Head of Moms Demand Action defines "assault weapon" as 10+ rounds fired in 1 minute

[bushmaster1313]

Well, that's the end of one ounce No. 1 Buck (11 round balls per shell)

Good thing 00 Buck isn't that dangerous.

 

[kvtcomdo]

So let's start our own group:

Guns owners against uninformed voters.

Our charge is to insure all voters are informed; I could dream.

 

[Fred_G]

So let's start our own group:

Guns owners against uninformed voters.

Our charge is to insure all voters are informed; I could dream.

I am down with that group.

 

[happygeek]

"An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute." ranks right up there with "Wings enable animals to fly." Technically true but such a broad statement as to be meaningless.

It is possible that she missed a 0 in that statement. That would put it in a different category.

Doing that makes it almost make less sense. The worst mass shooting in the US to date involved two handguns, 1 with 15 round mags and the other with 10.

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

So even assuming he got off 200 rounds in 10 minutes, that's 20 a minute, not that high a rate of fire. As aforementioned the Brits shot faster than that with Enfields.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

As a definition it is inaccurate.

That is true.

The OP says that she was "defining" an "assault weapon."

However, all the statement says is that an assault weapon lets someone get off ten shots in under a minute. Nothing in the statement indicates that this is a definition.

So, what was the context of the statement? Was it a definition, or something else entirely that the OP decided to cite as a definition?

 

[ivankerley]

irritating

i hit their facebook page and almost turned into a blood fountain, grrr
they had a picture from an open carry event in texas, two girls (guess early teens) holding rifles and smiling, neither looked to me to be unsafe, or maniacal (no fingers on triggers)... the comments were disgusting, full of name calling and questioning of parenting skills etc. just plain mean! i also noted that i couldnt find any pro-gun posts in any of their threads, no level headed debating, etc. Quite the contrary at first glance on the NRA'S FB page antis vent their spleen...
i love how they dont really want to debate or even hear a viewpoint other than their own, their way or the highway.
these people seem to be completely disrespectful and unreasonable
disturbing
Gene

 

[barnbwt]

Fathers Demand Sandwiches

TCB

 

[pockets]

Ya' think MOM would consider carrying two loaded BP pistols the same as carrying a machine gun?

Perhaps not, but carrying 2 loaded reproduction LeMat revolvers would give you 18 rounds of .44 and two 20 gauge shotgun loads.
Wonder what MOM would think of that?

The very fact this was posted on Twitter explains it all. Anyone who thinks the problems of the world or issues with gun control can be solved in 140 characters aimed at "followers" who have the attention span of moths is a fool.

Yep.....I could not have put it better.

All of this leads me to believe there are some MOTHERS on Twitter and FB who need an actual real life (outside of Twitter and FB).

.

 

[HOOfan_1]

That is true.

The OP says that she was "defining" an "assault weapon."

However, all the statement says is that an assault weapon lets someone get off ten shots in under a minute. Nothing in the statement indicates that this is a definition.

So, what was the context of the statement? Was it a definition, or something else entirely that the OP decided to cite as a definition?

As I said before,

Misleading, lying, obfuscation, hyperbole.

All are tools of the antis.

Do you REALLY have a doubt as to the thought she was trying to convey? Really and truly?

She may not be trying to allude that all weapons that can fire 10 rounds in a minute are assault weapons....but she sure as hell is saying that being able to fire 10 rounds in a minute makes a gun something to be feared...and being that she is an anti, obviously she wants it to be legislated away.

Seriously, why would she make such a ridiculous statement in an argument about gun control if she wasn't trying to point out she thought it made them too dangerous to be allowed in the hands of the public?

 

[David E]

@David E, black powder guns and such, the average person would have trouble getting 10 shots off in a minute, is what I was referring to.

I said a percussion revolver. Fire six, reload four chambers using paper cartridges, cap the nipples using a dandy cap holder and I think it's very doable for anyone familiar with them.

If it's too difficult, use two revolvers!

.

 

[SuperNaut]

So, what was the context of the statement? Was it a definition, or something else entirely that the OP decided to cite as a definition?

It was posted on Twitter, there is no context.

 

[MErl]

That is true.

The OP says that she was "defining" an "assault weapon."

However, all the statement says is that an assault weapon lets someone get off ten shots in under a minute. Nothing in the statement indicates that this is a definition.

So, what was the context of the statement? Was it a definition, or something else entirely that the OP decided to cite as a definition?

The context is an argument about gun control. In every one of those arguments I have ever heard the words "Assault Weapon" used by the proponents of gun control are linked with the Control. At a minimum they want to Control the Assault Weapons, usually by restricting them in some way.

With that as context, the phrase "An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute." can have meaning. The meaning implied there is that any gun that can fire 10 rounds in one minute should be in that restricted category of assault weapons. That is the only meaning that can be taken from that other than "Null Statement." Every cartridge gun can fire 10 rounds in 60 seconds and however they are defined Assault Weapons are a sub-category of the group cartridge guns.

That statement, from someone with an acknowledged goal of gun control, should not be just dismissed as a null statement. She either thinks that 10 rounds per minute is a high rate of fire and a threshold for control or said something that she knew had no meaning.

 

[rdhood]

Useful to know be able to point out to those on the fence where they truly stand (and admit to).

