Republican Turncoats Introduce Anti-Gun Law!

Fullauto223cal's picture

Republican Turncoats Introduce Anti-Gun Law!

Florida Republican Carlos Curbelo along with 9 other turncoat Republicans introduce the first formal anti-gun law after the tragedy in Las Vegas. It's also backed by 10 Democrats.

3.857145
Average: 3.9 (7 votes)

Comments

theblackswordsman's picture

Supremacy Clause?

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Good, these bump fire things and most likely all other similar devices reduce accuracy. a well trained shooter would have been more successful aiming and shooting rather than bumpfitring in the crowd.

 

Just look at how the rifle tip goes up and down around the 9 minute mark when he does his "thumb trick", It is idiotic to shoot like this (it is fun to shoot fullauto from the hip, though, I must admit). The thing has a pistol grip for a reason after all!

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
phanto's picture

I disagree with your assertion that full auto is always less effective. 

 

In a situation where the target is a crowd large enough that the cone of fire created would easily fit inside it and dense enough that every bullet shot has a high probability of hitting something even if they weren't truly aimed then the faster you can shoot before that crowd disperses the more damage you will cause during that window of opportunity.

 

And the "thumb trick" clip is not representative of how the shooting in Las Vegas was done. That bump fire stock allows better control over the weapon and therefore reduces the size of the cone of fire, contributing to the effect stated in the paragraph above.

 

The only legitimate concern I see is they have to carefully word the definitions of the legislation to make sure it only covers those stupid bump stocks and other cheesy "full auto simulating" devices and that it doesn't cover things it shouldn't cover like short reset triggers.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

As far as I have seen with the concert situation the crowd was relatively slow with people even lying on the floor that's why I would not have used fullauto in this situation.

 

Especially the bumpstock makes it harder to aim as the rifle is bouncing backwards and forward (and with that up and down and left and right. For me these things are penis extensions you put on a penis extension and only fit for showing off on the range (or for a relative bad shooter to hit many targets in a crowd).

 

SRT are a different kettle of fish as they INCREASE accuracy, which would be my priority anyway. I am sure these -in contrary to bump stocks- are used in competition.   

 

In day to day home protection these things are useless for the average person, though. I am not a fan at all of handguns being used for that anyway as only VERY FEW people are good enough to hit a moving target in a stressful situation with it and even if you do many times the perp is so pumped up or high on drugs that they will keep on coming at you anyway. Hell, firing a pistol takes a lot of training if you are not a "natural", even on static targests.

My weapon of choice would be a guard dog or if that is not possible or practicable a double barrel pump action shotgun with as short a barrel as possible (legal). 

 

And for those that -like me- never heard short reset trigger before:

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
phanto's picture

We both agree that bump stocks are stupid and we both agree that SRTs have a legitimate reason to be (although I wouldn't say they practically increase accuracy, they merely make the gun more pleasant to shoot).

 

However I still disagree that the bump fire stock was a disadvantage in that situation. It allows the rifle to be used as a machinegun instead of a rifle. The difference being that a rifle uses accuracy to hit pinpoint targets while the machinegun is used to create a cone of fire on an area, relying more on volume of fire than accuracy to achieve its effectiveness. This requires far less training to do so.

 

Now here's the interesting part. The pinpoint target engagement effective range of a weapon system is always shorter than its area effective range. And for effective area fire volume is more important than accuracy. In the situation of that shooting, trying to hit the pinpoint target of a person laying down from 500 meters away with aimed fire is not only difficult but also slow. And not to mention probably impossible since it is extremely unlikely such an untrained person would have had the proper ballistic solution dialed in for his rifle at that distance especially with such an important altitude difference between the shooter and the target, which requires some advanced knowledge to calculate. More than likely his impacts would have been several feet off the aiming point at that distance and the only way he would have hit a pinpoint target as hard to hit as a person laying down from that distance would have been to have been unintentionally aiming off in the correct direction for the correct distance at the moment of firing.

 

For this reason creating a beaten zone over a field where a densely packed crowd of people are laying down would allow even an untrained person to achieve a far greater effect. And by greater effect I mean higher probability of hits over time. And if the crowd is dense enough a difference in the shooter's training level wouldn't change that.

 

That being said, does a bump stock and bipod really turn a rifle into a machinegun? No. It would be far less durable, be prone to overheating and cookoffs and the high capacity ammunition feeding systems for it are bulky to carry and less reliable. There's a reason why actual machineguns are heavier than rifles. But in the situation of that shooting, these drawbacks did not matter.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

If you lppk at my replies above yopu will notice that we do actually agree (more or less) on the bump stock issue and firing in the crowd......

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down