The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 5, 2017, 03:47 PM   #101
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,721
Quote:
For the distances he was shooting, he was basically shooting an area target and not point targets. Law enforcement thinks he may have tried to shoot the fuel tanks at the airport because there were a couple of impacts on them (2). The targets are located indirectly behind the concert venue from where the shooter was. My guess is that he just lost control of his guns while firing and a couple of rounds just happened to hit the tanks, nothing more.
My point was just that I don't feel a leap from bump-stocks bad to semi-autos bad is a logical one because there are apples and oranges, as you guys say...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:14 PM   #102
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,491
Quote:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Carguycrhis: There were a number of versions and variations of spelling and punctuation.

And yes the Government and standing armies (aka GB and the King) were the source of the attempt to maintain the freedoms.

The comma makes no difference, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated and by historical record related to the militias.

A reality sub test was people owned guns, that was not in questions and frankly has zero to do with the 2nd, all attempts to change that fact aside.

Agreed the Michigan militia was a read hearing, but the point was Militia is now totally out of context. ITs been replaced by the national guard which in turn is really part of the power structure of the US Military (not a bad thing but not what was intended either in the vision of the founders)

Quote:
You know we already have serious penalties for shooting into crowds and killing people, right?
The endless pivot.

He died, so did 58 (now).

Obviously determent one did not mean anything to the deranged man.

Please keep the vein in context and read ALL my posts.

It has to do with avaialaity , opportunity and hopefully triggers alarms and or results in a stop before it occurs.

Have you read about the failure of the Maconda Oil Platform Operation?

Little spill of oil in the gulf of Mexico?

There were something like 6 major softies systems involved to stop that action.

If ONE had been done right or worked (tested even) this would not have happened.

The ban is one part of a checks system.

If its no accessible (like FA generally) then you can't have it a factor.

Stop it, maybe not. Slow it down, minimize it, allow a catch and complete stop, maybe.

Can you prove that the death penalty ever stopped anyone from killing anyone else?

Give me a break.

Quote:
My point was just that I don't feel a leap from bump-stocks bad to semi-autos bad is a logical one because there are apples and oranges, as you guys say...
James: I do get it.

Try to convince the public now that ARs are not assault rifles though. It was failing before, calling the MSA is now a sick joke.

The point is it should be part of a discussion and not ruled out from ownership, but it may be one that you want to have enhanced protocol in place as to ownership.

Fee, tracking, registered.
__________________
One of the Adorables
RC20 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:23 PM   #103
Stroge
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2017
Posts: 8
I dont have a real problem with bump fire stocks being REGULATED but I do have a problem with FORCED surrender of the devices.

Especially since the ATF gave their "blessing" already. No way it would fly today that they just randomly outlaw them and call you a "felon" for having one when they were " A-OK" before hand....

Any regulation on these must come from real legislation. Yes, we could open a registry like the pre 1986 NFA one and serialize them (I guess, they are all plastic thought). Limit one per person, transferable with $200 tax stamp. We dont know how many of these are out in the wild but very fun gun people have them. Certainly would be less than 25k total id imagine.

We knew this day would come for bump fire stocks, only question is, when will it come for Tannerite (binary explosives)? That's probably the next "loophole" someone might use....

It almost make you wonder what his real motives were. To force a ban on "assault weapons" ? To force a ban on bump fire stocks?
Stroge is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:25 PM   #104
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,330
Quote:
Mass fire into a packed crowd with no cover and no where to go and you think it was not the bump stock?
He fired at the crowd unimpeded for 19 minutes. A rate of fire of 30 rounds a minute could generate the same amount of casualties (1 round every 2 sec).
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:40 PM   #105
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by rc20
Can you prove that the death penalty ever stopped anyone from killing anyone else?
I can demonstrate the deterrent effect, but you may not consider proven to your satisfaction.

