Honestly there is really no point arguing with you anymore. Your R3 response is proof of that. Good luck posting the same argument time and time again because you are continuously met with failure.
Who won the Vietnam war? The US Military with superior technology or the Vietcong with inferior technology? The Vietnamese because they had better knowledge of the land, and possibly better tactics.
Technology does not dictate a war ENTIRELY, so saying a side lost solely based on the weapons they use is ignorant.
I think the big point of your argument that I contend personally is the mass shootings part.
I will not deny that the AR-15 has been a popular choice in Mass Shootings, but the thing is Mass Shootings are rare. The most used commonly used gun at the moment, in gun homicide, is a handgun. Handguns kill more than rifles and shotguns combined, yet it seems the attention is more towards the AR-15. Reason for it is due to the fact that a Mass Shooting is made a much bigger, more prominent news story than daily killings with a handgun. If 10 people are shot by an AR-15 in one hour, the next 20-30 to be killed by a handgun in a day are ignored as the AR-15 appears to be scarier and more important to advertise than the handguns(please note these numbers are just examples/hypothetical).
It seems like the attention is misdirected as AR-15's are easier to showcase as terrible, scary, and dangerous than a handgun.
Well... Things like the M4 Carbine aren't hard to control recoil with, it's 5.56 so I mean it's not that powerful.
That argument always kinda bugged me "Fully Autos are just less accurate, therefore Semi-Auto's are more dangerous." Nah not really. A lot of fully autos are easy to control
"At what point is something not an assault rifle?
When it could not possibly used in an assault. A nerf rifle is probably not an assault rifle in the adjective form."
Well the current definition of assault rifle is "a select-fire or mag fed automatic weapon designed for infantry use."
The Colt AR-15 is not select fire, is not automatic, and is specifically designed for civilian use.
No rifle is made to specifically kill humans. That can be subjectively applied to any weapon at that point as no weapon is specifically designed with the intent to kill a certain species. With that kind of application, even a bolt action could be considered an "Assault Rifle" as bolt actions were also used in the war.
Is the Springfield M1903 an assault rifle? It was a weapon used in both world wars. What about the M1 Garand? Is that an assault rifle?
At what point is something not an assault rifle? Because the word seems to be selectively applied to things deemed "too dangerous" for civilian.
Semi-Auto is only as fast as you make it. At that, it is only as controlled as you make it. Just because Semi-Auto allows you to fire fast does not mean you can fire accurately. No one can just pick up an AR-15 and have John Wick like accuracy.
Something like an AK-47 is more dangerous than an AR-15 because it fires 7.62mm and has fully auto.
That is something else to consider, but I assume on water landing the batteries have a way to stay isolated while electricity is removed from the engine. Such as gas being removed from the engine in a gas combustion.
Thanks again for the debate/conversation. You've helped me understand a few things on why, in the long run, electric planes will really be key to evolution.
I promise you there are no copy pastes here. I am very confused and skeptical of the idea. I will attempt to drop in on the next conversation they have or talk to the students who had the idea. Thanks for accepting Oromagi!
The reason I asked the question was due to the fact that you referenced the 2nd Amendment and conflated that with the foreign affairs statement. One is a right, one is a suggestion. You determine which is which.
I guess you missed me saying I admit I started at a poor time. I am not whining, I just think it's funny that you're calling it an excuse that I decided to take my education more seriously than some online debate. Which is more important: An online debate that will virtually have no purpose in the long run OR training to get my pilots license so I can have a solid career when I graduate from college. I'll let you decide. Have a good day, chief
I admit I started at a poor time. It's just funny how Bilbatard is calling it an excuse to care more about learning how to fly a plane then some online debate
Yeah chief sorry I forfeited but a bunch of stuff started happening in school so that kinda took priority. I'll respond to the next round but honestly my mind is elsewhere right now
They probably fixed it in later versions, but I feel like the Hurricane is not AS great because it has a fuel injection engine rather than a carburetor.
That alone reduces its performance in certain areas such as Zero G maneuvers and inverted maneuvers
Honestly there is really no point arguing with you anymore. Your R3 response is proof of that. Good luck posting the same argument time and time again because you are continuously met with failure.
Not sure what a militia had to do with this.
Paul, we had: helicopters, APC's, chemical warfare, napalm, jets, the likes.
The Vietcong had homemade traps, and Soviet Weaponry.
Vietcong Won, US Lost. Superior Technology was beaten.
Sorry, just for clarification.
You are not arguing that AR-15's need to be banned, but rather that people who say "Citizens NEED AR-15's" are incorrect?
Who won the Vietnam war? The US Military with superior technology or the Vietcong with inferior technology? The Vietnamese because they had better knowledge of the land, and possibly better tactics.
Technology does not dictate a war ENTIRELY, so saying a side lost solely based on the weapons they use is ignorant.
Nah I just won't vote anymore.
Are you actually going to respond to what the contender says?
I'd be really interested to meet this salesman who would think SOLDIERS don't need automatic weapons.
