For contrast, it got at tiny fraction the coverage that Hillary Clinton got for meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a globally respected intellectual who once donated to her husband's AIDS charity, got.
I'm probably underselling his credentials here.
...Yunus not only won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize but has also been honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a Congressional Gold Medal. In 2008 he was No. 2 on Foreign Policy’s list of the "top 100 global thinkers," and Ted Turner put him on the board of the UN Foundation. He’s received the World Food Prize, the International Simon Bolivar Prize, and the Prince of Asturias Award for Concord.
This was the topline example in a story on Clinton corruption that got massive coverage. Granted, this was in an election year, but contrast that with Donald Trump being personally paid by a cadre of the wealthy elite to be with him who then get to give him advice on gun control policy.
Kevin Graham wrote:Believe it or not, the NRA has actually spoken against bump stocks too.
EA is correct... bump stocks are a sacrificial lamb from the politicians. I have shot a bump stock and it is like holding a high pressure nozzle on a water hose two feet from the end. Very hard to control and takes a mental effort to control it, and takes away from actually pointing the weapon. In other words "you couldn't hit the side of a barn" with one, and the action is anything less that consistent.
With practice one could probably get good with one, but they are not what folks think they are...not even close in my opinion.
The trigger thing that someone posted here may be a different story, I have never seen one.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Kevin Graham wrote:Believe it or not, the NRA has actually spoken against bump stocks too.
EA is correct... bump stocks are a sacrificial lamb from the politicians. I have shot a bump stock and it is like holding a high pressure nozzle on a water hose two feet from the end. Very hard to control and takes a mental effort to control it, and takes away from actually pointing the weapon. In other words "you couldn't hit the side of a barn" with one, and the action is anything less that consistent.
What if you are shooting into a sea of people from a hotel room. Would it help there?
EAllusion wrote:The story was one of the wildest things I've ever seen in politics. Or rather, the way it was covered was. Rich people pay the president's businesses for the privilege of being close to him, and he's straw polling them on what his national policy on an important issue should be and genuinely seems open to taking their advice. You have some of the most egregiously obvious corruption we've ever seen happen with the presidency, and it barely produced a ripple in media attention.
For contrast, it got at tiny fraction the coverage that Hillary Clinton got for meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a globally respected intellectual who once donated to her husband's AIDS charity, got.
Hey, man... it's hard to drink when standing under Niagara Falls. If I didn't suspect ineptitude I would actually think the constant avalanche of ridiculous stories was a viable strategy for never getting pinned down on anything.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
Markk wrote:EAllusion is correct... bump stocks are a sacrificial lamb from the politicians. I have shot a bump stock and it is like holding a high pressure nozzle on a water hose two feet from the end. Very hard to control and takes a mental effort to control it, and takes away from actually pointing the weapon. In other words "you couldn't hit the side of a barn" with one, and the action is anything less that consistent.
What if you are shooting into a sea of people from a hotel room. Would it help there?
It would be lethal as proven in Vegas, but in my opinion nowhere near as lethal as a semi automatic rifle with modern optics at distance and from a elevated position.
A bump stock is a after market device not designed for an AR by the manufacture, at least as far as I know. It is more or less a gimmick, it takes away from the performance of the weapon in my opinion.
In a packed room, with a person that knows how to use a bump stock it would be very devastating.
This is why I believe the NRA would be okay to make concessions with it.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
EAllusion wrote:What if you are shooting into a sea of people from a hotel room. Would it help there?
It would be lethal as proven in Vegas, but in my opinion nowhere near as lethal as a semi automatic rifle with modern optics at distance and from a elevated position.
He wasn't asking you a question, Markk. He was teasing you. Many here know as much about guns as you do.
Morley wrote: He was teasing you. Many here know as much about guns as you do.
More of just ignoring the point of discussion...I get that...but many if not most of folks that want gun control, or as Doc that want a complete banning, don't have a clue about the "guns."
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Morley wrote: He was teasing you. Many here know as much about guns as you do.
More of just ignoring the point of discussion...I get that...but many if not most of folks that want gun control, or as Doc that want a complete banning, don't have a clue about the "guns."
Your argument is that bump stocks aren't particularly useful to a mass shooter because they decrease the ability to aim efficiently to such an extent that it isn't worth the increase in rate of fire. Therefore, a ban on them is a red herring. My counter-point is that we have a clear-cut example of them being useful to a mass shooter. I remain agnostic on the utility of bump stock bans, but your argument was trivially refuted by a recent, famous example. Anywhere a high rate of fire is advantageous over loss of ease of aiming, which is pretty much anywhere that a spread of fire gets the job done, refutes your case.
EAllusion wrote: Your argument is that bump stocks aren't particularly useful to a mass shooter because they decrease the ability to aim efficiently to such an extent that it isn't worth the increase in rate of fire. Therefore, a ban on them is a red herring. My counter-point is that we have a clear-cut example of them being useful to a mass shooter. I remain agnostic on the utility of bump stock bans, but your argument was trivially refuted by a recent, famous example. Anywhere a high rate of fire is advantageous over loss of ease of aiming, which is pretty much anywhere that a spread of fire gets the job done, refutes your case.
No, my argument is only that bump stocks aren't really useful as a product to the gun enthusiast...any weapon is useful to a mass shooter if multiple people die.
I am stating also that in regards to banning things gun related, the bump stock is a sacrificial goat that most gun folks would not have a major concern about.
You set up a straw man argument avoiding the context of my op on the subject. You turned my post about the bump stock into one about mass shootings, I simply answered your question beyond that.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Markk wrote:It would be lethal as proven in Vegas, but in my opinion nowhere near as lethal as a semi automatic rifle with modern optics at distance and from a elevated position.
The bump stock is more lethal in these situations where one is shooting into a mass of people and hitting a particular target is not the goal. Modern optics is not good for shooting at a mass of people, from such a distance, but for shooting a particular target. A bump stock would probably not be as good for many of the mass shooting we have seen as one may be running around and shooting at a particular targets. I agree that the bump stock is sacrificial lamb to protect from other better gun control initiatives.