Do you understand that the same standard would call into question the efficacy of "serious penalties" for owning a slide-fire stock?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rc20
The endless pivot.
...
Give me a break.
Certainly. Seems like you could use it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:42 PM   #106
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,211
JoeSixpack:

Quote:
Your analogy is flawed, unless they chop your fingers off you could still legally bump fire your gun, it's just more difficult by hand, the bump stocks just take most of the technique out of it.
My point is that defending it using any sort of free market rationale fails. Citizens have been able to do something similar to this "on the fly" or with a modicum of mechanical tinkering, but that doesn't mean allowing a mass-market product that easily evades a law designed to keep non-registered weapons from firing FA is consistent policy on any level. This item should never come to market.

Also JSP:

Quote:
Meth is illegal period.. whether you make it from scratch or from a kit
As is modifying a rifle to fire full-auto without an Class3 permit, oh, unless you have this item: Again: if the laws were enforced in any coherent fashion (as all of us would like) this wouldn't have ever been a mass-market item. A law (or ATF decision) to keep this off the of market would be consistent with the goals of long-standing Federal law. I would prefer the ATF decision. It's a bit ham-fisted but a poorly written law has consequences far beyond one item.

Also JSPack:
Quote:
If he had used legally registered "machine guns" then what would you say?
I wouldn't say a thing. The law provides a legal method of obtaining a class 3 weapon. If this person followed the procedure and passed all checks to obtain an FA weapon and used it illegally, there's no failure in the system and the system wouldn't be accountable. There's limits to everything. Free will is what makes humans great (even great failures).
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:42 PM   #107
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20 View Post
Can you prove that the death penalty ever stopped anyone from killing anyone else?
Can you prove banning "bump stocks" or any other gun control on the books ever stopped anyone from killing anyone else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20 View Post
Give me a break.
Indeed.
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:49 PM   #108
Snuffy308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2005
Posts: 164
The argument against this implement is specious to the point of incredulity. If you ban bump fire stocks you've got to do away with Jerry Miculek or at least prevent him from earning a living shooting firearms fast. Lmao. You even remoting believe he is the only person alive with those skills? I mean, think of the children. Give me a freaking break. I'm out. Takes at least two fools to argue an unassailable fact.
Snuffy308 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 04:52 PM   #109
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
My point is that defending it using any sort of free market rationale fails. Citizens have been able to do something similar to this "on the fly" or with a modicum of mechanical tinkering, but that doesn't mean allowing a mass-market product that easily evades a law designed to keep non-registered weapons from firing FA is consistent policy on any level. This item should never come to market.
From a technical stand point the gun is still firing semi automatic, the trigger is being pulled for every round.

Are we having an economics discussion? I thought your argument was based on end result outcome.

Since the outcome can be achieved without a stock in which case YOU COULD NOT REGULATE THAT unless you decide to have some sort of "speed limit" law for guns.. no firing more then 1 round per second.

All you need is 2 hands, a trigger that's light enough and a gun that recoils heavy enough and you can bump fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
I wouldn't say a thing. The law provides a legal method of obtaining a class 3 weapon. If this person followed the procedure and passed all checks to obtain an FA weapon and used it illegally, there's no failure in the system and the system wouldn't be accountable. There's limits to everything. Free will is what makes humans great (even great failures).
So again I state he had the means to secure true full auto weapons legally..
If your argument they should be banned is based on prevention I think you will agree it would not have prevented his plans.

In fact it would not even have altered his plans, He could have carried them out exactly as he did without modification.

Not only that but he did not need all of those guns and I bet you'll find most of them went unfired.. he could have done this with as little as 1 rifle.
bucket/bottle of water on the gun after every mag dump would have kept temperatures from going out of control.

I bet by the time everything is said and done not counting the handgun he probably killed him self with I bet 6 or fewer rifles was fired.
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 05:14 PM   #110
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,211
Quote:
From a technical stand point the gun is still firing semi automatic, the trigger is being pulled for every round.

