High court to look at bump stock ban

Those were pretty much proven to be echos from buildings and structures reverberating back. They were all from the same gun.

 

Some posters here are, thats abundantly clear.

 

Is anyone arguing in this case that the Second Amendment precludes government from banning bump stocks? From what I can tell, the case largely involves statutory construction and whether ATF had authority to change its interpretation. I think bump stocks are illegal in Florida, for example, and people seem to be conceding that Congress could ban bump stocks if it chose to do so.

 

They’re not, the challenger even got a question about that yesterday and said that while the court could conceivably apply the constitutional avoidance doctrine, and there may be arguments with respect to the Second Amendment, they haven’t briefed that and are not raising a Second Amendment constitutional challenge in this case.

 

What if it is not a "broad area" maybe a class room? In that case I would say a shot gun and a pocket full of shells would kill most everyone in the room as fast as pretty much any kind off gun. Maybe they should outlaw shot guns.

 

I watched a movie the other day called Sicario: Day of the Soldado. Benicio Del Toro's character killed someone with a pistol but he seemed to fire it like a machine gun. Was he using a bump stock for a pistol or some other way?

Anyone seen this movie know what I'm asking about?

 

I'm not sure that many people watched the terrible sequel to Sicario haha

 

HA!, at least I didn't pay money for it. It was on FX or something. Supposed to be another one coming out. I do like Benicio Del Toro though.

 

There are machine pistols. Some are intentionally designed that way (although they serve very little purpose), most in the US are illegally modified.

Most common currently are the so-called “Glock switches” which are an auto-sear that replaces the backplate on a Glock slide. They are, and always have been, illegal, but they’re currently a bit of a nightmare for local police and ATF as they try to track them down because a bunch got falsely sold as “airsoft parts” on Wish.com and similar Chinese e-commerce platforms and illegally shipped into the US.

 

Thanks, it didn't look like a machine pistol, it looked like he stuck his finger or something else in the trigger guard and it went back and forth real fast. Here is the clip, towards the end. Maybe just Hollywood BS.
Benicio del Toro..... Adios. (youtube.com)

 

Thanks! The general idea there is relying on the same principle as bumpfiring, but it doesn’t use any accessories or modifications to do it.

In practice, you’re probably more likely to wind up shooting yourself in the head trying to do that than you are to successfully bumpfire (that’s a really insecure grip and a pistol firing rapidly wants to muzzle-rise to the point of flipping backwards), but yes, the general idea in that clip was to bumpfire by making the trigger bounce on your finger.

 

I am assuming here that there were many more instances of a mass murder with a hand gun then with an AR-15. You have to ask yourself, what were the situations where a "mass murder" with a hand gun took place? Family dispute? Drunken argument? Gang violence? A mass murder is any murder of more than three people. I've not heard of any of those types of situations where an AR-15 was used.
Now look at the AR-15. It's a more efficient murder weapon, killing more people in less time. Take it away and we save massive amount of lives from "mass murder". These are used where 10's of people are murdered who were just going about their lives.

 

Hmm, I suspect that reloading might be a bit of an issue in that case. I suspect killing 30 people in a classroom, which would require a lot of bullets shit in many different directions, would be much quicker with a rifle than with a shotgun that would require a lot of reloading.

 

Shot gun with an extended tube would absolutely be the most devastating, horrific weapon one could use in the instance. It’s not close. As Clint smith once said, up close in confined areas.. a handgun wil put a hole in you, a rifle will take a chi out of you, a shotgun will cut you in half.
Clint would know.

 

Okay, but is the concern the condition of the dead body or how many dead bodies are created? What happens to the shooter while reloading in this instance?

 

I am not so sure of that. In a room one shot from a shot gun could take out several people at a time. Aim is not much of a issue with a shot gun. Reloading a shotgun can be done very fast and fast enough to stop anyone from getting to the shooter. Neither would be good but outlawing one type gun is not going to stop mass killings. Having people think that is only making people feel safer not making them safer. These nut jobs that want to kill a lot of people and make the news will just use a different method is they need to.

 

I believe the quote was "handguns put holes in people. Rifles put holes through people. Shotguns at the right range with the right load will physically remove a chunk of s*** off your opponent and throw that s*** on the floor."

 

It is an issue if you are trying to stand at the front of a classroom and shoot people in all directions, especially as they aren't going to sit still while you fire and reload. I suspect that the revealed preference of rifles for school shooters is because the rifle is a better weapon for the task. Also, I think the idea would be to limit the number of people dead rather than eliminate the event by regulating the weaponry.

 

I just looked up the Columbine shootings. First they had planted two bombs that did not work thank goodness. The guns they used were 9mm carbine and a tec 9 mini that uses a pistol magazine not sure how may round magazine they had but probably held a lot of 9mm ammo. They also had a double barrel sawed off shotgun and a pump shotgun. No AR was use and no 223 ammo either from what I read. Pistol and shot gun ammo it looks like from a quick search. Again nut jobs will find a way to kill people if they are set on doing so. Of course as in most of these case armed security could have prevented a lot of people from being killed as would have faster police action. Gun free zones are not safe places.

 

Yep that’s it