It sounds like a big area, but at 400 yards, it isn't. The crowd area in front of the stage is about 100ft by 200 ft. At that distance assuming aiming at the center of the crowd, if the shot angle changes more than a degree in any direction the bullets are no longer hitting near the people. they always show the videos of how fast the gun can shoot with a bump stock, what they don't show very often is where the bullets are hitting while they are shooting with them, they are spraying them all over. There is a reason burst fire was invented. By the time the 3rd round was fired, he was on longer on target and was chasing the barrel. Just shooting semi-automatic it wouldn't be unreasonable for a person to be able to shoot 90-120 rounds in a minute accurately. shooting fully bumpstock automatic I would be surprised if even 1/3 of the rounds hit.
Well, I might have went to a small school in a small town, but the math I learned still makes 1/3 of 800 considerably more than 120. Your argument seems to support my position quite nicely. Thanks for the support.
Simply having the components for such weapons can land you in prison for years. So, yah, there have been more than a few folks put away that had poor intentions. I guess you could even say that those laws prevented criminals from "doing just that" in many cases.
Except for the fact that he didn’t shoot nearly close to 800 per minute. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
After reading the bill for myself, I think one point needs to be made that started this discussion, and subsequent side discussions. Below is the verbiage of Bill HR-3999: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes." The person who posted the video about this bill ending the ability to own semi-auto firearms is getting a bit excited IMO. The word AND where it states, "parts that is designed AND functions to increase..." makes a big difference. As the person in the video claims, you can use darn near anything to increase the rate of fire. But tree branches, fingers, and belt loops were not designed to increase the rate of fire for a semi-automatic weapon. Tree branches hold leaves, fingers pick noses and belt loops hold your belt in place. None of these were were designed to do what they are claiming. So in contrary to my initial post, Jerry is not illegal nor is practicing with a weapon to shoot it faster than the guy next to you. And one small side note to the the people who wrote the bill, machine gun is two words, not one.
So make it 9 shots a second which is reported and adds up to 540 rounds per minute. So, a third of that is still over 178, which is still nearly twice as much as your 90 rpm semi-auto without modification and still a lot more than 120. Even at 400 per minute its more than a standard semi-auto. So again, it does in fact make a big difference. Your argument is busted by simple math.
Actually No it isn't. Just because they say a the bumpstock makes a gun able to shoot from 400-800 rounds per minute. In order to obtain that, they would need to have a mag that can hold 400-800 rounds, he didn't. Even if we assume that the gun was able to fire at theoretical 800, that would mean with 100 round mags he would have to change mag 7 times, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is really good and can change a 100 round magazine re-aim in 4 seconds (unlikely true). simple math would tell you that, the 800rounds per minute is now down to 427 at best. Again giving the benefit of the doubt that he would be able to keep 1/3 of the rounds in the "kill zone" sure that number is at 142, but that is best case or I guess worst case in a mass shooting. bump stock firing at 400 yards is not accurate or efficient as regular semi-automatic especially when you factor in the guns were fitted with Bi-Pods. the combination of bump firing and bi-pods from an elevated position would make that even worse.
Well, you have to reload either way. So that has nothing to do with it. So again, he gets off far more rounds into a large target area with the bump stock. Even with your analogy of only making one third of them count, he hits more people. Increase that stat to only 50% accurate and he just hit a whole lot more. He was firing at fish in a barrel. More rounds fired equals more hits. He definitely got off more rounds with the bump stock than without. So, yes it is. There really is little to debate on the issue.
Sorry, that is not true in situations like this, accuracy is more important than volume. With 10 minutes of shooting, we were actually lucky that there were not more kills.
Again, how many holes in the side of the barn? You don't have to be accurate to shoot into a crowd. I certainly don't aim at individual birds when jumping a large flock of Spring snow geese. Its all about getting as much shot in the air as quickly as possible. Same principle applies here. The results speak for themselves. Volume counts when accuracy is a moot point. Either way, the end result......say goodbye to bump stocks.
And that will be stupid. Take your bow out back with a dozen arrows at say 30 yards and shoot them as fast as you can at a 5, 6 or 9 spot target, nock, draw, point and release timing yourself. Now take the same target and distance and aim. You will not shoot as many arrows but I guarantee you hit better. Bump stock might have been why there were 500 injured, but not shooting accurate is why there was ONLY 59 killed. I pray that there is never another shooting like this with somebody who actually knows what they are doing.
Dear Lord, its EXACTLY why there were 500 injured! That's the point. As if getting shot isn't bad enough, you only want to consider the dead. Shooting a bow at a 9 spot target is nothing like shooting into a mass of humanity. I give up, you refuse to comprehend the obvious. I guess we have different definitions of stupid. So be it. Moving on.
Where I come from injured is better option than Dead. Had he shot slower because of not using a bump stock fewer would have been injured but more would have been killed. Again thankfully he didn’t know what he was doing. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
Kind of chasing the rabbit down the hole here guys, I believe that in this particular situation that Fletch is right and a bump stock did allow him to cause more damage. But I do not believe bump stocks should be banned for this reason alone. (Note I did not say they shouldn't be banned or more heavily regulated) If we follow this logic, we should then ban semi automatics, because they have the potential to cause more damage in the wrong hands then say a lever gun, which can cause more damage then say, a single shot rifle. It is a slippery slope to follow and you shouldn't necessarily ban something for that reason alone. I personally think that they should be regulated on the same level as a suppressor.(see Fletch! We can be reasonable here.) Respectfully, Axtell
First question that has to be ask it Exactly what is the purpose for the proposed legislation (ban)? Second Question does the legislation (ban) accomplish that purpose? If not then the legislation should not be passed. Another question specific for this legislation What is the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon? Is it how fast I can move my trigger finger? Or is it the actual mechanical maximum? A larger magazine increase the rate of fire of a weapon because you don't have to stop and reload as often, so would this ban all extended mags? If the same rate of fire can be accomplished without anything other than the gun and your body, does a bump stock actually increase the rate of fire or does it simply make it easier to achieve the maximum rate?
That is why I lean against banning bump fire stocks, because it is only another hoop for the criminal to hurdle, and frankly it isnt a big one to jump. Getting a weapon to bump fire is really easy, you can watch these idiots bump firing with a rubber band for crying out loud. Jump to 1:15 mark (You can also fire from the shoulder with this method) I do not believe any legislation would have stopped this mass shooting, it wouldn't have even have stopped the guy from getting a semi to mimic full auto fire.(unless a rubber band ban is introduced, if they do then "Come and take them!" ) If your determined, you can find out how to do it easily enough thanks to the internet, there are a bunch of different ways. So why even ban bump stocks? It's just a political move, nothing more. And I don't think its right to ban something just because of politics.
For those of you arguing that the Second amendment doesn't apply to modern weaponry. Remember that PRIVATE ships were allowed to carry cannons back in the day. The cannon was the most devastating weapon invented at the time. I'll just leave this here.
I would say that the founders would have thought it was okay to own them. Unfortunately I believe our society is too far gone to allow such weapons. Maybe that means I am not a constitutionalist, idk. It's just my opinion Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