I think the big point of your argument that I contend personally is the mass shootings part.
I will not deny that the AR-15 has been a popular choice in Mass Shootings, but the thing is Mass Shootings are rare. The most used commonly used gun at the moment, in gun homicide, is a handgun. Handguns kill more than rifles and shotguns combined, yet it seems the attention is more towards the AR-15. Reason for it is due to the fact that a Mass Shooting is made a much bigger, more prominent news story than daily killings with a handgun. If 10 people are shot by an AR-15 in one hour, the next 20-30 to be killed by a handgun in a day are ignored as the AR-15 appears to be scarier and more important to advertise than the handguns(please note these numbers are just examples/hypothetical).
It seems like the attention is misdirected as AR-15's are easier to showcase as terrible, scary, and dangerous than a handgun.
Well... Things like the M4 Carbine aren't hard to control recoil with, it's 5.56 so I mean it's not that powerful.
That argument always kinda bugged me "Fully Autos are just less accurate, therefore Semi-Auto's are more dangerous." Nah not really. A lot of fully autos are easy to control
Gun Violence went down in the UK... but every other violent crime has spiked since then.
"At what point is something not an assault rifle?
When it could not possibly used in an assault. A nerf rifle is probably not an assault rifle in the adjective form."
Well the current definition of assault rifle is "a select-fire or mag fed automatic weapon designed for infantry use."
The Colt AR-15 is not select fire, is not automatic, and is specifically designed for civilian use.
No rifle is made to specifically kill humans. That can be subjectively applied to any weapon at that point as no weapon is specifically designed with the intent to kill a certain species. With that kind of application, even a bolt action could be considered an "Assault Rifle" as bolt actions were also used in the war.
Is the Springfield M1903 an assault rifle? It was a weapon used in both world wars. What about the M1 Garand? Is that an assault rifle?
At what point is something not an assault rifle? Because the word seems to be selectively applied to things deemed "too dangerous" for civilian.
I really liked the contenders opening statement
"I will not spell it "fetus" just to please americans."
Oi spell it however you want, just chill with that shade.
Semi-Auto is only as fast as you make it. At that, it is only as controlled as you make it. Just because Semi-Auto allows you to fire fast does not mean you can fire accurately. No one can just pick up an AR-15 and have John Wick like accuracy.
Something like an AK-47 is more dangerous than an AR-15 because it fires 7.62mm and has fully auto.
My mistake! I was multitasking at the time, probably did not notice it. Like you said, probably when I stopped paying attention
I am not sure what you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o&t=546s
Disclaimer: This is not to sway the vote.
I just think it's a neat video to watch for information.
That is something else to consider, but I assume on water landing the batteries have a way to stay isolated while electricity is removed from the engine. Such as gas being removed from the engine in a gas combustion.
Thanks again for the debate/conversation. You've helped me understand a few things on why, in the long run, electric planes will really be key to evolution.
Ey chief you still wanting to debate?
Even though... you made a debate complaining about your lack of right to vote... Hypocrite
I promise you there are no copy pastes here. I am very confused and skeptical of the idea. I will attempt to drop in on the next conversation they have or talk to the students who had the idea. Thanks for accepting Oromagi!
What the hell happened here
The reason I asked the question was due to the fact that you referenced the 2nd Amendment and conflated that with the foreign affairs statement. One is a right, one is a suggestion. You determine which is which.
Oh god is this going to become a "Purge" suggestion debate.
I guess you missed me saying I admit I started at a poor time. I am not whining, I just think it's funny that you're calling it an excuse that I decided to take my education more seriously than some online debate. Which is more important: An online debate that will virtually have no purpose in the long run OR training to get my pilots license so I can have a solid career when I graduate from college. I'll let you decide. Have a good day, chief
I don't think you answered my question though. Where on the BILL OF RIGHTS or CONSTITUTION does it say that?
How can this be debated? This is an opinion without an open ended question, based on a hypothetical.
Where on the constitution or bill of rights is it written that the US needs to stay out of foreign affairs?
Eh I am 50/50 to this. You cannot buy your way out of sadness, but being broke isn't exactly favorable either.
I admit I started at a poor time. It's just funny how Bilbatard is calling it an excuse to care more about learning how to fly a plane then some online debate
I'm more worried about passing my Stage 1: Pre-Solo Flight Exam than some debate that will ultimately do nothing in the long run for me nor you.
Did I start the debate at a poor time? Yeah probably. Is it an "excuse" to care more about my education than some online debate? No. It's reasonable.
Yeah chief sorry I forfeited but a bunch of stuff started happening in school so that kinda took priority. I'll respond to the next round but honestly my mind is elsewhere right now
Put spaces between your thoughts. Don't put it in one giant mass of words, it's hard to follow @billbatard
They probably fixed it in later versions, but I feel like the Hurricane is not AS great because it has a fuel injection engine rather than a carburetor.
That alone reduces its performance in certain areas such as Zero G maneuvers and inverted maneuvers