early 2009, many analysts--including me--were freaking out about the unprecedented actions that the Fed and other major central banks were taking.... I thought the real economy would be “in the toilet for a decade” and that I expected “20+ percent price inflation.”... What Went Wrong?... Are we stuck in a dollar and Treasury bubble that is taking longer to pop than I thought?… I don’t know, of course, and none of us can....

It’s true, Krugman and DeLong have changed their minds on plenty of issues over the years.... A laugh-out-loud funny article from Krugman.... DeLong explains that he has “gotten significant components of the last four years wrong… federal funds rates at zero I expected, but 30-Year US Treasury bonds at a nominal rate of 2.7% I did not.”... Reading DeLong and Krugman is like watching a ballet, with one dancer named Fiscal and the other Monetary, and at any moment you’re not sure who will be leading the other…. Relevant to my inflation bet, I’ve learned something important: The urgent task isn’t to abolish the Fed, but rather to abolish the IRS….

They get to “change their minds” by tweaking how they want the government to redistribute income and create new money. But when I get something wrong, they want me to drop my drawers, bend over, and ask, “May I have another stimulus, sir?”

Paul Krugman says that this has "the psychology of a cult". Can anybody give me an alternative description? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Does Murphy remind you of any posters here?

All that's missing is the KoolAid. But give it time.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's the best you can do? Pretty pathetic even for some kid n junior high.

What, no wrenching tales of combat in the Nam? Come now, tell us all about your heroic exploits.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

What, no wrenching tales of combat in the Nam? Come now, tell us all about your heroic exploits.

H-m-m-m. Since you are at least as phegmatic on this topic, I assume you have your own tales of derring-do to share. If not, then why press this?

Originally Posted by playwrite

The "tool" WAS large capacity clips, and as I stated from the get go, there's no way Newtown would have been carried out to the extend it did if the shooter had only a revolver. That's my argument; I haven't changed it.

Naturally, you have not backed down from your incorrect position. Even in the fact of simple numbers and video demonstrating how very wrong you are, you don't back down. You wouldn't be the guy we all know (at least, to the extent that such a thing is possible over the Inter Nets) if you let a little thing like "being wrong" lead you to change your mind.

Fact 1: Newtown saw, according to whatever reputable accounts, "between 50 and 100" shots fired over a period greater than 10 minutes.
Derivation 1: Using the sides of the range least conducive to my argument (that is, those most likely to show you right and me wrong), that works out to a shot fired every 6 seconds on average. (10 minutes * 60 seconds/minute / 100 shots fired = 6 seconds/shot)

Fact 2: Revolvers can be fired empty and reloaded in (according to video) between 3 and 20 seconds.
Argument 2: The 20-second figure is artificially elevated, as it was intentionally slowed for demonstration/explanation purposes. The 3-second is similarly unreasonable, as it is achieved by a person who is acknowledged as one of the fastest in the world. Rather than choosing one of the unreasonable bounds, a simple average is used. This corresponds at least moderately well to real-world experience.
Derivation 2: A revolver can be reasonably fired empty and reloaded in 11.5 seconds (3 + 20 / 2 = 11.5). At six shots per load, that works out to 1.92 seconds per shot (11.5 seconds / 6 bullets = 1.92 sec/shot).

Deduction: Revolvers, at 1.92 seconds per shot reasonable fire rate, can put out more bullets in the same stretch of time than the shooter in Newtown did with his 6 seconds per shot rate (time / 1.92 sec/shot > time / 6 sec/shot).

This holds even if we allow a shooter to go at the unreasonably slow pace of 20 seconds to reload and shoot. (20 seconds / 6 bullets = 3.33 sec/shot. t / 3.33 sec/shot > t / 6 sec/shot).

You've tried to dispute my argument by showing a revolver can be switched out fast. I countered that it could not be switched out and fired at a rate any where near equivalent to that done by "tools" using the large capacity clip.

