Simple question to gun advocates

[radical right]

Unless you can tell with 100% accuracy who will be criminally violent in the future, your suggestion is unfeasible.

I know more than a handful of people who have refused the suggestion that they might benefit from seeing a therapist BECAUSE it could lead to them losing their gun license or firearms. These aren't dangerous or violent people. They're dealing with stresses or the loss of family members or similar, low level mental health issues..

They aren't confiscating guns from these people, but they do want to put controls on them running out and buying more guns, or more powerful guns. Because of the current law, we don't even know how many guns these people have, so confiscation is completely off the table..

 

[radical right]

It's called subsonic ammunition and I actually own silencers so no, I know significantly more than you do. At the range he was firing he would have needed to use standard high velocity ammunition to be able to aim accurately. It's not like you see on TV dude. Just sayin...

then why did you say:

"Silencers" don't make the guns quiet. They protect the hearing of the shooter, but downrange they are every bit as loud. Stop speaking from a position of ignorance.

Using subsonic ammunition makes downrange virtually silent.

 

[radical right]

At the range he was firing he would have needed to use standard high velocity ammunition to be able to aim accurately. It's not like you see on TV dude. Just sayin...

NOPE, he may have to put a different barrel with a different rate of twist to maintain the accuracy. And maybe adjust for the additional bullet drop. But silencers are for close range use. .

 

[westwall]

At the range he was firing he would have needed to use standard high velocity ammunition to be able to aim accurately. It's not like you see on TV dude. Just sayin...

NOPE, he may have to put a different barrel with a different rate of twist to maintain the accuracy. And maybe adjust for the additional bullet drop. But silencers are for close range use. .

No, they're not. They are for any range, and where do you get this different rate of twist nonsense? That is fantasy land movie tripe BS dude.. On a pistol they can be made extremely quiet. And stop showing your ignorance by calling them silencers, they are properly called suppressors. They suppress noise, they don't eliminate it. I have a MP5SD3 SMG with the integral suppressor and it is incredibly quiet. So quiet that it loses most of its power so that in a situation where it is used the SOP is to dump the magazine into the target to make sure the target stops. I have handguns that are likewise very quiet, but I also have them on my Steyr SSG PII which is a very long range rifle.

 

[radical right]

NOPE, he may have to put a different barrel with a different rate of twist to maintain the accuracy. And maybe adjust for the additional bullet drop. But silencers are for close range use. .

No, they're not. They are for any range, and where do you get this different rate of twist nonsense? That is fantasy land movie tripe BS dude.. On a pistol they can be made extremely quiet. And stop showing your ignorance by calling them silencers, they are properly called suppressors. They suppress noise, they don't eliminate it. I have a MP5SD3 SMG with the integral suppressor and it is incredibly quiet. So quiet that it loses most of its power so that in a situation where it is used the SOP is to dump the magazine into the target to make sure the target stops. I have handguns that are likewise very quiet, but I also have them on my Steyr SSG PII which is a very long range rifle.

Putting a silencer on a high powered rifle is like putting mufflers on a dragster. As you said, you put a silencer on a pistol, and it's incredibly quiet.

But you can't put a silencer on a hand grenade. Well you can, but it would be equally dumb.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You can ban bump stocks, but they can be easily made at home, and someone as extreme or as sick as the Las Vegas murderer was wouldn't care whether they were illegal or not.
Go ahead and ban them,.

If they're made illegal, the person has to practice far from the maddening crowd. He can't take them to the gun range, or where other people might hear or see them.

Coincidence that republicans want to also bring back silencers?

You've been watching too many episodes of Law and Order.

And by the way, how much practice to you need to point in the direction of a large crowd and pull the trigger?

This is nothing but window dressing that will not solve anything. But be my guest, ban away if it will make you feel better.

 

[radical right]

You've been watching too many episodes of Law and Order.

And by the way, how much practice to you need to point in the direction of a large crowd and pull the trigger?.

There is a certain practiced finesse to operate a bump stock. It's not just point and shoot, the weapons user has to compress the stock, but not too little, not too much, but just right. Of the three bears, only one can fire a bump stock, without practice, practice practice.

 

[radical right]

Essentially, the bump stock bounced, or “bumps,” between the shooter’s trigger finger and shoulder. “The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing,” it says ” This modification can be done legally and allows the user to fire at rates similar to those of automatic weapons.

A Wikipedia post explains further that during a shot, the firearm will recoil (“bump” back) and the trigger will reset as it normally does; then the non-trigger hand pulls the firearm away from the body and back to the original position, pressing the trigger against the stationary finger again, thereby firing another round when the trigger is pushed back.

