Stopping an active shooter

[Steve]

And just to avoid any misunderstanding, we should all acknowledge that in some states, FA weapons are not illegal. However, even in these states, the regulatory restrictions and oversight is much more severe. So, I'm using "illegal" as a shorthand for circumventing the law, whether it's the outright ban of these weapons in some states or to avoid the regulatory scrutiny and attention in other states.

 

[Steve]

That's fair. Was just making the generality, for the most part liberals are for gun control and conservatives are against it. Definitely not a hard rule.

I get it, but I think you're conflating Republican with Conservative, and Democrat with Liberal. Republicans tend to be pro gun control. Conservatives run the gamut.

 

[Buka]

Fifty nine dead. Hundreds injured. Could have been any of us or ours.

I don't care what he used.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I get it, but I think you're conflating Republican with Conservative, and Democrat with Liberal. Republicans tend to be pro gun control. Conservatives run the gamut.

Yup I'm conflating them. From my own experience, 95% of the time liberals are democrats and conservatives are Republican, so I use the terms interchangeably. The exception I see is people like myself who are part of a third party.

 

[lklawson]

But he did not do that. He used a mechanical aid that enabled him to fire at a much higher rate than he would have been able to maintain on his own, without that mechanical aid.

He used a fully automatic weapon.

Actually no. On both counts. He could have, literally, achieved the same effect by pulling the trigger really fast, repeatedly. In fact, that is exactly how "bump-fire" stocks work.

No, I'm not joking or exaggerating.

That's why most "serious gun guys" think that bump-fire stocks are a range toy.

Bump fires are lazy, inaccurate, and require the user to learn a kind of "technique" in order to get the to properly reciprocate.

I hate to be the guy who's argumentative but equating a bump-fire to FA is physically, definiotially, legally, and mechanically wrong.

Equating them is conceptually the same as saying that an Edsel Teletouch transmission is the same thing as an automatic transmission because you don't have to mess around with a stick-shifter.

Bump-fires are just not FA and the exact same effect can be achieved by by hooking one hand in your belt and holding the gun right (it's where the term "bump fire" actually comes from).

An even better "effect" that gets a very high cyclic rate and much better accuracy is just not having a woosy trigger finger.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I am usually right there with you, Kirk, but I couldn't disagree more on this one. The net effect is really what needs to be considered here, as in this case we can see that this is a combination of actions that are legal individually, but when combined result in actions that undermine the intent of the law.

We do disagree.

I'm going to write something which will seem insensitive. It is not intended that way. Track with me for a few.

The shooter (may his name be forgotten and may he be forever cursed) could have racked up a higher murder count if he hadn't used a bump-fire stock. Accuracy and better trigger discipline would have allowed many more hits. He was using and area effect strategy. He was depending greatly on luck to hit people.

I'm sorry but legally, definitionally, and mechanically, a bump-fire is simply not FA unless you want to claim that anything "shooting really fast (by my definition of fast)" is FA. In that case I've got a lot of human fingers which are now illegal.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

He used a “work-around” to devise a fully automatic weapon, hidden behind a convenient definition.

No. It's not a "work-around" or a loophole to circumvent a "convenient definition." It is the actual definition of Full Auto.

Otherwise, Jerry's finger is illegal and the ATF should confiscate it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually no. On both counts. He could have, literally, achieved the same effect by pulling the trigger really fast, repeatedly. In fact, that is exactly how "bump-fire" stocks work.

No, I'm not joking or exaggerating.

That's why most "serious gun guys" think that bump-fire stocks are a range toy.

Bump fires are lazy, inaccurate, and require the user to learn a kind of "technique" in order to get the to properly reciprocate.

I hate to be the guy who's argumentative but equating a bump-fire to FA is physically, definiotially, legally, and mechanically wrong.

Equating them is conceptually the same as saying that an Edsel Teletouch transmission is the same thing as an automatic transmission because you don't have to mess around with a stick-shifter.

Bump-fires are just not FA and the exact same effect can be achieved by by hooking one hand in your belt and holding the gun right (it's where the term "bump fire" actually comes from).

An even better "effect" that gets a very high cyclic rate and much better accuracy is just not having a woosy trigger finger.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

That’s fair enough, and I absolutely disagree with you on it.

 

[Flying Crane]

No. It's not a "work-around" or a loophole to circumvent a "convenient definition." It is the actual definition of Full Auto.

Otherwise, Jerry's finger is illegal and the ATF should confiscate it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Again, I absolutely disagree with you.

 

[lklawson]

Again, I absolutely disagree with you.

OK. What's your definition of Full Auto?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

Yup I'm conflating them. From my own experience, 95% of the time liberals are democrats and conservatives are Republican, so I use the terms interchangeably. The exception I see is people like myself who are part of a third party.

Right. I think you have it backwards. 95% of the time democrats are liberal. I think you're a great example of why the reverse is not true.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK. What's your definition of Full Auto?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Oh I understand, it is a convenient definition and the bump stock does not fit the definition as it has been defined by a government agency.

However, it is a device that enables a sustained higher rate of fire than the person would be able to sustain without it. I inderstand that use of the device technically results in a separate pull of the trigger for each shot. But it creates a momentum that results in the equivalent of shots being fired without the shooter deliberately pulling the trigger, i.e. the momentum created by the device makes it happen for him as long as he holds his finger in position.

The end result is equivalent to a fully automatic weapon. It is accomplished through use of a device designed for that purpose. It is much harder to reach and sustain that result without use of such a device.

Which is exactly what this fellow did, killing 58 people and directly wounding or causing a chaotic situation of panic that resulted in injury to over 500 more. I’ve seen police video of the incident, I’ve heard the audio of some of the shots. They are indistinguishable from a true automatic weapon. These were not short bursts of 2-4 rounds, but rather sustained fire that probably emptied an entire magazine of 30 or more rounds at a time.

