Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can we really say the same thing about bump stocks?

ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks....I read that he may have been more deadly with a weapon that was more targeted....bump stocks apparently make it very hard to control the fire and are frequented with problems....it took the police 72 minutes to get to him...

this would be the first "bump stock massacre" that I'm aware of...what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound

"the only way to have stopped this attack would be to..."

You're doing what too many (in my opinion) people on my side do, in regards to this question. I concede that there is no constitutional way to prevent all of these attacks from occurring. You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

What if we can make the attacks harder to pull off, and what if we can reduce the likely body count, when attacks do take place? For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people?

If someone proposes gun control, I don't think it's a valid rebuttal to point out that any given proposal, will not be a 100% guarantee of 0 future attacks. The minimum requirement for a proposal to be worthwhile, shouldn't be a guarantee of perfect results. If a proposal makes things better (but not perfect), isn't that maybe a good thing?

We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

I never said that

For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people? you are an actuary...do the math....he had 72 minutes to pull the trigger....how many bullets could he fire from semi


We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws? what law did I suggest doing away with?

I honestly can't follow your logic

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I honestly can't follow your logic

I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?

I will quote myself from a little earlier

"ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks..."

the windmills are taking a beating...