Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Technicality and we both know it. It allows continuous gas cycling of the bolt and trigger override (re set). Consider the source of the definition and that another author could word it differently. Different means to reach the same end.

Agree. He had 12 semi-auto rifles with bump stocks. To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience. Listen to the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing audio.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree. He had 12 semi-auto rifles with bump stocks. To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience. Listen to the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing audio.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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. As you said, all you need to do is listen to the audio, no human being can pull a trigger like that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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

[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