2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,060
- 52,342
- 2,290
Refrain, if you would, from posting the elementary school version of the obvious.
The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious...
It's not obvious that the comment was about the rounds used and not the weapon because the OP question to which you responded asks about weapons not rounds in them. Maybe the OP meant to ask about the rounds that different guns fire, but that's not what he asked about. He asked about the weapons, the gun itself
How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?
So I ask you, why was it not obvious to you that the question asked asks about the gun and not about the bullets the gun fires? Even the article the OP-er cites opens, "Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings." What about that makes you think the type of rounds fired are the central theme of the article and thus the central theme of the OP?
Fair enough, my above post addresses why the rifle itself needs to be seen in context with the ammo it uses. And yes most people probably don't know the difference in the ammo, which is THE difference. The image posted should be sufficient to illuminate why the ammo, and thus the rifle that uses that ammo, is a problem. I could be clearer so I'll take responsibility for that.
No....you don't understand firearms......Reagan's shooter could have used a snub nose, .357 revolver to shoot them....or even two.....and at that range it would have been just as bad as rifle.....or he could have used a .45 round....which most consider to be a great round..........