Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You obviously have never used a bump stock before. You can't hit squat with one.
Uninformed comment.
You certainly can when firing into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people.
Increasing his rate of fire allowed him to inflict more damage as long as he kept his weapon firing even remotely on target considering he had a large surface area of bodies to aim at.
You certainly can when firing into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people.
Increasing his rate of fire allowed him to inflict more damage as long as he kept his weapon firing even remotely on target considering he had a large surface area of bodies to aim at.
Very informed as I have actually used one. Don't bother commenting on things you actually have no experience with.
I don’t think anyone is claiming it would have stopped him. The carnage might have been less.
I doubt that very much, and no one has any way of knowing that. You people are living in a fantasy land if you believe that you can stop anyone that's on a suicide mission from killing as many people as possible by passing more laws. Or stopping anyone who just doesn't give a sh*t about any laws. Laws only serve as a method to punish those who choose to willingly break them. If the knowledge that one may lose their own lives in carrying out a horrendous act is not a deterrent. I doubt very much that some stupid law will be? Not only that but if guns were not available they'd just resort to something else.**
There are already thousands of laws that address both the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. We certainly do not need any more laws. Especially those that seek to criminalize one's lawfully owned possessions, activities or for political retribution to be used against one's political enemies as many of these laws are.
Quote:
"The law has been used to destroy it's own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which it's real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." "But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder." --- The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman
**The Happyland Fire in 1990 at a Bronx social club in which 87 people died, something as simple as what was a dollars worth of gasoline at the time, a container and a match/lighter was utilized.
Although a lot more sophisticated and costly, the Oklahoma City bombing in which Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed at least 168 people, injured 680 others, damaged 324 other buildings and destroyed or burned 86 cars causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage. About $1,600 worth of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and $3000 worth of fuel oil were utilized. That's about the cost of four AR-15's
Something as simple as box cutters brought the World Trade Centers down and heavily damaged the Pentagon killing 2,996 and injuring more than 6000.
Quote:
Vehicles Are Becoming the Weapons of Choice for Terrorists www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vehicles-are-becoming...
"Vehicles are used in concert with other types of weapons," said Erin Miller, program manager for the Global Terrorism Database, who has analyzed the rise in this type of attack.
August 17, 2017, Barcelona, Spain — A van plowed into pedestrians in the Las Ramblas tourist area, killing 13 and injuring more than 100, according to officials.
June 3, 2017, London, England — A van was driven into crowds on London Bridge, after which the attackers left their vehicle and stabbed several people in the area. Seven people were killed and nearly 50 injured.
April 7, 2017, Stockholm, Sweden — A truck was driven into a Swedish department store, killing four people.
March 22, 2017, London, England — An SUV drove into crowds in London near Parliament. Four people were killed by the vehicle, and one police officer was stabbed after the driver left the vehicle.
December 19, 2016, Berlin, Germany - A truck was driven into crowds at a Christmas market, killing 12 people.
July 14, 2016, Nice, France — A truck was driven into crowds on Bastille Day, killing 86 people.
I don’t think anyone is claiming it would have stopped him. The carnage might have been less.
Maybe, might, could all crystal ball stuff.
If you've ever shot a 15 in 6.5 at 400 yards they are extremely accurate and there is zero recoil, not even enough to pull you off target. Once your target is moving and trying to hide spraying lead isn't a way to hit anything. A 15 power scope and a rest would have put the death toll into the hundreds.
I doubt that very much, and no one has any way of knowing that. You people are living in a fantasy land if you believe that you can stop anyone that's on a suicide mission from killing as many people as possible by passing more laws. Or stopping anyone who just doesn't give a sh*t about any laws. Laws only serve as a method to punish those who choose to willingly break them. If the knowledge that one may lose their own lives in carrying out a horrendous act is not a deterrent. I doubt very much that some stupid law will be? Not only that but if guns were not available they'd just resort to something else.**
There are already thousands of laws that address both the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. We certainly do not need any more laws. Especially those that seek to criminalize one's lawfully owned possessions, activities or for political retribution to be used against one's political enemies as many of these laws are.