What's a bump fire stock and how may it have helped the Vegas shooter kill so many people so quickly?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You've been watching too many episodes of Law and Order.

And by the way, how much practice to you need to point in the direction of a large crowd and pull the trigger?.

There is a certain practiced finesse to operate a bump stock. It's not just point and shoot, the weapons user has to compress the stock, but not too little, not too much, but just right. Of the three bears, only one can fire a bump stock, without practice, practice practice.

I have used one many times, it's no big deal, anyone can do it.

Here's the thing, any time a tragic even like this happens, you guys immediately call for some sort of ban, some sort of restrictions on guns.
It would be great if it would actually stop a nut like the Las Vegas murderer, but it won't.

How about looking in a different direction for a change if YOU HONESTLY want to limit these situations ?

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

 

[westwall]

NOPE, he may have to put a different barrel with a different rate of twist to maintain the accuracy. And maybe adjust for the additional bullet drop. But silencers are for close range use. .

No, they're not. They are for any range, and where do you get this different rate of twist nonsense? That is fantasy land movie tripe BS dude.. On a pistol they can be made extremely quiet. And stop showing your ignorance by calling them silencers, they are properly called suppressors. They suppress noise, they don't eliminate it. I have a MP5SD3 SMG with the integral suppressor and it is incredibly quiet. So quiet that it loses most of its power so that in a situation where it is used the SOP is to dump the magazine into the target to make sure the target stops. I have handguns that are likewise very quiet, but I also have them on my Steyr SSG PII which is a very long range rifle.

Putting a silencer on a high powered rifle is like putting mufflers on a dragster. As you said, you put a silencer on a pistol, and it's incredibly quiet.

But you can't put a silencer on a hand grenade. Well you can, but it would be equally dumb.

Wrong. The suppressor on the rifle makes it so that I can shoot my rifle without having to wear my ear protection. Which makes shooting a lot more pleasant. You can trot out whatever straw man argument you wish, but I KNOW what I am talking about. And you don't. It's as simple as that.

 

[radical right]

I have used one many times, it's no big deal, anyone can do it.

“The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing,”

the trigger will reset as it normally does; then the non-trigger hand pulls the firearm away from the body and back to the original position, pressing the trigger against the stationary finger again, thereby firing another round when the trigger is pushed back.

Sounds simple to me

 

[westwall]

I have used one many times, it's no big deal, anyone can do it.

“The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing,”

the trigger will reset as it normally does; then the non-trigger hand pulls the firearm away from the body and back to the original position, pressing the trigger against the stationary finger again, thereby firing another round when the trigger is pushed back.

Sounds simple to me

Yes, it is so simple I can bump fire without using a stock. Anyone can.

 

[radical right]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

 

[westwall]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

 

[radical right]

Wrong. The suppressor on the rifle makes it so that I can shoot my rifle without having to wear my ear protection. Which makes shooting a lot more pleasant. .

You can put mufflers on a dragster, so they can drive without having to wear hearing protection too. But like with a high powered rifle, that makes it slower and less powerful.

If you want the full power of a race car, or a gun, wear the damn ear muffs or go deaf. Your choice.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

It's sad to have to have to look at these kind of extreme measures, but it's real world solutions that we need and not emotional outbursts that always look in the wrong direction.

 

[radical right]

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

Smoke grenades? Sniper teams? Why not just issue light sabers to deflect incoming gunfire?

 

[pismoe]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

-------------------------------------------- NO , I think that the American has the RIGHT to ALL the common weapons carried by the American combat soldier Slade .

 

[westwall]

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

Smoke grenades? Sniper teams? Why not just issue light sabers to deflect incoming gunfire?

Don't play stupid. Smoke is so well known as line of sight denial instrument that armies throughout the world have used it for centuries. The POTUS uses designated sniper teams so why not apply them to large scale events such as this. They could come in the week before and do a full site analysis, develop the most likely spots for a active shooter, and with four two man teams you could cover the entire event and there are plenty of retired Spec Ops soldiers out there to do the job competently, and with a minimum of public interference. In many venues they would never be seen.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. The suppressor on the rifle makes it so that I can shoot my rifle without having to wear my ear protection. Which makes shooting a lot more pleasant. .

You can put mufflers on a dragster, so they can drive without having to wear hearing protection too. But like with a high powered rifle, that makes it slower and less powerful.

If you want the full power of a race car, or a gun, wear the damn ear muffs or go deaf. Your choice.

Once again, you're being stupid. There IS no loss of performance when a high powered rifle uses a suppressor. Yet again you demonstrate your profound ignorance.