- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
As I said in my other post, double-action "could be said to be functionally equivalent" - the technical difference is that semi-auto performs everything necessary to fire again 'automatically' based on the energy from the previous shot - double-action does not (e.g. the hammer is not cocked). Therefore, double-action requires extra effort on the trigger-pull.
No such thing as a semi-automatic
Are you one of those people that thinks that if you close your eyes people can't see you??
Ignoring the obvious doesn't make it go away.
Is a 6 shot revolver a semi-automatic ?
Single-action - no
Double-action - not technically, but could be said to be functionally equivalent
There are very few revolvers that are actually semi-automatic.
light, which he does not deny exists
Light is electromagnetic radiation - differential absorption of electromagnetic radiation is color.
The same material heating up more/less based on differential absorption of electromagnetic radiation is color that the blind person can feel.
Now, prove these other gods exist and say something
Again, I give equal weight to the idea that those gods said something as I do your god saying something - none...
Show me the evidence that yours said something where that same evidence does not exist for any of the other gods.
cannot stop the production
Can/have we stopped the production of fully-automatic weapons?? Why aren't they used for school shootings?
can you explain a semi automatic weapon
Semi-auto just means that a new cartridge is automatically loaded after each shot. It can generally fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Full-auto is when the machine itself is capable of repeat fire when the trigger is held.
Bump stocks blur (or exceed) the line since you are not really pulling the trigger each time - the recoil and a spring are causing the gun to fire while you hold the trigger.
"The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.
Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group."
"In states that have expanded Medicaid coverage: You can qualify based on your income alone. If your household income is below 133% of the federal poverty level, you qualify. (Because of the way this is calculated, it turns out to be 138% of the federal poverty level. A few states use a different income limit.)"
"If you don’t have any coverage, you don’t have to pay the fee. Under the law, most people must have health coverage or pay a fee. But you won’t have to pay this fee if you live in a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid and you would have qualified if it had."
With no method to keep heathy people in the insurance pool, the system will collapse. We will likely see this when new rates come out in October if some other mechanism of coercion is not implemented to replace this administration's elimination of fee enforcement.
The requirement to get coverage was initially a conservative "personal responsibility" idea - if people can get healthcare at hospitals that they can't afford, the cost gets passed on to others who have insurance (before ObamaCare it added approximately $1,000 per year to the average premium).