CDZ Should bump stocks be legal?

[Geaux4it]

I'll never change my mind on this subject.

You know why?

People kill people
People have killed people since there have been people
People will kill people for as long as there are people on the earth.

That is a fact as irrefutable gravity.

I don't expect you to

You can watch video of a shooter raining down fire at high rates of speed on thousands of concert goers and think......

Too bad for them

The fact that no law, gun ban or doodad ban would have stopped him doesn't matter to you at all does it?

A law limiting him to ten round magazines would have slowed him down
A law banning bump stocks would have made him pull the trigger on each shot

But 10 rounds is not enough for me using my weapon in self defense. I side on the side of law enforcement, 15 round minimum

-Geaux

OK

I could support 15

But why do we need 100?

IDK. I have 30 rounders for my M4. The larger capacities like 100 round drum etc are very prone to jamming not to mention add significant weight to the weapon.

-Geaux

 

[Skull Pilot]

I will weigh the past 100 plus years that semiautomatic rifles have been available to the public in my decisions.
You will base your decisions on a single bad act.

The million of people who own and who have owned semiautomatic rifles over the past century have proven that this weapon in the hands of the public poses less of a threat to human life than do fists, knives, hammers and many other instruments of murder.

How many deaths will it take before you change your mind

I'll never change my mind on this subject.

You know why?

People kill people
People have killed people since there have been people
People will kill people for as long as there are people on the earth.

That is a fact as irrefutable gravity.

I don't expect you to

You can watch video of a shooter raining down fire at high rates of speed on thousands of concert goers and think......

Too bad for them

The fact that no law, gun ban or doodad ban would have stopped him doesn't matter to you at all does it?

A law limiting him to ten round magazines would have slowed him down
A law banning bump stocks would have made him pull the trigger on each shot

So? And technically he did pull the trigger for each shot he just used the natural recoil of the rifle to move the gun instead of moving his finger

And how many times do you have to be told that you can bump fire a rifle without any add on doodads?

 

[Humorme]

I'll never change my mind on this subject.

You know why?

People kill people
People have killed people since there have been people
People will kill people for as long as there are people on the earth.

That is a fact as irrefutable gravity.

I don't expect you to

You can watch video of a shooter raining down fire at high rates of speed on thousands of concert goers and think......

Too bad for them

The fact that no law, gun ban or doodad ban would have stopped him doesn't matter to you at all does it?

A law limiting him to ten round magazines would have slowed him down
A law banning bump stocks would have made him pull the trigger on each shot

Yeah, right. 10 second magazine swaps. B.S. pal.

link where I said anything about 10 sec magazine swaps

You didn't say anything about it. I did. The solution to limit magazine capacity is silly. If you need fifteen rounds per engagement, it's an idiotic law to limit mags to 10 rounds.

You know the value of your life; I know the value of mine.

Video Shows Georgia Woman Exchanging Gunfire With Burglars, Killing 1

 

[Humorme]

I'll never change my mind on this subject.

You know why?

People kill people
People have killed people since there have been people
People will kill people for as long as there are people on the earth.

That is a fact as irrefutable gravity.

I don't expect you to

You can watch video of a shooter raining down fire at high rates of speed on thousands of concert goers and think......

Too bad for them

The fact that no law, gun ban or doodad ban would have stopped him doesn't matter to you at all does it?

A law limiting him to ten round magazines would have slowed him down
A law banning bump stocks would have made him pull the trigger on each shot

But 10 rounds is not enough for me using my weapon in self defense. I side on the side of law enforcement, 15 round minimum

-Geaux

OK

I could support 15

But why do we need 100?

Can bad guys get 100 round magazines? How does trying to pretend you can turn the clock back on technology serve you well in the real world?

 

[jon_berzerk]

how about pressure cookers

Sorry, you mist not have seen my post above.

This is a logic fallacy. If I have two broken toilets in my house but can only afford or have the time to fix one, should I fix it?

Yeah, if you wanna debate what the hardware store should do if I buy propane, a pressure cooker, a bag of marbles and a remote detonator that is a valid concern.