A-a-a-and here is where you realize (perhaps subconsciously) that your case is lost and jump instead to beating up on an imaginary friend. While your imaginary friend might have foolishly tried to compare fire rates of two weapons, the disagreement is actually about the fire rate of one weapon as compared to a fire rate actually achieved in a particular case by a particular person. Granted, it's a weird contrast to try to draw... but it's the one you did when you made the statement that:

Originally Posted by playwrite

The shooter had high capacity clips. If he only had a revolver, there's no way he could have inflicted the casualty count that he did.

In fact, the shooter could have, in the same timeframe, inflicted a casualty count from 1.5 to 2 times higher with a revolver. Plus, since shooting stopped thanks to a large-clip jam more than five minutes before police started to move in, you could very reasonably multiply that 2 by another 1.5. Revolvers don't jam, so the shooter wouldn't have needed to stop until he had fired himself dry or been taken down*. Were the shooter to have had the foresight to use a more reliable type of firearm, the body count would certainly have been much, much higher.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Naturally, you have not backed down from your incorrect position. Even in the fact of simple numbers and video demonstrating how very wrong you are, you don't back down. You wouldn't be the guy we all know (at least, to the extent that such a thing is possible over the Inter Nets) if you let a little thing like "being wrong" lead you to change your mind.

Fact 1: Newtown saw, according to whatever reputable accounts, "between 50 and 100" shots fired over a period greater than 10 minutes.
Derivation 1: Using the sides of the range least conducive to my argument (that is, those most likely to show you right and me wrong), that works out to a shot fired every 6 seconds on average. (10 minutes * 60 seconds/minute / 100 shots fired = 6 seconds/shot)

Fact 2: Revolvers can be fired empty and reloaded in (according to video) between 3 and 20 seconds.
Argument 2: The 20-second figure is artificially elevated, as it was intentionally slowed for demonstration/explanation purposes. The 3-second is similarly unreasonable, as it is achieved by a person who is acknowledged as one of the fastest in the world. Rather than choosing one of the unreasonable bounds, a simple average is used. This corresponds at least moderately well to real-world experience.
Derivation 2: A revolver can be reasonably fired empty and reloaded in 11.5 seconds (3 + 20 / 2 = 11.5). At six shots per load, that works out to 1.92 seconds per shot (11.5 seconds / 6 bullets = 1.92 sec/shot).

Deduction: Revolvers, at 1.92 seconds per shot reasonable fire rate, can put out more bullets in the same stretch of time than the shooter in Newtown did with his 6 seconds per shot rate (time / 1.92 sec/shot > time / 6 sec/shot).

This holds even if we allow a shooter to go at the unreasonably slow pace of 20 seconds to reload and shoot. (20 seconds / 6 bullets = 3.33 sec/shot. t / 3.33 sec/shot > t / 6 sec/shot).


A-a-a-and here is where you realize (perhaps subconsciously) that your case is lost and jump instead to beating up on an imaginary friend. While your imaginary friend might have foolishly tried to compare fire rates of two weapons, the disagreement is actually about the fire rate of one weapon as compared to a fire rate actually achieved in a particular case by a particular person. Granted, it's a weird contrast to try to draw... but it's the one you did when you made the statement that:



In fact, the shooter could have, in the same timeframe, inflicted a casualty count from 1.5 to 2 times higher with a revolver. Plus, since shooting stopped thanks to a large-clip jam more than five minutes before police started to move in, you could very reasonably multiply that 2 by another 1.5. Revolvers don't jam, so the shooter wouldn't have needed to stop until he had fired himself dry or been taken down*. Were the shooter to have had the foresight to use a more reliable type of firearm, the body count would certainly have been much, much higher.

What you are struggling to say clearly is there is the argument of the relative comparison of the "tools'" efficiency and then there is the argument of what was the absolute threshold in effectiveness the choosen tool needed to get the "job" done. You obviously lost on the relative comparison and have retreated to the argument of your chosen tool, the revolver, as meeting the absolute threshold.