Are we having an economics discussion? I thought your argument was based on end result outcome.
All due respect, you're a bit off concerning the mechnical details of a slide fire:
https://www.slidefire.com/how-it-works

No, apparently, we aren't having any type of discussion, b/c I'm pointing out that this item--by intent and design--circumvents a well-known law that governs full-auto firearms and that removing it from the market would be consistent policy enforcement--consistency being a positive trait in law enforcement policy. You keep talking about how I'm worried about outcomes. I'm not.

JSP:
Quote:
So again I state he had the means to secure true full auto weapons legally..
If your argument they should be banned is based on prevention I think you will agree it would not have prevented his plans.
A. But he didn't legally obtain a class 3 weapon to use for this attack, so that hypothetical topic is closed.
B. They should be banned b/c the law to ban their designed purpose is already on the books and has been for a generation not because I think they should be banned. Again, take this up with your representative.
C. I agree whole heartedly that a person who wishes to do ill to others will do so no matter what the law or human nature says about correct behavior.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 05:30 PM   #111
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Quote:
From a technical stand point the gun is still firing semi automatic, the trigger is being pulled for every round.
All due respect, you're a bit off concerning the mechnical details of a slide fire:
https://www.slidefire.com/how-it-works
Actually, he is spot on. That trigger is being pulled once for every shot. The stock doesn't do anything but permit the shooter to keep his hand stationary relative to the stock.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 05:34 PM   #112
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,211
zukiphile:
Quote:
Actually, he is spot on. That trigger is being pulled once for every shot. The stock doesn't do anything but permit the shooter to keep his hand stationary relative to the stock.
No>5. Control Rapid Fire

Recoil from the discharged round will cycle the action and return the firearm back to the rear position. Maintaining a light and consistent forward pressure will continue the firing sequence.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 05:36 PM   #113
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
All due respect, you're a bit off concerning the mechnical details of a slide fire:
https://www.slidefire.com/how-it-works
No I looked at these stocks when they hit the market years ago.. unlike you who apparently are just suddenly aware.

The rear of the gun slides back and forth, It has a place for you to rest your finger, The gun recoils and you put tension forward on teh gun's stock with your supporting hand.

As you do this the trigger hits your finger and is actuated and the gun discharges again.

Technically your finger is actuating the trigger every time, and the trigger is being manipulated every time.. in case you're unaware of how a full auto actually works you hold the trigger down and the hammer is automatically released.. meaning 1 trigger pull many cycles.

So like I said the gun is technically still firing semi automatic no matter how impressed you might be personally.


Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
No, apparently, we aren't having any type of discussion, b/c I'm pointing out that this item--by intent and design--circumvents a well-known law that governs full-auto firearms and that removing it from the market would be consistent policy enforcement--consistency being a positive trait in law enforcement policy. You keep talking about how I'm worried about outcomes. I'm not.
Obviously you are because the rate of fire impresses you.. = outcome.
The gun still falls short of what true full auto is not to mention the gun is jiggling around on you.. apparently the rate of fire worries you but you can't seem to quantify exactly at what point the rate of fire becomes a concern of your.

Media clocked the gunmen at 600rpm, wiki says full auto m16 700-950
so at the very least the numbers aren't up to full auto.. you can say well they're close enough but how close is close enough?


Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
A. But he didn't legally obtain a class 3 weapon to use for this attack, so that hypothetical topic is closed.
Right now everything is hypothetical since they ain't banned them yet.
But if that's your attitude Im not sure what else we have to discuss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
B. They should be banned b/c the law to ban their designed purpose is already on the books and has been for a generation not because I think they should be banned. Again, take this up with your representative.
Actually uh you're wrong and the ATF approval letter even says so.
You wanna treat these bump stocks like automatic weapons but you don't wanna talk about automatic (classified under the law) weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47 View Post
C. I agree whole heartedly that a person who wishes to do ill to others will do so no matter what the law or human nature says about correct behavior.
Ok something we can agree on, I'll take it.
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 06:35 PM   #114
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
No>5. Control Rapid Fire

Recoil from the discharged round will cycle the action and return the firearm back to the rear position.
All arms with recoil do that.

