Started By
Message

re: Bump/Slide stocks are flying off the shelves

Posted on 10/4/17 at 7:30 pm to
Posted by Jester
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2006
34401 posts
Posted on 10/4/17 at 7:30 pm to
So, he did no more harm with multiple black rifles with bump stocks than he would have done with the same number of bolt action .270s? That's asinine.
Posted by Propagandalf
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2010
2528 posts
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:20 pm to
Let's for a second say that your statement is true and the use of a "safe" gun, like a bolt action .270, would have resulted in marginally fewer casualties. That would've been OK with you in the sense you wouldn't be here advocating common sense gun regulations? Would that have made you look at the situation as a person doing evil instead of trying to blame an inanimant object? Would that have instead made you ask the question whats wrong with the country that's driving this trend and what can we do to fix it? I'll give you a hint, it's not the guns. People have been able to legally own guns since their inception and machine guns since the late 1800s to present and mass shootings are a recent trend.

As for the question about the .270 bolt action, we'll never know because that's not how it happened. What I do know is that a .270 at 300yds would have a more devastating impact on a crowd of people than a 5.56 round because of it's superior ballistics and terminal ballistic characteristics. Add in controlled fire, better shot placement, the wide availability of magazine fed bolt actions such as the OB fave Tikka T3 and the fact that bolt action rifles were once the most fielded infantry rifle in the world and you could make a good case the damage could have been equal or more.

I hear your shtick, but what's your point; what's your endgame? Do you truly believe if bump fire stocks were banned it would have prevented this? PREVENTED. Would he have used another gun? Would he have used other means? Because if it still happens, people still lose their lives and it's the same amount of tragedy. The pro-gun anti-gunners are the worst of them. Your arguments are so contradictory they dont make sense. At least the anti-gunners are consistent because whether somone views guns as too dangerous for the public or not, it's mutually exclusive. You cant reasonably argue one gun is dangerous because it has the potential to kill X number of people but another gun is OK because it can only kill Y people.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram