{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/15/2014 1:22:18 AM
30
-
Go any where else or ask an actual serviceman or military vet the definition suffices which is why I used it. Please don't try to tell me about viable resources. I'm a college student at a prestigious university and have done plenty of papers using Lexus nexus, database A-Z and etc.... Regardless an AR is as I described whether you refer to primary or secondary documents.
-
Write a paper using Wikipedia as your source, let's see how that turns out. As a firearms dealer your definition is very lacking as an ar-15 is included in that definition, which is not an assault weapon. Part of the definition is automatic or burst fire. Because assault weapon is a term and defined by the group using it and not by a standard definition there is no "firm" definition of it.
-
DigDug...... Actually you could viably write a paper using Wikipedia as a source... however the true source(s) are listed at the bottom of every Wikipedia page that is properly written... Wikipedia's concept is to have a free internet encyclopedia... Yes, the general public has the ability to add to (not edit) Wikipedia's pages, the general public also has the ability to report a page, or information contained in a page, as incomplete or opinionated... Like every book, the internet is user-submitted... Like every book, the internet should be used with a careful eye, and an open mind.
-
He is using Wikipedia as his source, not the sources from Wikipedia. And it goes back to the cube example, listing a half definition isn't sufficient. Yes those are traits, not a definition of it. And I agree and that is the direct way to my point, this turned trollish due to his responses. A definition that has been spread as propaganda in the US isn't the definition we should use, we should be using the most complete one we have. Which would be the definition I posted from Webster. Sadly due to the Internet's size you can support any stance with information from it, regardless of how faulty that stance may be. http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html First few paragraphs "define" with history rest is an interesting read if you are into the info.
-
I said the definition works not that it was set in stone. The auto rifle is classified as an assault and so are burst fire rifles and the scout or "marksman" rifle they are classified as Assault rifles so either way regardless of the source an AR is generally a mid-long range rifle. Please excuse yourself because you're argument has nothing to do with the weaponry but my source
-
由DigDug编辑： 10/15/2014 1:53:53 AMLet me break down the flaw in your argument. Giving an incomplete definition and claiming "I am right" makes you wrong. Its like saying a cube has six sides, while true its incomplete, because a hexagon has six sides, and according to your definition is a cube. And you say marksman rifle, which isn't an assault weapon or rifle, then you call it an assault rifle. Make up your mind. Edit: m14s are used to clear buildings often, making them all around great weapons. Cqb, mid range and long range (300m). While not true long range (sniper territory) they would be more than able to do anything in the destiny world.
-
由SoL0E编辑： 10/15/2014 3:15:50 AMBefore marksman it was called a rifle. The first assaults were rifles. As for my flaw the definition stands as there are many subclasses of weapons that fall under the assault rifle category so please excuse your analogy. The definition is a working definition and because of the properties of the weapons on the game they can be classified in/as actual weapon categories. A cube's six sides is a characteristic of the cube which helps categorize and define it. As the weapons characteristics help categorize and define them. Try again.
-
由SoL0E编辑： 10/15/2014 5:42:41 AMWant a hug? The fact that we were arguing over semantics......ok and? I didn't start an argument. A view contrary to mine and a statement intended to belittle my post was made and I responded. The person then decided to take it somewhere in which I was willing to go and ended up ceasing to reply after I was able to use a viable source to illustrate or depict the characteristics of a term. I'm not arguing anymore I don't care to because before people get all the facts or bother to look at the whole picture they'd rather give or lend opinions that weren't even asked for or pertained to my original intent.
-
I just fail to understand why you two were arguing over the definition of an assault rifle... This is not the sort of thing these Forums were designed for... Actually let me take that back,.. this topic is perfect for the "Off-Topic" discussion.. There are actual problems with this game, forum space should be cherished, instead the community is using it as a poo-flinging-arena.
-
由SoL0E编辑： 10/15/2014 5:57:13 AMyou should see the other posts...good lord smh. I just wanted to like everyone else voice what I thought for once. Apparently you're wrong if you're only one person doing so and to have an opinion on the internet is criminal no matter how sound it may be. This thread is actually lacking in content but if you look at the petition one which was before this you will understand why I made this. People were giving their own properties and characteristics to the AR and I simply wanted to clarify.
-
由SoL0E编辑： 10/15/2014 3:22:29 AM"assault rifle: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use" Now that I'm on a computer and have the time here you go just to shut you up permanently. Good bye. Or would you rather argue with webster?