Quote:
Maintaining a light and consistent forward pressure will continue the firing sequence.
The shooter maintains the forward pressure. If the shooter keeps his finger in front of the trigger, that will result in his finger pressing the trigger for one more shot.

That's what all semi-auomatic arms do. The stock isn't doing anything magical and doesn't enable a rifle to shoot more than once per trigger pull.


That may be part of the reason people will be uncomfortable with any legislative language that outlaws slide fire stocks; it would be a prohibition on what is merely semi-automatic fire. That can be the not very thin end of a wedge.

Last edited by zukiphile; October 5, 2017 at 06:59 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 06:41 PM   #115
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,211
JSP:
Quote:
No I looked at these stocks when they hit the market years ago.. unlike you who apparently are just suddenly aware.
I will alert slide fire that their description about a combination of steadily-held finger and inertial momentum continuing the firing process is wrong.
Yeah, actually, I have seen one, at a distance. A buddy (ex-mil, if that gives me reflected internet-ninja cred) sent me a video of him using one a few years ago. We agreed
A> it was very cool.
B> it was a borderline violation of NFA.
C> that someone was going to use one and get the rest of us in hot water. Here we are in the hot tub time machine.

JSP:
Quote:
Obviously you are because the rate of fire impresses you.. = outcome.
No, read the words.

JSP:
Quote:
Right now everything is hypothetical since they ain't banned them yet.
No, that is not what hypothetical means.

JSP:
Quote:
Actually uh you're wrong and the ATF approval letter even says so.
Thank you for providing exhibit B and proving my points about consistency and confusion.

JSP:
Quote:
Ok something we can agree on, I'll take it.
good enough for me.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 06:56 PM   #116
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,315
Quote:
Could ATF just make an administrative ruling which would eliminate the sale, use or even possession of slide fire stocks? From what I have read ATF has said in the past slidefire stocks are "legal" so it seems possible they could reconsider their position. The way I understand the agency they have a great amount of discretion as to how firearms laws are applied.
It looks like the NRA may have had the same thought. If they could get this put to bed with a BATF ruling instead of new legislation, that would probably be preferable. BATF has definitely been known to reverse its previous rulings--laws are not quite so easy to undo.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 07:11 PM   #117
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,981
What would the BATF need to do exactly . It was my understanding they correctly interpreted the law in saying these were legal . But of course that's what I think , I'm a gun guy haha . What doofus47 seems to be missing is that we are a nation of laws and those laws have detailed text explaining them . Under the current laws and how it reads , the slide fire stock is not illegal . One bullet is discharged for every one pull of the trigger . That is not the definition of full auto which has it's own legal definition . If the firearm does not meat that legal definition it's not a full auto firearm . Even if it shot 1k rounds a minute it would still be a semi automatic firearm by definition because it only discharges one round for every one pull of the trigger .

How does the BATF regulate around that with out screwing up the definition of semi automatic ? What might the wording be as to not be challenged in court because we know the owners of the slide fire patent sure aren't going to like what's about to likely happen .
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 07:14 PM   #118
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,571
I wrote the NRA and the ILA about how stupid requesting a new look at the legality of bump fire stocks was. I don't have one and I don't see me ever wanting one but there is nothing evil about the stock. One man used a bump fire stock to kill a lot of people while shooting from 320 feet in the air at a 5000 square yard area packed wall to wall with people. It is surprising that he didn't hit more but there was no accuracy involved in his act it was just spray and spray some more.
If the bump stock was the cause, what about the gun? or the ammo? or the 100 round magazines?
It's OK to let then take away bump stocks because I don't have one? NO! it's not OK! It is just one more piece of straw or one more small paper cut. Go after the real cause. If you deal with the violence then there won't be any gun violence. If you take away the guns then we will have more knife violence and more baseball bat violence and more physical violence. The violent use of a tool does not make the tool bad. Only the violence is bad.
I recommend that you all write, call, or email the NRA and ILA to tell them we don't want to feed the giant any more. We want to get rid of the giant and never have to feed it again, EVER.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 07:21 PM   #119
KBP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 296
Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