Do you think the regulations om automatic rifles needs a rounds per minute line added apparently? Or revoked or what?

no it is not

any tool can be used for killing

it is the intent in the heart of the criminal

not the fault of the tool

you just want to toss it out because it does not fit with your agenda

what about rental trucks ban em

Do you think the regulations om automatic rifles needs a rounds per minute line added apparently?

nope another senseless feel good law

there are rules already in place on "automatic rifles" which a bump fire is not

 

[jon_berzerk]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I see no reason to ban them. They are used for hobby shooting

-Geaux
=======

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

 

[flacaltenn]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I see no reason to ban them. They are used for hobby shooting

-Geaux
=======

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

He knew what arsenal he had and fired accordingly
He was able to fire until the barrel burned out and then reach for another gun
If he got down to his last two guns he would have started firing short bursts to save his last guns
He never had to....he had plenty of firepower left

Even if you have one rifle. A twelve second burst and a hundred round magazine is going to inflict tremendous carnage in a movie theater or classroom

When you have a demonstration of that with this bump stock gimmick -- you show everyone.. OK? The rifle was not designed to sustain continuous fire like that. None of the commercial AR variants are..

 

[flacaltenn]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I see no reason to ban them. They are used for hobby shooting

-Geaux
=======

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

Same here.. It's a gimmick without a need. No one is trained to engage like that --- except jihadis.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I see no reason to ban them. They are used for hobby shooting

-Geaux
=======

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

Same here.. It's a gimmick without a need. No one is trained to engage like that --- except jihadis.

more of less a novelty item really

wastes a lot of ammo and money

 

[Humorme]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I see no reason to ban them. They are used for hobby shooting

-Geaux
=======

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

 

[jon_berzerk]

I see no reason to ban them. They are used for hobby shooting

-Geaux
=======

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm changing my mind on this since news broke this morning that they found 3 jammed rifles in the apartment. I'm starting to think this gimmick could actually SHORTEN a mass shooting. He fired for about 3 minutes of the 9 minutes of the shooting and jammed or burnt up 3 rifles.

This bump stock "gimmick" is NOT conversion to full auto. The rifle can't handle it with such a crude "feedback" device. And maybe jamming rifles of mass shooters stupid enough to use them is a GOOD thing. Because MOST mass shooters are not gonna have a ROOMFUL of weapons and accessories with them.

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

 

[Humorme]

He had 12 rifles

He knew he had plenty and showed no attempt to reduce his fire rate or use short bursts to conserve his barrels. What did he care?
He was never going to fire those guns again

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

 

[jon_berzerk]

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

well put same feelings here

 

[Toronado3800]

How many mass shooters are gonna have 12 rifles? If they carried 1 -- they'd jam/burn it up in a minute. It's ALMOST a safety device for most people. Because the gun wasn't DESIGNED for this "gimmick".

That said -- I don't think that gimmicks or toying with semi-auto weapons is a big enough hill to die on fighting gun-phobes.

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

 

[yiostheoy]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

I'm surprised that the Obama administration did not go after these bump stocks sooner.

He/They were pretty hot about green tipped ammo.

Green tipped is candy compared with a bump stock.

 

[yiostheoy]

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

Loop hole.

 

[Humorme]

i dont care if they ban them doesnt solve anything

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

I'm not sure I understand your posts. So, let's see if we can meet at some point.

Automatic weapons for civilian use were made illegal when Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting the future manufacture of full auto for civilian use.

The difference between the bump stock and full auto fire is that the bump fire fires rapidly, but it is not full auto fire. Bump stocks are not as controllable nor as accurate as full auto.

Then again, this is more about left wing semantics. If the shooter had not used a bump fire stock, but relied on night vision optics and aimed semi auto fire, with that big a crowd, he could have doubled his kills.

So, knowing this, why does the liberal, knee jerk response still represent a danger? It's simple:

I've had the opportunity to acquire and use bump stocks all my life. But, full auto fire is primarily suppressive. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single weapon and semi-auto only mode. And he had far fewer targets to shoot at. I would still pass on owning a bump fire stock. But, we all realize that the issue is about one insignificant cosmetic feature today and tomorrow it's another. And the left will always be saying "well it's a start."