Bingo. So next week/month/year when they claim they only want "sensible" or "reasonable" gun legislation, you will know that what they really want is ALL of your guns. Period.

 

[rdhood]

Really? So, an assault weapon does NOT enable someone to shoot 10 rounds in one minute?

No. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Alright, here is the actual context and more information from the actual source (that being the MOMDA twitter account).

The original statement was in this context:

~~~
PRO-GUN Commentor: So it's the guns fault not the human pulling the trigger?!?? Right!

Reply from MOMDA: An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute.
~~~

So, the point of the original statement was that the gun (assault weapon or otherwise) enabled the person to be more dangerous than they would be without a gun.

A bunch of people had the same response as most of you:

"ANY GUN CAN SHOOT 10 ROUNDS A MINUTE!"

MOMDA replied several times clarifying her statement:

~~~
Was referring to 10 rounds at LAX. "@moriartytr: : Uhhh...every gun shoots that rate. An old musket even.”
I said 10 rounds at LAX. Sad u have to obfuscate. "@DLoesch: I can fire 10 rounds a minute with my Joe Biden-approved shotgun.”
I said 10 rounds today at LAX.
~~~

The "10 rounds" number was in reference to the number of shots fired at LAX, although I am not sure where she got her information on the number of rounds fired.

SuperNaut, does that count as a "context?"

MErl: "She either thinks that 10 rounds per minute is a high rate of fire and a threshold for control or said something that she knew had no meaning."

OR... she was referring to the number of rounds used in a particular incident. Given that this meaning is what she clearly stated, I think that is probably the most likely.

Hoofan: "Do you REALLY have a doubt as to the thought she was trying to convey? Really and truly?"

No, not really, because she clarified it.

Her statement was that the gun used in LAX allowed the shooter to be more dangerous than he would be without the gun, because the gun enabled him to hurl 10 chunks of lead at deadly velocity in a short amount of time. Without the gun, he can't do that. That is what she was trying to convey.

I don't see any indication that she was trying to convey a definition of "assault weapon" as "any weapon capable of firing 10 rounds in one minute." If you see evidence of that in the statements above, please point it out.



This was the first time I had ever heard this ladies name and, in perusing her Twitter account, I find her pretty annoying.

BUT, taking a limited statement and then presenting it as her new "definition of assault weapons" when she pretty clearly stated what her actual intention was doesn't really help anyone. This thread is definitely is not an example of well-informed, rational thinking on the topic, it is just an out-of-context smear campaign against someone you disagree with.

 

[MErl]

Ok I'll take the LAX shooting as the exact context and still stand by my last statement. I'll even expand it and remove the "or."

She thinks 10 rounds per minute is a high rate of fire and a threshold for control.

That alone from a person that anyone is listening to makes her dangerous.

 

[jerkface11]

She said

An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute

And someone here is trying to say that isn't her defining assault weapon? What are you a member of their little group?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

On what basis do you make the statement that "She thinks 10 rounds per minute is a high rate of fire and a threshold for control."

Do you have evidence of this, or are you just making an assumption?

 

[627PCFan]

Currently shopping for an evil black stock for my HMR.

 

[jerkface11]

She's from a gun control group they don't throw around "assault weapon" unless they want something banned.

 

[MErl]

On what basis do you make the statement that "She thinks 10 rounds per minute is a high rate of fire and a threshold for control."

Do you have evidence of this, or are you just making an assumption?

You want evidence that gun control groups want to ban assault weapons? I think that one is a given.

She's from a gun control group they don't throw around "assault weapon" unless they want something banned.

This is as close as we will get to an admission that the goal is to control everything. If you think it is an innocent statement of an obvious fact you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Do you REALLY have a doubt as to the thought she was trying to convey? Really and truly?
she sure as hell is saying that being able to fire 10 rounds in a minute makes a gun something to be feared...and being that she is an anti, obviously she wants it to be legislated away.

Her statement was that the gun used in LAX allowed the shooter to be more dangerous than he would be without the gun, because the gun enabled him to hurl 10 chunks of lead at deadly velocity in a short amount of time. Without the gun, he can't do that. That is what she was trying to convey..

Thank you for PROVING MY POINT


Why don't we rephrase her statement like this

"a cartridge gun allows a person to fire 10 rounds in a minute".

Again, her statement was so much of an understatement, that it actually becomes hyperbole.
She is implying that an assault weapon (something she obviously wants banned) is so dangerous to the public because it allows someone to fire 10 shots in a minute. Those of us with knowledge of firearms, know the majority of cartridge guns allow one to fire off 10 rounds in a minute.

 

[Grassman]

This is how the anti's get what they want, they succeed with these absurd definitions of what they think a firearm is, or capable of doing. And the all too eager media jumps on board to spread the propaganda.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I can shoot 10 arrows in a minute with one of my stick bows. Must make it a medieval assault weapon.
Well, it was, at Agincort...

 

[ATLDave]

One of the more amazing things to me about the anti-gun movement is how many of its members take it as a point of pride that they are profoundly ignorant about guns. They seem to consider mere knowledge of firearms to be dirty or unclean, and wear their willful ignorance as a badge of pride. If you try to correct them about some straightforward, empirical fact, they act as though the mere fact that you know something about guns to be a per se indication that you are sick, crazy, and wrong-headed.