quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:I don't want to be shot at by anybody at any rate of fire, but I have had the opportunity to watch spray-and-pray in the practical application and it isn't impressive.

It is when your "target" is an area hundreds of feet wide and packed shoulder to shoulder. If high volume/reduced accuracy fire weren't a viable technique against massed targets, machine guns wouldn't be in the field with every army.

Regarding guns and "gun control", it's funny how those of us on the Right accuse the Left of being so wrapped up in emotion that they cannot understand logic and reason, yet there appears to be many on the Right who are so emotionally wrapped up in their logic and reason that they cannot understand common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Regarding guns and "gun control", it's funny how those of us on the Right accuse the Left of being so wrapped up in emotion that they cannot understand logic and reason, yet there appears to be many on the Right who are so emotionally wrapped up in their logic and reason that they cannot understand common sense.

Maybe you can clarify what you're saying here.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
https://youtu.be/QkWuYr0cD4M

Bump fire with a stick. Ban all the things!

hmmm, the dog doesn't seem to like bumpfire either.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:
911boss said

quote:

hard pressed to get 100 such rounds off in the 10-11 minutes

100/Rds / 10 minutes = 10 rds a minute or 5 rds every 30 seconds or one rd every every 6 secs.

Ignorance or not, a blind lady with the hiccups could put that on a parking lot.

Parsing aside, I don't agree with you that the prime-mover here was the bump stock. It was the same thing on the ground as it was on the gun, a novelty.

At any rate, wish me some bliss too and I'll be moving on.

You seem to have selectively missed the parts where I said:

“...selecting individual targets to aim and fire placed rounds would be hard pressed to get 100 such rounds off in the 10-11 minutes he was shooting.“


And:

”Indiscriminate rapid semi-auto fire might get off a few hundred rounds in that time...”


Reading is fundamental...

First of all, I'm with 911Boss on this. I've been having this same discussion with people from both my old department and my current agency.

That being said, the politics of the issue will always drive the direction where blame will be placed.

Consider this scenario for the sake of argument:

Paddock had 50 pounds of Tannerite and a large amount of ammonium nitrate in his car (that is a fact). Let's say that instead of shooting everyone, he parked the vehicle near the concert site and then set off the explosives with a couple of gunshots---which would probably have doubled the number of dead and injured.

Now let's say that after this huge explosion, police found Paddock and all of his rifles fitted with bump stocks. Is there any doubt that the media and Democrats would have focused their fury more towards those weapons than what Paddock actually used to kill and injure 1,000 people?

Not only does this nut job kill a bunch of folks just looking to enjoy a concert, he gives the Dems a reason to start howling about gun control again plus a couple of Rhinos join in. It has already shelved the suppressor bill and will most likely ban bump socks plus whatever else they can hang on the bill. This is when see who is really on our side or is just BSing for votes. Chris

I got called a cold hearted bastard for pointing this out

Guns are incredibly efficient if you need to kill one person

If you want to kill 100 they are remarkably inefficient killers

Anyone who has ever been in the military knows this

Your best weapon was your radio...that you could use to rain high explosive hell onto your target


If this jackass had been able to put an OKC like device next to that crowd and detonate it the number of dead would have been in the thousands

But good Christ...don't point that out to your average soccer mom....after the apoplexy fades you will be forever viewed as a cold hearted bastard

quote:

Originally posted by snoris:
First of all, I'm with 911Boss on this. I've been having this same discussion with people from both my old department and my current agency.

That being said, the politics of the issue will always drive the direction where blame will be placed.

Consider this scenario for the sake of argument:

Paddock had 50 pounds of Tannerite and a large amount of ammonium nitrate in his car (that is a fact). Let's say that instead of shooting everyone, he parked the vehicle near the concert site and then set off the explosives with a couple of gunshots---which would probably have doubled the number of dead and injured.

Now let's say that after this huge explosion, police found Paddock and all of his rifles fitted with bump stocks. Is there any doubt that the media and Democrats would have focused their fury more towards those weapons than what Paddock actually used to kill and injure 1,000 people?

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Regarding guns and "gun control", it's funny how those of us on the Right accuse the Left of being so wrapped up in emotion that they cannot understand logic and reason, yet there appears to be many on the Right who are so emotionally wrapped up in their logic and reason that they cannot understand common sense.

Maybe you can clarify what you're saying here.

Sure.

An example in this thread: Lots of people are so emotionally wrapped up in the "ZOMG don't ban bump stocks!" argument that they don't see the fact that in this specific Las Vegas mass shooting case they made the shooter able to kill more people than he would have without them.

Another hypothetical example: Lots of people are so emotionally wrapped up in the "ZOMG don't ban bump stocks!" argument that if the opportunity presented itself where a deal could be struck to place bump stocks on the NFA list in exchange for removing silencers from the NFA list, they would cry "ZOMG NO we're caving!". Yet, that would be a very good common sense deal for the Right to make.

There is never a deal where the right gains anything by coinciding to the left. Just more rights lost, they will give us nothing. Nothing. And I could care less about a bump stock. But if you think we will gain anything, nope.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Regarding guns and "gun control", it's funny how those of us on the Right accuse the Left of being so wrapped up in emotion that they cannot understand logic and reason, yet there appears to be many on the Right who are so emotionally wrapped up in their logic and reason that they cannot understand common sense.

Maybe you can clarify what you're saying here.

Sure.

