What is the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon? If I want I can shoot a lot of rounds if I am not concerned about where the bullets go, what slows down the rate of fire is aiming. I would lay odds that using a bump stock didn't increase how many people got shot, the only benefit it would really have had was when he sprayed the door at the security guard. So can we exclude the internet, and all other technology that is new since the founding father drew up our bill of rights?
I'm sure you have "RPG" on your Xmas shopping list, because you should have the right to own whatever weapon you want to defend yourself.....
I agree with you for the most part Fletch, change and talk can be good things and definitely should be considered, but making new laws will not change anything. This knee jerk regulation will only hurt our society. I am not against talking, but I am against the thought process of "if such and such law was in place this wouldnt have happened" that is bullcrap, and it only hurts you and me, regular citizens who do nothing wrong.
These are the dumbest arguments. Part of the idea behind the 2nd was that when called up, people would have their own weapon because the founders also understood that the government could not arm everybody.
You know, I keep asking Santa Claus for one, but he keeps sending me letters saying "you'll shoot your eye out kid!" Maybe he will give me one if I get myself on the naughty list.
There are many laws that did in fact change things. People still drink and drive, but with increased fines and jail time, I know a lot of people that are far less likely to do it. Myself included. Change has saved lives. Many types of laws save lives and do in fact "change" things. So, I really disagree with the fallacious argument that you cant change outcomes by legislation. We can and do in nearly every walk of life. Employment practices laws would be just one good example. I had to laugh when you say that talk is good and change should be considered but go on with a definitive statement about laws not changing anything. You have zero interest in considering change in gun laws for even one moment. Your mind is set. So be it. I can assure you that something will change.
You are wrong Fletch, I am open to talk, I did not pull that out of my rear even though you think that. I am open to discussion on regulating bump stocks and whatnot. I haven't heard you propose anything that would have stopped the guy from shooting up the place with a device to mimick automatic fire(bump stocks, rotary triggers, cutting of the hand of Jerry Miculek) etc. One thing I would note, you mentioned that we put tougher fines and sentences on drinking and driving and that deterred people. Tell me, how does a ban on bump stocks deter a criminal? there is a difference, with the drunk driving you are targeting the criminal and it has worked. and yet with guns you are targeting the tool and expecting the same results. interesting... Edit: here is my question I have, what law would have stopped this guy? Respectfully, Axtell
I haven't read the bill and only watched the video. If the bill is as "vague" as the video claims, does practice count as a rate increasing device? Because I practice with a bolt action rifle and can shoot 10 rounds a minute compared to the average 5 of every other person, does that violate the law? If that is true, we are in for a world of hurt because there are no limitations to truly defining what increases the rate of fire in a weapon. So is Jerry Miculek now illegal because he can shoot 6 rounds from a revolver, reload, and shoot 6 more (on target by the way) in 2.99 seconds? If the bill is what the video says it is, Jerry is now illegal because he practices. I work in law enforcement and many laws are written vague for a reason. This bill needs to have some clear definitions defining more specifically what is "illegal". Personally speaking, I don't need to put 30 rounds down range in 2 seconds. I had my fill of that serving 6 years in the Army. Don't punish every law abiding gun owner in the United States because someone was smart enough to put their thumb in a belt loop to shoot a gun faster. Punish the sadistic MF'er who killed all the innocent people for no reason. Punish the people who are illegally obtaining guns and using them for crime. As horrible a tragedy as Vegas was here's a news flash politicians..... YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO COMPLETELY PREVENT TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING. Why, because roughly 300 million firearms in the Unites States alone says so. If you want a gun bad enough you can get one and use it for whatever your want.
You are talking about a deterrent factor when you are talking about drinking and driving laws. The more severe the punishment the more likely a person will not commit the crime. Well, that isn't what a ban on bump stocks is or does. The guy killed 50+ people, in Nevada which has the death penalty for murder. The greatest level of punishment we can possible give. If you look at this shooting, shooting fast isn't what made it deadly, shooting fast is terribly inaccurate. What made the shooting deadly was not bump stocks it was the bi-pods on the guns. shooting fast at 400 yards he would be lucky if 1/3 of the rounds were hits. while all these guns had bump stocks on them, I'd like to know if they were in the lock position or not. 10 minutes of shooting at a tight crowd you would be more deadly shooting slower and putting the bullets all in the kill zone.
I personally never understood why the ATF approved bump stocks for OTC transfers when they did...really thought it was going to be classified similar to silencers and such. Not banned but classed higher and requiring stamps and such.
I would lay odds that you are wrong. 90 to 120 rounds per minute vs. 400 to 800 rounds per minute is no comparison. He did not have a small area to concentrate his fire on. Could you put more rounds into the broad side of a barn with a non-modified semi auto or a semi-auto with a bump stock? Obviously the bump stock made for more bullets fired. Do the same thing in a classroom or at a packed venue and the damage inflicted does not compare. Your internet comment is just distraction. You have the right to bear arms and always will. The definition of those arms is the question and many are already illegal. For good reason.
Sorry but false. This man had an incredibly large target of concentrate civilians...no aiming was necessary. The rate at which he could spray bullets did without a doubt in my mind play a factor. There is a reason bump fires weren't allowed at the range I worked at...because they make accuracy plummet when talking about trying to put shots on a torso style target....on an entire crowd this point becomes irrelevant. Oh and the answer to your first question is too broad to answer specifically but will always include; depends on the skill of the shooter.
"Bump fire stocks" simply make bump firing easier. I can bump fire without one. Guns go pew pew pew regardless of a dang stock people. Malicious intent is in the brain, not on a trigger or type of stock.
I don't think anyone would argue this point...whether for re-analyzing bump fire stocks or 100% against re-analyzing them...or at least I would pray everyone wouldn't.
Chemical weapons would make it easier to take out a crowd if I had malicious intent. So, why is it illegal for me to have them? I can carry a pipe around legally. But, fill it with explosives and nails and it becomes illegal. Why? Any old pipe can be a weapon, so why have laws about what I can do with it?