It is the better argument. Keep this up, and who knows, you might grow the capacity to question some of those Libertarian/Anarchist magic pony land screeches that have been implanted in your brain.

However, the model you are choosing is the "fish in the barrel" model where the "targets" and others in the situation do not act any differently during the pauses made necessary by your chosen tool within the same overall time period, e.g. everyone sits quietly while the shooter re-loads. Granted, that was likely more of a characteristic in Connecticut than in other incidences (e.g. Aurora), but it does introduce a level of probability that is NOT there with the "tool" that was actually used.

You are also assuming a shooter expert with all "tools" and more importantly under all circumstances. At the range, a guy with a revolver is either someone who doesn't have much money or is the guy who is actually with the greatest expertise - I own a revolver and I have money. Actually shooting people is far different than shooting clay pigeons - I have actually experienced the difference. Even in the case of an obviously insane person like Lanza where there is little if any differential value placed on the human target above a clay mark, there are "technical differences" (e.g. clay pigeons once launched follow a set trajectory). These differences in a mass shooting would be obliterated, however, with a semi-automatic.

And stepping out of your constrained paradigm, there is the psychological effect of a semi in one's hand relative to a revolver. There is a much greater likelihood of entering "god-mode" with a weapon that can fling a lot of lead in a very short time period. I’ve found most Libertarian/Anarchist faux macho nuts spend a lot of time on 1st person shooter video games so I assume you understand this reference. If not, it can be readily witnessed by overhearing typical conversations at ANY gun show particularly around the tables with the semis. Just note, unfortunately, those tables tend to be 4-5 bodies deep while the tables with the revolvers are usually giving something away free in desperate attempts to attract somebody.

I still come back to that question you apparently are avoiding -

When was the last incident of mass murder by a revolver?

P.s. Hope you didn’t spend to much time on all those calculations; it must of kept you from increasing your rep points on the Xbox new Call of Duty.

I'm fairly certain that, buried somewhere within your above ramblings, you have conceded the point. Good on ya, even if you couldn't bring yourself to come right out and clearly state it.

As to your side question: when was the last revolver mass-killing? Way back in 2011. 24 kids in that one. Oh, and unlike the mass shootings with big-clip automatics, that guy with the revolvers wasn't forced to stop early because his gear failed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm fairly certain that, buried somewhere within your above ramblings, you have conceded the point. Good on ya, even if you couldn't bring yourself to come right out and clearly state it.

You're right because you decided you're right??? Even I thought you could do better than that. So much for improving your critical thinking skills.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As to your side question: when was the last revolver mass-killing? Way back in 2011. 24 kids in that one. Oh, and unlike the mass shootings with big-clip automatics, that guy with the revolvers wasn't forced to stop early because his gear failed.

Good for you, you found it. See, you can do a little data gathering if need be.

Now note, the number of children, after being completely surprised by the shooter, who ran out of the classroom and lived. And note, the shooter had to go looking and was nailed in the stairway. Imagine if he had the firepower that Lanza had. No children would have escaped the classroom; he'd have had plenty of time to go looking for more and mowed down any making a run for it. And, he would have easily mowed down the two cops if he had the firepower Lanza did giving him even more time for more carnage.

This is not rocket science. This is obvious to anyone that isn't locked into cult thinking ... as you so obviously have become. Kind of sad actually.

JDG, Justin, Copperfield, Galen,...?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...bernie-madoff/

Alan Simpson and Bernie Madoff


As I’ve written on previous occasions, the Bernie Madoff phenomenon helped me understand a lot about the persistence of bad economics. Madoff flourished through “affinity fraud”; his investors thought he was their kind of guy, so they didn’t look hard at how he was allegedly making money. And I realized that a similar phenomenon explains the enduring popularity of goldbugs and fiscal doomsayers — including, say, the Wall Street Journal editorial page — despite years of being wrong about everything; their devotees, who consist in large part of cranky old white men, see kindred spirits and can’t see past that to the consistently terrible analysis.