I saw reference to a statement by a manufacturer of the bump stock, stating that there is currently nothing illegal about the device, and going to pains to describe why it does not fit the governments definition of an automatic weapon.

This is true.

However, I see a company looking to distance themselves from responsibility through plausible deniability for the role that their device played in this incident. I see a company with bankrupt morals and ethics and I feel it reflects the general morality and ethics of the industry as a whole.

I’ve rebuilt swords and have sold some of my finished items to some people. If I ever found out someone used an item that I made to kill someone, much less 58, I would be horrified. But that’s just me.

 

[PhotonGuy]

It is confirmed that he was using a "bump fire" stock.

While bump fire stocks do allow for what appears to be FA-like rates of fire, the way they work means that they are much harder to aim effectively. They require a certain "looseness" to shoot.

People who are trained on FA are repeatedly saying that this giant sucking douchebag sucked at FA technique. The reason that he has as many murders and injuries as he has is because he was shooting into a crowd of more than 20,000 (twenty thousand) people packed together like sardines.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

When firing FA you fire in bursts unless the weapon is belt fed in which case you can fire continuously but when using a magazine fed FA weapon you fire in two or three round bursts. You don't need to be accurate when shooting at a large crowd of tightly packed people if you just want to kill people and you don't care who as in the case of this psychopath.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Problem was that he had cameras along his perimeter. He would have killed you before you realized it. Unless you had a ballistic/riot shield against a rifle, you would have been killed. He had a lot of things planned out. If you were next door to him, it would have been dangerous, also. He would be taking on fire and you could become collateral damage.

There was nothing other than SWAT/Special Forces/Special Warfare who could have taken him out.

I hope that we find out his motives soon to determine if things were preventable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes there was a case of a hotel security guard being shot and injured in the hallway when he approached the door to the room. The shooter had put cameras outside the room so he would know if anybody was coming. Im thinking, perhaps hotel security should be armed and should wear bullet proof vests. Most of the time we don't even have ordinary police around the moment when something like this happens let alone SWAT teams.

 

[drop bear]

Right. That's what I heard too. Net effect is same. Right?

Exactly true. When folks refer to gun "loopholes", this is an example of what they mean, where someone can achieve something that is illegal by combining two things that are individually legal.

The net effect is that this guy had FA weapons.

I spent some time in the army. And we never went full auto. Guys came back from war and never went full auto.

Semi auto in the conventional manner has enough ability to effectively kill as any other method short of a belt fed machine gun.

So the bump stock aspect is kind of meh. It is mostly down to the amount of rounds you can hold, accuracy and portability. Which of course in your case is as much as the public want to pay for.

 

[drop bear]

Just a point of clarification. There are liberal gun owners and conservatives who are not pro-NRA. And for the record, I am not anti-gun, and my liberal friends think I'm a conservative and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal, when I'm really just on Team Common Sense.

Responsible gun use is the term I like to use.

 

[PhotonGuy]

while this idea seems logical and a response many people might believe, the reality is that this was a crowd watching a show. everyone is packed together pretty tightly. the first problem as was mentioned is that most people have no idea what gun shots actually sound like. so while you may hear the ratta tat tat sound you will most likely just be looking around like everyone else. everyone else will just be looking around asking "what was that" you will have no visual context that triggers your brain into flight mode. you will be more inclined to be in freeze mode since your brain has not been able to asses the threat. once you see bodies dropping,,guess what so does every one else and the chaos begins. you will be trampled and pushed ,,pulled away from friends and loved ones, your emotional first response will be to get back to your loved ones. people will be running in EVERY direction. you will be like a fish trying to get up stream. you will have to navigate the crowd. it is a pure fantasy that some how you will make your way to cover as if no one else was there. so your going for cover?,, so are hundreds of other people.
'It was hysteria. People were trampled': panic as Las Vegas gunman opened fire

I see what you mean. The last time I remember being in such a tight packed area was in Manhattan back in 2008 when the Giants had just won the Super Bowl and it was so packed you could hardly move. It was crazy enough without any bombings or shootings or other such attacks which thankfully did not happen. So I should probably just accept that if I am going to go places where there's lots of packed people that Im taking a risk.

Anyway, there were so many people and they were so tightly packed that he didn't need to be accurate. He probably would've killed more people if he had driven a truck through the crowd which seems to be the trend in Europe although it did happen in Virginia.

 

[drop bear]

Fifty nine dead. Hundreds injured. Could have been any of us or ours.

I don't care what he used.

I think the discussion is on trying to prevent this happening again. Part of that would be restricting the ability to do this kind of thing.

As nothing will get done about it the conversation is kind of moot untill the next one I suppose.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Still to refer to it as fully automatic is inaccurate.

If you were to tell me he used a fully auto weapon then it makes me wonder was he licensed, if not how did he purchase full auto, was it a straw purchase from a licensed individual, etc...

Where as if you refer to it accurately as a semi-auto with a bump stock then those questions do not come up.


So when Kirk stated there were no FA weapons used....he was correct.

Had he used a FA he would've no doubt got it off the black market. At least some of his guns he must've got off the black market.

 

[PhotonGuy]

And just to avoid any misunderstanding, we should all acknowledge that in some states, FA weapons are not illegal. However, even in these states, the regulatory restrictions and oversight is much more severe. So, I'm using "illegal" as a shorthand for circumventing the law, whether it's the outright ban of these weapons in some states or to avoid the regulatory scrutiny and attention in other states.

From what I know you can get FA weapons in some states but to do so requires licensing at the federal level and you have to pay an expensive fee and you get registered with the federal government as a Class III firearms holder and even then you can only get FA weapons that were manufactured prior to 1986.