Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I respect you as a person as a member. I do NOT respect your opinion, nor do I have any duty to do so. That opinion is awful. You, however, are a nice guy.Full-autos are not and should not be illegal nor should they be as heavily regulated as they are.
I never said full auto was illegal. I said bump fire stocks should be banned. As far as whether full auto should be heavily regulated or not, your opinion is just fine...but it is an opinion. And I do respect it. It would be nice to afforded the same respect.
There's a disconnect here. You can fire something like 5 shots a second with a semi-auto. That's 300 rounds per minute. About the same rate of fire as an M3 submachine gun. Let's guess that you could fire twice that many with a bumpfire stock. Fine. But the shooter isn't going to achieve a practical killing effect twice as great (or anything close to that) because he increased his rate of fire. That's not how automatic fire works at all.Because illegality stops people from being able to kill people? Because people who would commit mass murder care that an item they might make with a few dollars worth of parts is illegal?
Because it enables someone to wreak mass havoc within a limited timespan. It's the rate of fire that let him sling that much lead so fast, and the bump fire stocks made it super simple and easy to do.
There may be some degree of increased lethality. But it isn't large.
It really ISNT just a question of through-put. Nobody who's used automatic weapons would say that.It's irrelevant anyway, because the guy didn't need a bumpfire stock nor full-auto to do what he did. Not at all. Could have produced the same effect with 'most any semi-auto rifle. He had 7 times more time to fire than he used. Bumpfire didn't make him appreciably more lethal.
The time he spent shooting shows that he was pretty darn lethal with the shots he got off. Enabled by bump fire stocks. It's basic throughput. Whether he needed them or not is irrelevant. He used them, on all of his rifles, as far as I've read. In the time he spent shooting, he would never have gotten off as many shots shooting semi-auto with the same casualty rate. When you're flinging lead like that so fast man, it's just no bueno.
I just pointed them out. Yes, there are.If our rights were up to those of us with such shallow commitment to our rights and seeming complete inability to understand the technical flaws with these arguments, it would indeed be "Game Over."
Fortunately, it is NOT game over.
Shallow commitment? Man, you make a lot of assumptions here. And that is a problem. There are no technical flaws in more bullets in short period of time = more damage, is there? It's basic fact.
All of which dodges the actual problem that we should NOT be accepting culpability for this by giving up our guns. (Or, for many of us brave negotiators... ...giving up somebody else's weapons.)