But it’s not just the goldbugs who benefit from affinity fraud, a point driven home by Ezra Klein’s piece on Alan Simpson. Simpson is, demonstrably, grossly ignorant on precisely the subjects on which he is treated as a guru, not understanding the finances of Social Security, the truth about life expectancy, and much more. He is also a reliably terrible forecaster, having predicted an imminent fiscal crisis — within two years — um, two years ago. Yet he remains not only respectable among the Beltway crowd; as Ezra says, he’s lionized in a way that looks from the outside like a clear violation of journalistic norms:

For reasons I’ve never quite understood, the rules of reportorial neutrality don’t apply when it comes to the deficit. On this one issue, reporters are permitted to openly cheer a particular set of highly controversial policy solutions. At Tuesday’s Playbook breakfast, for instance, Mike Allen, as a straightforward and fair a reporter as you’ll find, asked Simpson and Bowles whether they believed Obama would do “the right thing” on entitlements — with “the right thing” clearly meaning “cut entitlements.”

So what is it that makes Simpson the figure he is? Clearly, it’s an affinity thing: never mind his obvious lack of knowledge, his ludicrous track record, reporters trust and idolize Simpson because he’s their kind of guy.

And think about what it says about them that their kind of guy is this cantankerous, potty-mouthed individual, who evidently feels not a bit of empathy for those less fortunate.

Anyone else see the connection?
.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Since you are at least as phegmatic on this topic, I assume you have your own tales of derring-do to share. If not, then why press this?

He is the one who is bragging about his alleged "combat experience" as being key to his vast experience with firearms. Since his knowledge about guns turns out to be pretty poor then one has to question his alleged "combat experience" as well (again he made that connection). I am simply giving him the opportunity to define his "combat experience" (unit, years, deployments, etc.) so we can better determine exactly how full of shit he is.

I on the other hand, have an exceptional knowledge of firearms however I have no need to brag about where that comes from. My knowledge speaks for itself. Knowledge tends to do that.

I should also add that bragging about your "combat experience" on the internet is somewhere in the vicinity of bragging about your 14 inch schlong. Both claims lack any real falsifiability. I think if you ask around you will find that most real combat veterans don't advertise the combat they have experienced (generally speaking to do so is considered bad form, at least among my generation, unless in the confines of a comfy fire circled by friends, family and good whiskey). They understand that those few events don't define their life and experiences.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

He is the one who is bragging about his alleged "combat experience" as being key to his vast experience with firearms. Since his knowledge about guns turns out to be pretty poor then one has to question his alleged "combat experience" as well (again he made that connection). I am simply giving him the opportunity to define his "combat experience" (unit, years, deployments, etc.) so we can better determine exactly how full of shit he is.

I on the other hand, have an exceptional knowledge of firearms however I have no need to brag about where that comes from. My knowledge speaks for itself. Knowledge tends to do that.

I should also add that bragging about your "combat experience" on the internet is somewhere in the vicinity of bragging about your 14 inch schlong. Both claims lack any real falsifiability. I think if you ask around you will find that most real combat veterans don't advertise the combat they have experienced (generally speaking to do so is considered bad form, at least among my generation, unless in the confines of a comfy fire circled by friends, family and good whiskey). They understand that those few events don't define their life and experiences.

Bragging? I don't think you know what that word means, dufus.

You're the one who started this experience issue by butting into a conversation between me and another poster to suggest I didn't. Knowing how funny your assertion just further confirms how much of a complete idiot you must be. You don't even see your own cognitive dissonance in your post above regarding falsification (falsifiability??? what's that?). Just exactly how do you prove you have experience with fire arms on a chat room?

I've been around this with your twin moron, Glick, several time. If you want me to prove anything about myself, then you have to be man enough to first do it yourself. I want a copy of your drivers license and a social security number and a facial photo of you holding legible copies of both with a screen shot of this post. Once positively identified, then we can match you to whatever experience or capacity you and your tiny schlong believe you have.

