The LV shooter did.No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The LV shooter did.No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.
490 yards.Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.
Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?The LV shooter did.
ATF rules a 14 inch shoe string is a machine gun:
A rubber band is a machine gun:
In fact, you can rapid fire a gun simply by how you hold it to your shoulder
So, please provide a list of all things to be banned to prevent rapid fire of any gun. Start with bellies, hips, shoulders, and fingers, because any of those can be used to do it.
The reason gun rights supporters object to the banning of a relatively useless range toy is that it is just one more meaningless, feel-good-only, ban from the left. It's that pattern of banning these that have no effect on the murder of babies in Chicago and other cities that worry us because bump stocks are just one in a long history, and longer plan going forward, of meaningless, ineffective, bans that are designed, in the end, to remove our ability to exercise our natural right to the tools of defense.
Look at you, changing the conditions of the test.Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?
Without a half his weapons (6) being equipped with bump stocks?
Wouldn't have happened my friend.
That was the point of my post. Instead of trying to determine every way possible to make a gun fire that fast, we need to just ban guns that are capable of rapid fire at that level. If it can fire that fast, by whatever means, it should be banned. Of course, existing guns would probably have to be grandfathered in, just like machine guns were, but any future manufactured guns would have to limt the rate of fire.
Again, that was my point. The purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.Good luck with that. John Browning turned a lever action rifle into a gas operated machinegun in a day. Legislation will never keep up with innovation. Smart people are smarter than you idiots. Just admit it and leave them alone. The violent predators that you support will do just fine. You don't need to help them commit their crimes.
No you idiot, nobody can pull a semi-auto trigger 9 times in a second.
Chris Everett - Quora
Chris Everett
Gun owner, extensive knowledge in technical and legal issues related to guns.
Answered 5 years ago · Author has 9K answers and 53.4M answer views
The rate of fire number is fairly misleading. From an engineering perspective, yes, the rate of fire could be classed as 180 rounds per minute, or even higher. But just because that’s the rate, doesn’t mean that you can actually fire 180 rounds in a minute.
The rate of fire is going to be slowed by the fact that you have to do mag changes every 30 rounds or so, by the fact that your finger won’t be keeping up for that long, and probably even by heat in the rifle.
Realistically, an experienced shooter can probably fire 3 rounds a second, at least to start. But every 30 rounds (ten seconds) they need to stop and reload. That reload will take about five seconds, unless you are VERY fast. So that’s 30 rounds in 15 seconds (effective fire rate of 120 rounds per minute, not 180). Few people will retain that fire rate through the a full minute, probably slowing to closer to two rounds per second by the end. My guess is that an experienced shooter (though not a professional) is probably looking at around 90 rounds a minute of effective fire. You might be able to speed it up a bit if you sacrifice all accuracy and normal use of a firearm.
And, yet, he missed about half of the time.Didn't need to be accurate loon. Any idiot can hit a crowd of 25,000 people from an elevated position at 100 yards. Stop being Stoopid.
thats a situational issue,, if my house is attacked by hundreds of antifa I would love to have a bumpstock instead of a single shot semi-auto,,,
Shoot the guy with the megaphone and the rest run.If you shoot the front 3, the rest run.
And statndard-capacity magazines.If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.
in only that one scenario,,No....as I told the other two idiots, the bumpstock pushed the muzzle up and likely jammed the rifle...saving lives.
Sooo....you are an idiot too...
you hope the rest run,, rather not take that chance,,,If you shoot the front 3, the rest run. If it were a crowd determined to die to get you, you would definitely want semi-auto.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to prevent such bans. In Miller, the Court ruled explicitly against such bans. The Constitution guarantees our right to own one of these:Again, that was my point. The purpose is to limit the rate of fire, not any specific design. You were correct when you said (paraphrased) that somebody will always come up with some new way to get around specific design rules. The machine gun ban became obsolete as soon as the same rate of fire could be acheved by other means. If a gun is capable of firing faster than the determined limit, by whatever means, it should require some design that limits rate of fire. Problem solved.
you hope the rest run,, rather not take that chance,,,
not sure how you miss when they are shoulder to shoulder,,
Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.The intent of the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to prevent such bans. In Miller, the Court ruled explicitly against such bans. The Constitution guarantees our right to own one of these:
door gunner with minigun - Gunship Helicopters
Experience the thrill ride of a lifetime on this adventurous shooting experience with the infamous minigun from an open-door helicopter! The minigun, AKA angunshiphelicopters.com
they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,Do you agree with the machine gun ban? Why do you think machine guns were banned? It was because of their rate of fire. Advances in technology have made that ban obsolete, because the rate of fire can be matched by newer designs, but the fact remains that machine guns were banned because of ther rate of fire. No other reason.
They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?they were banned because the government doesnt want the people having the same ability as they did,,
no I dont,, the 2nd was so the people to be as equally armed as any threat they may face and that includes full auto,,,They were banned because of their rate of fire. No other reason. Do you agree with the machine gun ban?