**The Happyland Fire in 1990 at a Bronx social club in which 87 people died, something as simple as what was a dollars worth of gasoline at the time, a container and a match/lighter was utilized.
Although a lot more sophisticated and costly, the Oklahoma City bombing in which Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed at least 168 people, injured 680 others, damaged 324 other buildings and destroyed or burned 86 cars causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage. About $1,600 worth of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and $3000 worth of fuel oil were utilized. That's about the cost of four AR-15's
Something as simple as box cutters brought the World Trade Centers down and heavily damaged the Pentagon killing 2,996 and injuring more than 6000.
So your basic premise is that since there are many different things that can be weaponized even common sense firearm restrictions are not an option to reduce mass murder?
Like many special interest organizations, not all members (or even most) agree with the official position of the organizations to which they belong. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons. You can't hunt with them, they're terrible for target shooting, and virtually useless for self defense. All they're good for is suppressive fire (cover fire) - a necessity for military operations and maybe some extreme domestic law enforcement situations, but of no use to the average citizen.
I'm not losing any sleep over the bumpstock ban. Savvy gun-rights advocates aren't either and know that wasting political capital on this weakens our overall gun rights agenda.
There is an upside to fully automatic weapons. Stupid criminals who use them are less likely to hit anything. Also, they're wasting tons of money on ammunition.
Personally, I can't think of a good reason for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons. You can't hunt with them, they're terrible for target shooting, and virtually useless for self defense. All they're good for is suppressive fire (cover fire) - a necessity for military operations and maybe some extreme domestic law enforcement situations, but of no use to the average citizen.
I have the natural right to own whatever I GD well please. No one has the right to tell another person what they can and cannot own--no matter your "feelings."
Quote:
I'm not losing any sleep over the bumpstock ban. Savvy gun-rights advocates aren't either and know that wasting political capital on this weakens our overall gun rights agenda.
Savvy gun-rights activists are the ones who filed the lawsuit to stop this blatant violation of property rights. Fudds like Not Real Activists are the ones who pushed for the ban.
Like many special interest organizations, not all members (or even most) agree with the official position of the organizations to which they belong. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons.
Theyre good for maintaining Life, Liberty, Pursuits of Happiness.
The second amendment isn't in place to protect hunting... it was never about hunting... Washington didn't cross the Delaware River to go bag and tag bucks/does.... Neither did militia members take up arms against tyrannical wildlife... or the colonists before the revolution...
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
they're terrible for target shooting,
Oh? So that's a good thing then, as the shooters are less likely to control a full auto and likely miss their targets?
Depends on the weapon though. Last time FN did a demo day, I managed to put a belt through a SAW and get every round on a silhouette target 100 yards down range. That was prone with the belt box supporting it though. Standing and shouldering it maybe not.
When police do nothing about 3 drug dealers that try to burn down your house... West Kentucky Star - News
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
All they're good for is suppressive fire (cover fire) - a necessity for military operations and maybe some extreme domestic law enforcement situations, but of no use to the average citizen.
I beg to differ. They're a hell of a lot of fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
I'm not losing any sleep over the bumpstock ban. Savvy gun-rights advocates aren't either and know that wasting political capital on this weakens our overall gun rights agenda.
Ahh... the so long as it doesn't affect me. Capitulation is not how firearm rights are obtained... that's how they are lost...
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
There is an upside to fully automatic weapons. Stupid criminals who use them are less likely to hit anything. Also, they're wasting tons of money on ammunition.
So they should be legal then as they're less likely to hit something? Repeal Hughes. I'll form 1 bunches of firearms to full auto. So will many others. Treasury department will be able to chip away at the National debt real fast with E file form 1 machine guns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