Put up or shut up, punk.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Bragging? I don't think you know what that word means, dufus.

You're the one who started this ...

...you and your tiny schlong believe you have.

Put up or shut up, punk.

[old guy doesn't know how to fold gracefully, take his lumps like a man, and move on]


Ladies and gentlemen. The Baby Boom Generation!

These ones won't be around for much longer, but let this be a warning to you, kids, when it comes to raising your own kids...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

[old guy doesn't know how to fold gracefully, take his lumps like a man, and move on]


Ladies and gentlemen. The Baby Boom Generation!

These ones won't be around for much longer, but let this be a warning to you, kids, when it comes to raising your own kids...

You're the dufus who posted a video of a guy loading individual rounds into a revolver; followed by stating it would be easier without a table.

Let's start with that. Either you or this other moron post a video of holding, loading and firing a revolver in your hands with 33 individual rounds (the number used in my Glock video). Let's see how long it takes AND the target results. You can have the first 6 in the gun, but no table, sonny - those other 27 individual cartridges have to be in your hands or your pockets.

Once we establish the idiocy of your starting point, we'll move on to speedloaders.

..."only jerks use Bayes's Rule to update their beliefs." - Robert Murphy, 'brilliant' Libertarian

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're the dufus who posted a video of a guy loading individual rounds into a revolver; followed by stating it would be easier without a table.

Were you the type at all interested in comprehending what he read and holding conversations based on that, I might point out that what I stated was that loading one-handed on a table was a hell of a lot slower than the way people actually reload -- which is, two-handed, one hand holding and thus both manipulating and steadying the revolver, while the other feeds. Many other manual tasks, like threading a needle or cutting with scissors, are similarly much slower and far more awkward when performed one-handed on a table. For the same reasons.

But you're not*, so I won't bother.

-----------
*See above

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Were you the type at all interested in comprehending what he read and holding conversations based on that, I might point out that what I stated was that loading one-handed on a table was a hell of a lot slower than the way people actually reload -- which is, two-handed, one hand holding and thus both manipulating and steadying the revolver, while the other feeds. Many other manual tasks, like threading a needle or cutting with scissors, are similarly much slower and far more awkward when performed one-handed on a table. For the same reasons.

But you're not*, so I won't bother.

-----------
*See above

The issue has become credentials.

For you, a video of your reloading and firing a revolver with 33 cartridges, all in your hands, will establish yours' ... or not. I'm still waiting.

Once we demolish your credibility, then I'll move on to Coop.

I'm sure he sees himself as Da Man -




But dollars to donuts, I bet Coop can't keep up with this guy's cycle (hopefully he can outrun him) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ


- whch, from my observations, is actually on the high side of what is typical (like the guy says NOT movie bullshit).

Coop has to first establish his identity ( as noted above; I'm still waiting for Glick to do this so I'm not holding my breath) and then we'll check his IPSC scores. If he doesn't have a score (which would raise some doubts), then we'll let him do a video of his speedloading prowess - it should be very entertaining, well, as long as he promises to keeps his tiny schlong out of it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The issue has become credentials.

Of course it has. You've never had facts, and you've run out of plausible arguments since the few you raised were well-answered and so refuted. So you fall back on your favorite form of 'rational argument' -- dick-waving.

On the internet, no less.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course it has. You've never had facts, and you've run out of plausible arguments since the few you raised were well-answered and so refuted. So you fall back on your favorite form of 'rational argument' -- dick-waving.

On the internet, no less.

When PW and Glick argue back and forth, I'm in PW's court. When you and PW argue, I pop more popcorn.

When anybody argues like this, I reach for the Excedrin.

And let PW suffer from teething pain? Not when there's Anbesol!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course it has. You've never had facts, and you've run out of plausible arguments since the few you raised were well-answered and so refuted. So you fall back on your favorite form of 'rational argument' -- dick-waving.

On the internet, no less.

I didn't make it a credentials issue, your friend did that AND you endorsed him.

