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.
Themis wrote: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.
There are speed optics for both long and close range. They make speed optics for hunting, to pick up a charging bear or boar at close ranger. You can google these. The make fast focus for longer ranges.
I am not the gun guy I was years ago, I like WW2 vintage rifles the best. I shoot maybe three times a year now days, but my neighbor is into it big time and he keeps me informed on the latest equipment. He is into air rifles, that are crazy powerful and accurate, big time and his optics for his air rifle is designed to hit a ground squirrel on a dead run at 50 yards. He farms out to local farmers and land owners to limit the GS population which is out of control in our area due to no natural predators.
Markk wrote: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.
And yet after the Las Vegas slaughter, bump stock sales skyrocketed among gun enthusiasts because they feared a ban was coming.
Markk wrote: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.
Only to the morally bankrupt. The Las Vegas shooter had only a 10 minute window before authorities identified his location and was able to get to him. Bump Stock is the reason the shooter managed to shoot 481 people (killing 59) and fire off more than 1,100 rounds in that short amount of time. So roughly every 18 rounds = 1 murder.
The fact is, if bump stock didn't exist, the shooter never would have been able to get off that many shots and probably a dozen or more lives would have been saved.
Markk wrote:There are speed optics for both long and close range.
Yes but they are for hitting a particular target. This person didn't have a particular target but a large area he wanted to put a lot of bullets into, which is why he choose devices to help him increase the number of bullets he could fire and didn't need to worry about good accuracy.
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."
I think Doc knows about guns.
As to the general population, I'd postulate that some of the most fervent, so-called Second Amendment backers don't seem to know much about firearms, either. The proposed idea of arming school teachers proves that point.
Themis wrote: Yes but they are for hitting a particular target. This person didn't have a particular target but a large area he wanted to put a lot of bullets into, which is why he choose devices to help him increase the number of bullets he could fire and didn't need to worry about good accuracy.
I agree, he did choose them. But the point is there are more effective weapons some one could use. The bump stock vs modern optics with a semi auto...in my opinion the bump stock is less effective than the latter.
Question...was it ever revealed what weapons he actually used...didn't he have like 20 some weapons in the rooms?
thanks
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:I agree, he did choose them. But the point is there are more effective weapons some one could use. The bump stock vs modern optics with a semi auto...in my opinion the bump stock is less effective than the latter.
What, with your vast experience hunting humans and all?
Markk wrote:Question...was it ever revealed what weapons he actually used...didn't he have like 20 some weapons in the rooms?
He had:
Fourteen .223-caliber AR-15-type rifles with bump stock Eight .308-caliber AR-10-type rifles One .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 342 AirLite TI revolver One .308-caliber Ruger American bolt-action rifle
As to the general population, I'd postulate that some of the most fervent, so-called Second Amendment backers don't seem to know much about firearms, either. The proposed idea of arming school teachers proves that point.
LOL... I 1000% agree, there are a lot of ignorant people on both sides of the issue, and I certainly do not claim to be an expert. And I am sure Doc knows his guns, that is good.
Aside from the gun, what are some of the underlying issues can we discuss and/or take to help these kinds of things from happening?
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:As to the general population, I'd postulate that some of the most fervent, so-called Second Amendment backers don't seem to know much about firearms, either..
Markk wrote:Question...was it ever revealed what weapons he actually used...didn't he have like 20 some weapons in the rooms?
Kevin Graham wrote:He had:
Fourteen .223-caliber AR-15-type rifles with bump stock Eight .308-caliber AR-10-type rifles One .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 342 AirLite TI revolver One .308-caliber Ruger American bolt-action rifle
Did they all have bump stocks...do you have a link where I can read more?
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"