Here is the problem with any more gun laws: They don't stop ANYTHING! Before making SCHOOLS GUN FREE ZONES- a few school shootings. AFTER making schools GUN FREE ZONES- many more school shootings. Banning interstate gun sales to private citizens after JFK's assassination stopped nothing. Strict rules on guns in Chicago and many large cities- stopped nothing. Banning bump fire stocks will stop nothing- Why? its EASY to bump fire a semi auto without ANY new stock or alteration. The anti-gun lobby ALWAYS wants to pass more gun laws, pass more restrictions on gun owners each time a madman or criminal commits murder. You can't legislate away murder. You can't stop murder by banning guns. Bombs, aircraft, trucks, cars, pressure cookers, poison, machetes, and thousands of other things can murder people. Are they going to ban all of these things? They will try if we let them! Its all about control and power over our RIGHTS.
__________________
I am reading a book about anti-gravity. I can't put it down! Getting older sucks, when you get a bladder infection, urine trouble!
KBP is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 07:27 PM   #120
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,315
Quote:
How does the BATF regulate around that with out screwing up the definition of semi automatic ?
The BATF can't change the legal definition of anything. They can only issue opinions about the existing law.

So right off the bat, a BATF opinion won't change any legal definitions and it won't be a new regulation.

There is no definition (nor mention) in the actual law of bump-fire stocks which is why a BATF opinion was issued on the topic. Assuming that they changed their mind after looking at the facts, they would reverse their previous ruling.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 08:23 PM   #121
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,491
You are wrong there. BATF has ruled various issues in the past as the law is written and then regulation are put in placed and enforced (or not)

Take the case of the H&R Handi gun. It clearly is NOT a sawed off shotgun.

It is illegal. Put a spiral in the tube and its interpreted to be legal. That's not the law, that's the regs put in place by the BTAF.

BATF is wrong, but you have to have congress enact a specific law to repute it.

If it flies like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it has duck DNA, then its a duck.

All this Clinton attempt to slice the dice it is spurious.

The BATF could have ruled otherwise, they did not.

They should have.

Quote:
Do you understand that the same standard would call into question the efficacy of "serious penalties" for owning a slide-fire stock
Bull. Like the other twisters you attempt to change the point.

The point is that the BATF does not have to come after you, by default, they will never be seen in public and they are a possible financial disaster waiting to happen to the owner if found during other exposures

Said owner usually has a SO, possibly kids, brothers, sites parent etc. None of who want that burdon on the family.

They will be kept hidden, buried etc. Few will escape into the wild. Fewer sill will escape into the wild and into the hands of the nut case.

He had the money but did not buy FA weapons because he knew that would get attention.

Don't try to BS me or twist this into some theoretic mumbo jumbo.

You want to keep your guns, you want to see the carnage continue, you don't care as long as you can, fine, the Constitution says you can.

I will disagree totally with your view, but I will defend to the death your right to have it.

I will also work my best to change what you can or can't do to the rest of the country with that view. I likely will fail, but I would rather have tried and failed than to take your view.

Wrong again, anything that make it more difficult is worth it.

Read the Maconda Report. Just a single one of the 6 mechanism to stop a blowout if it had not been compromised would have stopped it.



Quote:
Here is the problem with any more gun laws: They don't stop ANYTHING! Before making SCHOOLS GUN FREE ZONES- a few school shootings. AFTER making schools GUN FREE ZONES- many more school shootings. Banning interstate gun sales to private citizens after JFK's assassination stopped nothing. Strict rules on guns in Chicago and many large cities- stopped nothing. Banning bump fire stocks will stop nothing- Why? its EASY to bump fire a semi auto without ANY new stock or alteration. The anti-gun lobby ALWAYS wants to pass more gun laws, pass more restrictions on gun owners each time a madman or criminal commits murder. You can't legislate away murder. You can't stop murder by banning guns. Bombs, aircraft, trucks, cars, pressure cookers, poison, machetes, and thousands of other things can murder people. Are they going to ban all of these things? They will try if we let them! Its all about control and power over our RIGHTS.
Quote:
He fired at the crowd unimpeded for 19 minutes. A rate of fire of 30 rounds a minute could generate the same amount of casualties (1 round every 2 sec).
And you can prove this how?

