Apparent mass shooting on Las Vegas Strip

[n david]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

So, I take it that you enjoyed shooting atleast to a small degree. With that being the case I don't understand how you can be for the government banning anything to do with shooting.

This isn't a gun which they want to ban. It is a device which causes legal semi auto rifles to function like an illegal fully automatic rifle. I see no issue.

If they wanted to ban rifles like the AR-15, I'd be upset. They're not.

Even the NRA is open to Congress passing some sort of regulation on it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Because under the AFT in 2010 (under BHO) made them legal.

Hmmm.

I don't see their logic. If they're going to ban automatic assault weapons, it only makes sense to ban that which can essentially turn a weapon into an automatic assault weapon.

I'm sure they had a reason. I just don't see it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

In a full auto the trigger is depressed once, the internal trigger mechanism does not move only the firing pin. With a bump stock you depress trigger and the recoil forces the internal trigger mechanism to act as if it is being depressed repeatedly. The is quite a difference in the two. Also it is not hard for a practiced shooter to fire mechanically as fast as a bump stock.

What is the difference to an individual who is under fire?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

This isn't a gun which they want to ban. It is a device which causes legal semi auto rifles to function like an illegal fully automatic rifle. I see no issue.

If they wanted to ban rifles like the AR-15, I'd be upset. They're not.

Even the NRA is open to Congress passing some sort of regulation on it.

Gun owners are typically a responsible bunch. They don't want anything that would make it look like they are circumventing the law. That would make them look pretty bad to the average American.

I can support banning bump stocks. The 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms. That would include for hunting, sport, collection, and self-defense. And there are plenty of fine weapons to choose from to use for hunting, sport, collection, and self-defense. One doesn't have a Constitutional "right" to own a "bump stock".

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by n david

Don't be an arrogant jerk like the other poster. I don't need a lesson on how they work or definitions. I know how it works.

I was not attempting to be an "arrogant jerk", simply to correct a fallacy you posted. That fallacy being that a bump stock turns a gun into a "full auto".

Originally Posted by n david

turn a semi-auto into a full auto.

Originally Posted by n david

tell me that isn't full auto.


Video 1, Full auto AR15:

Originally Posted by n david

but that is absolutely full auto.

I have simply been attempting to correct what I saw as a mistake in your post.

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not confused about anything. You're arguing semantics. You're arguing that the bump stock is repeatedly pulling the trigger, ergo not a true full auto. It's true that the bump stock is doing the work, but the person firing the gun is not. It has the same effect, albeit slower cyclic rate, as a full auto. Set as semi auto, one trigger pull, one round. Set as full auto, one trigger pull, it will fire until released or until you run out of rounds.

I already conceded that you could make the argument it behaves LIKE a fully automatic, I was merely pointing out that - by definition - it is not a true fully automatic.

Originally Posted by Jito463

It may give the appearance of full auto - one could even argue it is effectively the same as full auto - but it is not actually full auto.

I'm not arguing with you that its rapid fire isn't similar to a fully automatic, just that it doesn't fit the definition of one.

Originally Posted by n david

I've talked with guys who have used these, to the person firing, there is little difference between using the bump stock set on full auto and using a fully automatic rifle. It's similar in that the person does not have to pull the trigger repeatedly, as the video I posted clearly shows.

Little difference perhaps, but there is a difference.

Originally Posted by n david

No, THEY are not.

https://youtu.be/U7DTjSla-O8?t=3m06s

SHE is not pulling the trigger over and over.

Clearly you are confused. Words mean things and stuff like that.

Clearly, you did not read my post thoroughly before lashing out at me.

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's just it, they ARE pulling the trigger over and over. It's just handled by the bump stock.

Originally Posted by n david

"""“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles

Originally Posted by n david

it allows a semi auto rifle to function like a fully automatic rifle.

Functioning like a full auto doesn't make it a full auto. This is the only point I've been trying to convey through my posts. Your initial posts made the mistake of stating it was converted into an actual fully automatic weapon. I was correcting your mistake and pointing out that they could act similar, but they wouldn't actually become one.

Again, I never intended to come across as being an "arrogant jerk", I simply wanted to correct a mistake I saw. If I failed to convey that properly and offended you, I apologize for my lack of clarity.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

So, I take it that you enjoyed shooting atleast to a small degree. With that being the case I don't understand how you can be for the government banning anything to do with shooting.

Fudds have no concern about banning things they don't understand or don't own. They never understood that little part in the Second Amendment that says "shall not be infringed."

They read that and think "that means I can get a license (permission) from the government to hunt muh couple a white tails each year... and catch me some fish. As long as I have, and give them, my social security number..."

I watched an NRA Board Member say in a news interview you don't need anymore than 5 shots in a rifle, so "dem high kerpassity clipses outta be illegal."

[houston]

I find it a little humorous that people think their guns will go up against a tank in this upcoming civil war Con v. Lib, or is it overthrow the gov- like in colonial times, or helter skelter? I dunno. And not sure which side I want to side with.

[Amanah]

Las Vegas Shooter's Father Was on FBI's 'Most Wanted'

Before he was nabbed in July 1960 for robbing banks in Arizona, Benjamin Hoskins Paddock Jr. was described as a "big-hearted" family man, operating a filling station while raising four boys.

But when the Federal Bureau of Investigation finally caught up with him, neighbors, according to The Tucson Daily Citizen archives, had one concern: his oldest son Steve.

"We're trying to keep Steve from knowing his father is held as a bank robber," neighbor Eva Price told the paper. "I hardly know the family, but Steve is a nice boy."

Fifty-seven years after that newspaper article, authorities said Stephen Craig Paddock opened fire on a crowd of 22,000 from his hotel room on the 32nd floor of Las Vegas' Mandalay Bay Resort, killing at least 58 and injuring more than 500.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/las...t5R&ocid=ientp

[Aquila]

Personally, I think greater access to mental health services would make a bigger difference than gun control measures.

We can try to get the fork out of the hands of a person who has gone off the deep end, but then he'll just turn around and spoon you to death.

Everyone knows that I'm an advocate for universal healthcare. I think a focus on physical, emotional, and psychological health and healing would make far more of a difference than merely banning guns or tools relating to firearms.

But that's just my opinion.

[Amanah]

Those who fought the Revolution and wrote the Constitution knew that the government cannot keep us safe. Because they used violence against the king and his soldiers to secede from Great Britain, they recognized that all people have a natural right to use a weapon of contemporary technological capabilities to protect themselves and their liberty and property. They sought to assure the exercise of this right by enacting the now well-known Second Amendment, which prohibits the government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...p-us-safe.html