Our founding fathers as well as the earliest court decisions did not allow for government meddling in the Right to keep and bear Arms - and for good reason. Today, we could reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings without gun control.

The left will NEVER entertain that discussion. Their agenda is about banning guns not saving lives.

 

[Toronado3800]

What?????

banning a thing will not solve anything

until you can ban evil intentions

there are always going to be such tragic events

look at the shooter in the norway attack in 2011

he took 77 lives with weapon that is all but impossible to get in Norway

one similar to this

he lied on his application and said it was for deer hunting

I know its difficult but just because something is hard to do does not mean we should not try.

Insert one of a billion analogies here.

There are some rabbit holes honest and intelligent people do not want to go down.

Sure, you can ban bump stocks although, in reality, Congress has no such authority. Bump stocks made the shooter's kill count go down, not up, but nobody is interested in reality.

What you want is to ban a cosmetic feature of a firearm that does NOTHING to save lives. The objective of the left is not to change things for the prevention of death - it is only for the objective of banning guns.

This issue is not hard. It is easy to take a giant dump on Liberty on the pretext of Safety. It's going to be harder for ethical politicians NOT to cave in to worthless feel good ideas that solve NOTHING.

When you want to sit down and discuss things that will prevent mass shooters without banning guns, we can have THAT conversation. I have a feeling you won't have that conversation. This is not about saving lives; it's about the left wanting to ban guns. The left only cares about the loss of lives when it helps them take advantage of a political crisis to further their agenda.

Why ban automatic rifles if not bumpstocks? I do not understand the logical difference.

I'm not sure I understand your posts. So, let's see if we can meet at some point.

Automatic weapons for civilian use were made illegal when Ronald Reagan signed a law prohibiting the future manufacture of full auto for civilian use.

The difference between the bump stock and full auto fire is that the bump fire fires rapidly, but it is not full auto fire. Bump stocks are not as controllable nor as accurate as full auto.

Then again, this is more about left wing semantics. If the shooter had not used a bump fire stock, but relied on night vision optics and aimed semi auto fire, with that big a crowd, he could have doubled his kills.

So, knowing this, why does the liberal, knee jerk response still represent a danger? It's simple:

I've had the opportunity to acquire and use bump stocks all my life. But, full auto fire is primarily suppressive. Omar Mateen killed 49 people with a single weapon and semi-auto only mode. And he had far fewer targets to shoot at. I would still pass on owning a bump fire stock. But, we all realize that the issue is about one insignificant cosmetic feature today and tomorrow it's another. And the left will always be saying "well it's a start."

Our founding fathers as well as the earliest court decisions did not allow for government meddling in the Right to keep and bear Arms - and for good reason. Today, we could reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings without gun control.

The left will NEVER entertain that discussion. Their agenda is about banning guns not saving lives.

Is the effective "ban" on fully automatic rifles good yet a potential ban on bumpstocks too far?

The revolutionary reason for owning a gun gets further out the window every day. I can not buy a Sherman or arm a true P-38 as much as I can't purchase a F-22 or cruise missile. If I am a good free Kansas revolutionary or whatever and I think my gun is going to help me....it will in so far as the military may not be able to subdue me peacefully and take me alive. They will just use overwhelming firepower to kill me

 

[miketx]

Recent events have me thinking about these. Essentially it is a device which if I understand right somewhat clumsily uses the recoil of the rifle to make it fire faster.

Full-Auto Fast - Product Update - $99 Bump Stock - GunsAmerica Digest

I have never fired a gun with one. When first watching the video's of the recent tragedy I thought, "Is that an automatic rifle" but it was almost too slow.

Now according to the AP the gunman used a bumpstock Las Vegas shooting: Gunman had ‘bump-stock’ device that could speed fire – The Denver Post Which would explain the rate of fire.

So, if I understand bumpstocks are only good at firing into a herd or crowd since they reduce accuracy?

Is the rate of fire sufficient they should be regulated like automatic rifles are?

Or are they no big deal and I should be able to go buy one?

They are legal now and should remain that way.