The bump stock used in NV

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
O

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
CountZero said:
Same reason you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater or any of the other numerous ways in which your free speech is limited. There are reasonable limits that may need to be enforced, for 2nd the limit that has been agreed upon thus far (and I believe already tested at SCOTUS) is at least at full auto.
Click to expand...

I could find no reference to the decision on the wiki article on 2nd amdt. And as linked above they've said that military equipment cannot be limited. So I still don't buy it. The action to harm connection to shouting fire is reasonably clear. Having a full auto weapon only give you the potential to possibly harm slightly more people. Even that is arguable since it would be inaccurate as hell. And even so; the 2nd amendment doesn't end with "...unless it can be too dangerous". It says right to bear arms, that's it. Full auto rifles = arms. Seems pretty clear to me.
 
MomentsofSanity

MomentsofSanity

Lifer
Jan 25, 2011
17,088
9,568
146
Not sure why it matters when the bump stock was cleared by the ATF. There was no legal reason for them to reject as it didn't modify a weapon itself to fire automatically. It would have gotten approval regardless when it was submitted I suspect.
 
Zorba

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
obidamnkenobi said:
How is full auto ban not unconstitutional? Like it or not (I don't particularly), the 2nd amendment is the law, so I don't see how banning certain weapons is allowed? I would think SCOTUS would strike that down quickly.
Click to expand...

The supreme court has already upheld it.
 
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Jeeebus said:
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

i understand your logic. but im not sure i agree. he was unloading hundreds of rounds into a area packed with people. the auto fire kept them down in the open as he was firing and kept them as targets. the sound of a rife on auto is damn scary especially when you are on the business end of it. now could you imagine if he used tracers to adjust his fire... a whole lot more people would be dead.
 
JSt0rm

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
The NRA knows they went too far this time. They are open to bans against this stuff. Probably because 22,000 nra members got the full brunt of freedumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
OutHouse said:
i understand your logic. but im not sure i agree. he was unloading hundreds of rounds into a area packed with people. the auto fire kept them down in the open as he was firing and kept them as targets. the sound of a rife on auto is damn scary especially when you are on the business end of it. now could you imagine if he used tracers to adjust his fire... a whole lot more people would be dead.
Click to expand...

I agree. He was shooting into a fairly packed crowd of 20,000 people in a relatively small space. It was more about maximum spray of bullets than selective targeting. At the distance and the drop from being 320 feet up accuracy is out the window(sorry, bad pun). The more bullets put down the more maximum carnage he could cause.

That's really the part the blows my mind in this whole thing. 200 yards up and 300+ feet high. I can't even fathom being there and trying to comprehend what and where that is coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
JSt0rm said:
The NRA knows they went too far this time. They are open to bans against this stuff. Probably because 22,000 nra members got the full brunt of freedumb.
Click to expand...

Not really. They are just going to use it as a really juicy bargaining chip to get some other thing passed that that they want.
 
Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
Jeeebus said:
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.
Click to expand...


I'm no expert but I don't buy that. Not like you have to individually target in a sea of 20,000 people cramped together.
 
Zorba

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
Jeeebus said:
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

Don't need accuracy when firing into a wall of people.

Something else though, say he had a good sniper rifle and he was a great shot. Psychology he may have stopped sooner because it would be easier to see the direct harm. It seems a lot of the mass murders stop well short of their plans and well before intervention. I have always assumed that the rush wears off and the realization of what they are actually doing sets in.

Even this guy stopped well before running out of ammo and before SWAT got there.
 
Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
Last edited:
cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,247
15,661
136
Thebobo said:
I'm no expert but I don't buy that. Not like you have to individually target in a sea of 20,000 people cramped together.
Click to expand...
And he had a what, 30 degree downwards angle to boot? He was gonna hit someone no matter what.
 
John Connor

John Connor

Lifer
Nov 30, 2012
22,757
619
121
Thebobo said:
Well they're blaming Obama for it now.
Click to expand...


Yep. But the rebuttal is that the Republicans could have stopped it or something. There's always a tit for tat in politics and no one is right or wrong. I think it just boils down to government failure. As is always the case. I mean here the ATF failed with bump stocks and now the IRS failed in giving a millions + no bids contract to equifax of all people. The bureaucracy is a swamp!
 
Svnla

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
Bump stock devices are hot at guns stores and are very much sold out online.
 
Zorba

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
OutHouse said:
how did the NRA go to far? Obama and the ATF allowed them. and referring to the concert goes as getting a taste of freedom is a sick fucking statement.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am really sure Obama weighed in on that decision. I promise if the ATF would've blocked them in 2010, the NRA would've lost its mind. A place I used to work, the people there made normal Okies look like gun grabbers, every single one of them had bump stocks back in 2012. Some of them because they honestly thought they might have to defend their house against the US Army, others just thought they were good home defense against criminals. I guarantee those guys are going ape right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo
B

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Puffnstuff said:
I believe that the laws need to be rewritten using the cyclic rate as the metric that defines a weapon's status. There has to be a clear definition on the rate of fire between a semi-auto and a fully automatic weapon. In my mind a semi-auto should fire 1 round per second max without any way to legally fire any faster which would render the bump fire stock useless. This is a problem that needs to be engineered out by the gun makers and lawmakers should clarify their intent better.
Click to expand...
That's garbage. If I can pull the trigger faster than that so be it.
 
B

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
John Connor said:
Tell you the truth, that is just insane to have something like that. I never even heard of such a thing. Hard to believe the ATF allowed it.
Click to expand...

Because it still requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. That's what's in the law. Surely you are not suggesting the ATF ignore the law?
 
Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,404
136
Again I am simply amazed at its intended purpose of allowing someone with severe arthritis or partially paralyzed the ability to shoot and again is there anyone in America that owns one for its stated purpose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom