Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

100% correct. To deny that bump stocks can be used to make a semi auto achieve near full auto functionality...well it's hard to talk to someone who would deny that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:



so which is it? "really fully auto"..."or not"....or...."near full auto"....hard to talk to someone that can't even make a simple distinction


according to the bump stock website...it is "simulated full auto"...so there's another term you can act smart with


this effort to marginalize if someone is trying to make a simple distinction(and since the discussion is over legality) when you are engrossed in emotional verbal venting is...well....makes communication tough

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Originally Posted by spence

To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience.



Quote:



so which is it? "really fully auto"..."or not"....or...."near full auto"....hard to talk to someone that can't even make a simple distinction


according to the bump stock website...it is "simulated full auto"...so there's another term you can act smart with


this effort to marginalize if someone is trying to make a simple distinction(and since the discussion is over legality) when you are engrossed in emotional verbal venting is...well....makes communication tough

Spence, as you said, all you need to do, is listen to the audio. One of the first cops at the scene radioed that he thought it was a belt fed machine gun. He shot 600 people, right? SIX HUNDRED.

Why split hairs over whether it's auto or "near full auto"? Why does anyone need bump stocks in their home?

Lots of people die in car accidents, but cars provide an incredible amount of freedom to almost every single one of us. That's why we tolerate the inevitable deaths, because society can't function without them.

Can we really say the same thing about bump stocks?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can we really say the same thing about bump stocks?

ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks....I read that he may have been more deadly with a weapon that was more targeted....bump stocks apparently make it very hard to control the fire and are frequented with problems....it took the police 72 minutes to get to him...

this would be the first "bump stock massacre" that I'm aware of...what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

"the only way to have stopped this attack would be to..."

You're doing what too many (in my opinion) people on my side do, in regards to this question. I concede that there is no constitutional way to prevent all of these attacks from occurring. You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

What if we can make the attacks harder to pull off, and what if we can reduce the likely body count, when attacks do take place? For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people?

If someone proposes gun control, I don't think it's a valid rebuttal to point out that any given proposal, will not be a 100% guarantee of 0 future attacks. The minimum requirement for a proposal to be worthwhile, shouldn't be a guarantee of perfect results. If a proposal makes things better (but not perfect), isn't that maybe a good thing?

We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

I never said that

For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people? you are an actuary...do the math....he had 72 minutes to pull the trigger....how many bullets could he fire from semi


We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws? what law did I suggest doing away with?

I honestly can't follow your logic

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Lots of people die in car accidents, but cars provide an incredible amount of freedom to almost every single one of us. That's why we tolerate the inevitable deaths

yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims

I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars. Not once, ever.

What you tell the victims of car accidents, is that you'll try to learn from what happened, to see if anything can be improved (safety engineering, speed limits, etc). It's the same principle here with guns.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars.

that's because they understand it's the vehicle operator(save mechanical issues) ...and not the vehicle in most cases

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense.

You are mentioning that velocity thing again. High velocity rounds are very suitable for hunting, preferred in many cases. Certainly important for target shooting and accuracy.

Originally Posted by spence

So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hopefully that remains the case.

Originally Posted by PaulS

I got that from what to you posted and I pointed it out.
You said the left politicizes the tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The left politicizes the tragedy and the right politicizes that the left politicized the tragedy.

Originally Posted by wdmso

own as many as you want they should all be registered..

and stop the lie there coming to take your Guns ...

Yes its your right to own a gun what about those 59 and counting Rights not to be killed by Guns "don't tell me what I can/can't own" I am sure thats a comforting remark to the Familys ...

Gun owners are so afraid to say there a gun problem in this country if your a responsible gun owner as you say you are be involved the change needed or get rolled over by it ..

There is a gun problem. Particularly the youth and gang violence and suicides - where most of the death happens. Other things like kid's gaining access to guns should also be better adressed (safe storage, separate ammo storage, etc)

They might not come to take the guns because it has been well established that they won't be given up easily, nor without a fight. But this has not stopped politicians from saying there should be a blanket ban and confiscation. And from politicians that have conducted partial bans it is not a big leap to complete bands. Some partial bans like like for imminent mental health concerns or DV instances which I would be OK with if it were not for the real consideration that they would not stop their.

[nightfighter]

Let me try again to explain my opinion. A bump stock modification is a "workaround" to circumvent the law on automatics. It allows the weapon to "mimic" full auto. I think even the gun rights side will be considering some "concessions" when it comes to this accessory.

[Slipknot]

I think the other 42 states should consider a ban on bump stocks, I have no problem with that. However, it probably won't prevent another mass shooting of innocent people. I also feel that this maniac had the means to apply for and buy a legitimate full auto rifle if he had the time and qualifications but maybe he he just went the bump stock route because it was easier.
They might be fun to shoot at a pumpkin shoot or something , but not practical for an everyday person.



As far as fingerprint reading on guns, hogwash. First put breathalizers in every car, truck or bus in the country before that lamebrain idea.