re: Bump/Slide stocks are flying off the shelves

quote:

---

And you don't NEED air conditioning, but go on ahead killing the whole planet with your electricity consumption in the name of comfort.

---

Because that's totally a reasonable comparison....

It is nice to know that you are a strong proponent of anthropogenic climate change, though.

quote:

---

Policy based on "muh feels" is harmful.

---

It has nothing to do with feelings. It's completely logic-based, but I'm sure the need for bump stocks and silencers has nothing to do with the macho feeling of shooting them, right?

quote:

---

I think bump fire stocks are stupid.

---

I totally agree. I also think they are dangerous.

quote:

---

Just like I think smoking pot is stupid.

---

Again, this is a completely irrelevant comparison. A joint has never been used to kill 59 people indiscriminately.

quote:

---

Owning a bump fire stock does not make you dangerous in the same way smoking pot doesn't

---

Your argument is quickly devolving.

quote:

---

You should only get in trouble if you cause harm with them like shooting up a concert or getting so high you can't drive properly and hit someone.

---

So, should I be allowed to keep a hydrogen bomb in my shed as long as I don't detonate it? That's the slippery slope you are climbing.

quote:

---

You do not get to dictate what people should and should not own.

---

Why not? Is this the anarchic state of Mad Max?

quote:

---

Also, you do not tell me what I do and don't need. If I want a silencer I should be able to buy one.

---

Okay, YOU tell me why you NEED a suppressor.

quote:

---

There is no data that shows they are more dangerous, and even if there was, it should not trump my rights to own one as long as I do not do harm with it.

---

If they do not increase your ability to kill people, why do special forces use them? Again, nothing should trump my right to own an H-bomb.

quote:

---

Again, nothing should trump my right to own an H-bomb.

---

We even sanction and punish other nation-states who develop thermonuclear weapons. You cats should stop resorting to that. It just rings hollow.

Most rational Second Amendment proponents have a simple standard:

If a police special reaction/SWAT/response team can have it, the citizenry ought to be able to have it (contingent on good behavior, of course).

Ditto for an infantry rifle platoon or squad.

However, the line is very reasonably drawn at mortars, artillery, etc., because those weapons cannot be used by the citizenry at large for individual or collective self-defense without more specialized training, support, etc. Plus the relatively low potential for self-defense versus the risk of misuse flip the risk reward equation dramatically against - largely because of the ordnance, not necessarily the delivery means.

They will have to rely upon their organized militia forces for that. We should all be cool with that. We should not, and no reasonable person should, be cool with a supposedly "free" state where only the government and their minions have exclusive franchise on lethal force.

Every state with such an arrangement is tyrannical - however soft or hard that tyranny may present itself.

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with feelings. It's completely logic-based, but I'm sure the need for bump stocks and silencers has nothing to do with the macho feeling of shooting them, right?

---

Really, of all deaths in the country, how many are caused by rifles with bump fire stocks? I can tell you that rifles of all kinds kill 5 times less people than knives. Regulation on them is stupid because it won't do anything.

quote:

---

Again, this is a completely irrelevant comparison. A joint has never been used to kill 59 people indiscriminately.

---

Fine, lets say heroin then. Heroine should still be legal. Better yet, large trucks similar to to the one in France used to kill over 80 people. They should still be legal.

quote:

---

So, should I be allowed to keep a hydrogen bomb in my shed as long as I don't detonate it? That's the slippery slope you are climbing.

---

Sure. The idea that people would want to do that is stupid though.

quote:

---

Okay, YOU tell me why you NEED a suppressor.

---

Hearing protection.

quote:

---

If they do not increase your ability to kill people, why do special forces use them? Again, nothing should trump my right to own an H-bomb.

---

They don't increase the capability for you to kill. You can kill the same amount of people with a suppressed rifle that you can kill with an unsuppressed gun. It helps with muzzle flash and noise in buildings though so you don't get nearly as distracted (you should still wear ear protection ever while using silencers). They are not inherently more deadly.

quote:

---

Legally obtained suppressors have never been used in a crime since the NFA's inception in 1934

---

And how could that possibly be verified? Nobody has ever been caught when using a legally obtained suppressor to commit a crime.

quote:

---

And how could that possibly be verified? Nobody has ever been caught when using a legally obtained suppressor to commit a crime.

---

Are you insinuating that suppressors make perps un-catchable?

this discussion has evolved past bump fire stocks which I still maintain are dangerous and a circumvention of legal semi auto

suppressors have nothing to do with this

quote:

---

Are you insinuating that suppressors make perps un-catchable?

---

I didn't insinuate that at all. This goes back to "I have never seen $1,000,000, so therefore $1,000,000 does not exist." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote:

---

Hearing protection.

---

"Legally obtained" would mean they are documented. So that is one way. But that would only be valid if the shooter was apprehended. If not, no one knows to even look to see if a documented suppressor was used. So chances are that it has happened at some point in time.

Certainly murders have been perpetrated using an illegal suppressor. That's why all suppressors were illegal for some time.

In this case, I don't think a suppressor would have made a difference either way. At the distance he was shooting, with non-subsonic ammunition, the people on the ground would hear the sonic crack before they would hear the muzzle blast anyway. Having said that, my opinion is suppressors have a place at the range to control noise. That's about the end of it. These guys that say they are going to pick off more feral hogs because they don't hear the shot are probably right to some degree. But that isn't a practical reason for allowing suppressors to be legal.