Quote:
I dont have a real problem with bump fire stocks being REGULATED but I do have a problem with FORCED surrender of the devices.
At least a point of discussion.

Surrender would be your choice, as noted with the H&R, the penalties are severe.

Reality wise, having followed it, they usually just take the gun and that's the end of it.

Quote:
Here is the problem with any more gun laws: They don't stop ANYTHING
By your definition then we should have no laws of any type.

Well good for you.

It as just spray, that killed 58 people. Your point?

So maybe there things that can be done.

Register semi auto? Data base for owners? Sunset it in 10 years, see how it did.

Its gun valance that kills large amounts of people. You can slow it down. Kind of hard to knife 58 people.



Quote:
I wrote the NRA and the ILA about how stupid requesting a new look at the legality of bump fire stocks was. I don't have one and I don't see me ever wanting one but there is nothing evil about the stock. One man used a bump fire stock to kill a lot of people while shooting from 320 feet in the air at a 5000 square yard area packed wall to wall with people. It is surprising that he didn't hit more but there was no accuracy involved in his act it was just spray and spray some more.
If the bump stock was the cause, what about the gun? or the ammo? or the 100 round magazines?
It's OK to let then take away bump stocks because I don't have one? NO! it's not OK! It is just one more piece of straw or one more small paper cut. Go after the real cause. If you deal with the violence then there won't be any gun violence. If you take away the guns then we will have more knife violence and more baseball bat violence and more physical violence. The violent use of a tool does not make the tool bad. Only the violence is bad.
I recommend that you all write, call, or email the NRA and ILA to tell them we don't want to feed the giant any more. We want to get rid of the giant and never have to feed it again, EVER.
And good lucky convincing the 70% of the people in the US that do not own guns that AR is not an assault rifle!

Really, 500 rpm is not an AR? No mam, that's an MSA. right mell

Quote:
As for the actual rate of fire . He never came close to firing at 600rpm . That would have been 6000rds . My bet is he did not shoot more then 1000rds . Yes he had the capability to fire 600rpm but that's not how many he shot
He shot for 10 minutes, pretty continuous. 5000 rounds?

We will know more in a week or so.
__________________
One of the Adorables

Last edited by JohnKSa; October 5, 2017 at 09:24 PM. Reason: Language
RC20 is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 09:02 PM   #122
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,928
He hit 600 people. HIT them,
You can figure 15-20% hit rate, max.
Do the math.
mehavey is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 09:05 PM   #123
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
I don't know how many total rounds was fired, the 600rpm rate was based on teh news count of 10 seconds of video.

Im not sure what the hit rate will turn out to be, he was spraying but it was also a large target even at 4-500 yards.. at least in the beginning.

I'd imagine the hit rate at the start was probably extremely high.
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 09:06 PM   #124
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,330
Quote:
And you can prove this how?
It is this fancy technology called "math". According to the latest timeline from LVMPD, he fired on the crowd from 10:05 to 10:15. So ten minutes instead of nineeen. There were about 538 casualties total (58 dead and over 480 injured). That's 53.8 casualties per minute. So a round every second with a 90% hit rate will yield the same number of casualties. That's 1/4 the firing rate of any semi-auto.

Using your estimate of 5000 rounds fired in ten minutes, the bump stock is so effective that with 20,000 people crammed into a two-acre area at between 300m and 400m and plunging fire, a little over 10% of the rounds fired struck a target.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 09:07 PM   #125
sfwusc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2013
Posts: 149
5000 rounds and only 58 killed. I would say we are lucky he was so unsuccessful.

Millions of dollars and willing to die — we are lucky the damage was what it was.

A lot less funding and box cutters killed thousands and did millions in damages along with changing life styles of millions.
sfwusc is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11393 seconds with 9 queries