If you seriously want to get back to a rational debate ( and stop the psychotic projecting onto me your worse trait of faith-based asserting that ‘you won’), then let's have at it.

Where we left off is with you coming to grips that you lost on the argument of a relative comparison of a revolver to a semi. I believe you recognized your mistake early, but being you, I’m sure you were (are) convinced it would show weakness to admit. I would just suggest that sometimes admitting to an early mistake will actually give you more credentials for latter arguments. Just some free advice.

From there, we entered into a possibly more rewarding argument on whether a revolver's capacity reaches a threshold of effectiveness whereby any relative difference with a semi becomes a moot point.

What I have raised with you is that your paradigm looks only at the total time of the incident and just the extend that a revolver could accomplish the same end result in that total time period. Your paradigm does not consider any difference within that time period of the two "tools" - it does not consider the difference in the cycle of the two tools regarding firing, loading and firing again. Your paradigm is a "fish-in-the-barrel" paradigm assuming no difference in reaction by the targets to the cycle time other than their collective listening to the shooter's comments about his reloading. It's actually kind of weird for you to bring that up (i.e. the shooter spending time to explain to his targets) and not grasp that something different is going on even if the overall time remains the same. The lack of consideration of cycling differences within the same overall time period also does not take into consideration the different skill set of the shooter for effective use of the two different tools.

In that regard, the example of the last mass killing by a revolver(s) (Rio de Janeiro) is germane in that there apparently was time for the targets in that classroom to escape, leaving the shooter with having to spend time hunting down further targets – unsuccessfully and eventually resulting in his being cornered and killed in the stairway.

Outside of your time elapse analysis/paradigm, there is also the argument of the tool providing the "god mode" that you have also chosen not to address.

Again, if you want to move past both Copperhead's moronic credentials check and your own psychotic trait projections onto me, well, I given you something that hopefully will stimulate that brainstem (at least we’re not dealing with Copperhead's meager schlong) to attempt some sort of rational discussion.

M&L, hope you are enjoying the popcorn.

You dodge and weave, playwrite; you throw up handfuls of sand aimed at eyes. You wave your hands at animals "right behind us", and release copious smoke.

And yet, and yet...

QED.

Happily, I hold out very little hope of 'rational debate' with such a predictably irrational strawman-thrasher. I engage purely so that your bullshit -- made marginally plausible only by your many omissions, errors-of-reasoning, and outright lies -- is not left to stand unchallenged where everyone can see.

You know, for the kids.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You dodge and weave, playwrite; you throw up handfuls of sand aimed at eyes. You wave your hands at animals "right behind us", and release copious smoke.

And yet, and yet...

QED.

Happily, I hold out very little hope of 'rational debate' with such a predictably irrational strawman-thrasher. I engage purely so that your bullshit -- made marginally plausible only by your many omissions, errors-of-reasoning, and outright lies -- is not left to stand unchallenged where everyone can see.

You know, for the kids.

Okay, it looks like you're going to remain in your pyschotic projections mode.

So, lets go to video!

Either you or Copperhead post a video of loading and firing a revolver any where close to 3-to-20 second averge for 100 rounds at a reasonable target (e.g. the barn door shots). And don't post some IPSC champion, this has to be one of the two of you - I wll accept that either of you as more of the typical dufus with a fire arm.

I'll wait, but won't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... I'll wait, but won't hold my breath.

Whew! I'm glad we're on hold for a while. I'm running low on popcorn oil.

Be right back!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Whew! I'm glad we're on hold for a while. I'm running low on popcorn oil.

Be right back!

Popcorn oil is of course fat and calorie laden. Use one of those air-poppers like I have. Middle age spread is a bitch.

PS:
I don't do flame wars, over and out.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Popcorn oil is of course fat and calorie laden. Use one of those air-poppers like I have. Middle age spread is a bitch.

Bleeh! Nasty!

Originally Posted by Rags ...

PS:
I don't do flame wars, over and out.

I try to avoid them, but I'm OK with being a voyeur.