An example in this thread: Lots of people are so emotionally wrapped up in the "ZOMG don't ban bump stocks!" argument that they don't see the fact that in this specific Las Vegas mass shooting case they made the shooter able to kill more people than he would have without them.

Another hypothetical example: Lots of people are so emotionally wrapped up in the "ZOMG don't ban bump stocks!" argument that if the opportunity presented itself where a deal could be struck to place bump stocks on the NFA list in exchange for removing silencers from the NFA list, they would cry "ZOMG NO we're caving!". Yet, that would be a very good common sense deal for the Right to make.

Do you have any concrete evidence that either of your hypotheses are correct, or are they just your feelings? i have no interest in bump fire stocks or trigger gizmos but I have noticed over the 49 years that have elapsed since GCA '68 that gun grabbers are never satisfied with anything we give up-it's never enough.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:
911boss said

quote:

hard pressed to get 100 such rounds off in the 10-11 minutes

100/Rds / 10 minutes = 10 rds a minute or 5 rds every 30 seconds or one rd every every 6 secs.

Ignorance or not, a blind lady with the hiccups could put that on a parking lot.

Parsing aside, I don't agree with you that the prime-mover here was the bump stock. It was the same thing on the ground as it was on the gun, a novelty.

At any rate, wish me some bliss too and I'll be moving on.

You seem to have selectively missed the parts where I said:

“...selecting individual targets to aim and fire placed rounds would be hard pressed to get 100 such rounds off in the 10-11 minutes he was shooting.“


And:

”Indiscriminate rapid semi-auto fire might get off a few hundred rounds in that time...”


Reading is fundamental...

Fundamentally read this then:

Parsing aside, I don't agree with you that the prime-mover here was the bump stock. It was the same thing on the ground as it was on the gun, a novelty.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Regarding guns and "gun control", it's funny how those of us on the Right accuse the Left of being so wrapped up in emotion that they cannot understand logic and reason, yet there appears to be many on the Right who are so emotionally wrapped up in their logic and reason that they cannot understand common sense.

You mean like more "common sense" gun control laws.

The only "emotion" I have when someone wants to take away my Second Amendment Rights is >

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
An example in this thread: Lots of people are so emotionally wrapped up in the "ZOMG don't ban bump stocks!" argument that they don't see the fact that in this specific Las Vegas mass shooting case they made the shooter able to kill more people than he would have without them.

And so did those 100 round Surefire magazines. I suppose you wouldn't mind giving those up as well.

Common sense and all...

Jerry vs the evil bump stock:

"They" have nothing to offer. What they have which we want - rights they've already taken way - already belong to us. Always have. Compromising in such ways is tantamount to negotiating with known terrorists, and is something that should never, ever, be done. It lends credence to the ridiculous idea that they were OK to take away in the first place. Or that we must give away a different right to get another one back. Which is crazy talk.

Our rights are as fucked up and over regulated as they are because of similarly weak minded, or wrong minded, afraid, authoritarian minded, ambivalent, and anti liberty minded Americans who also bent over, gave in, negotiated, sacrificed a maiden, and failed to adequately consider the consequences - just like those who advocate regulation do now.

You who advocate or are ambivalent about more regulations play dangerous - and worse - pointless and unnecessary - games with everyone's rights. It couldn't be a worse idea.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

Fundamentally read this then:

Parsing aside, I don't agree with you that the prime-mover here was the bump stock. It was the same thing on the ground as it was on the gun, a novelty.

What does that even mean? “Parsing” aside? I assume you mean parsing as in analyzing the separate components. Shooter, skill, position, weapons, modifications, ammo supply, etc. I suppose if you set all that “aside”, then it is irrelevant, but only because you choose to “set it aside”.

I never said the stock was “the prime mover”, obviously the asshole behind the weapon was “the prime mover” as it was his actions that caused this. The stocks absolutely allowed for a higher number of casualties in this situation. I think (and evidently many subject matter experts agree) I presented a logical reasoning as to why.


Disagree? Fine, but those who disagree don’t seem to be offering any reason or explanation other than reduced accuracy which, in this situation, was irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Jerry vs the evil bump stock:

Must be faked cause the guy with the bump stock hit the target the same number of times Jerry did!

Sure Jerry had a tighter group, but in a mass shooter event a hit is a hit. Time wise, Jerry admitted the other guy beat him, if only by a fraction of a second.

Now do it again with 1000+ rounds instead of 10, how long can Jerry keep up that pace?


Seems the stock let an average schmo shoot more efficiently than the man with the fastest finger in the world. I am sure the flat-earthers will remain unconvinced though

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I will withdraw my support of the NRA if they cave on bump-fire kits. Under no conditions should the NRA EVERY give ground... you'll be floating in the ocean by the time politicians are done taking your ground.

I already did. I contacted them yesterday and told them I don't need to hear from them again. I don't use bumpstocks and don't own any. It's not about the stocks. With this appeasement to throw a sacrificial bone, they've lost all credibility with respect to firearms rights, so far as I'm concerned. I'm done with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:



Another hypothetical example: Lots of people are so emotionally wrapped up in the "ZOMG don't ban bump stocks!" argument that if the opportunity presented itself where a deal could be struck to place bump stocks on the NFA list in exchange for removing silencers from the NFA list, they would cry "ZOMG NO we're caving!". Yet, that would be a very good common sense deal for the Right to make.

No way in hell would Democrats agree to such a deal.