Stopping an active shooter

[lklawson]

da bump stock allows a somewhat continuous flow of projectiles with a single trigger pull through a mechanical means that does not require modification of the firing mechanism.

Nope. That's the legal definition of "Full Auto." Bump-fire DOES NOT DO THIS. The BATFE is downright anal about this definition and even designs that "can be readily converted" (which usually means "open bolt" designs).

Even with a bump-fire THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED FOR EVERY SHOT. There is, literally, no way around this legal restriction.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

What percentage of her patients do you estimate she commits for involuntary in-house treatment at mental health facilities?

No idea.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Rapid fire without having to (manually) pull the trigger over and over.

Bump-fire does not do this. The trigger MUST be pulled. If not the BATFE come in and makes life very uncomfortable.

The only reason we're having this argument is because the legal definition of "fully automatic" requires (in most cases, I think there have been exceptions to this) that the trigger only be pulled once. If the definition changed to "a single actuation of the external firing mechanism", then bump stocks and the sort of reverse-trigger device (I can't recall what it's called nor the manufacturer) would actually be classified within it. Both allow the user to make a single action and fire many times - the same effect as someone firing a fully automatic weapon.

No. The trigger still MUST be pulled for every shot. No matter what device you use, if the trigger is not pulled for every shot you're probably going to jail.

So far, what everyone seems to be arguing is "I don't like how fast it can shoot."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bump-fire does not do this. The trigger MUST be pulled. If not the BATFE come in and makes life very uncomfortable.

That's why I said "manually". The trigger is pulled by the finger staying in place (as is the case with the other device I was referring to). It's pulled for each shot, but not by the movement of the finger. It fits the legal distinction, but to the shooter isn't vastly different.

So far, what everyone seems to be arguing is "I don't like how fast it can shoot."

It's not really a matter of like/dislike. It started as a comment about the effect of the bump stock, which allows a rate of fire (with a single action by the user) that is similar to (though likely not equal to) a fully automatic weapon.

 

[Dirty Dog]

That's why I said "manually". The trigger is pulled by the finger staying in place (as is the case with the other device I was referring to). It's pulled for each shot, but not by the movement of the finger. It fits the legal distinction, but to the shooter isn't vastly different.


It's not really a matter of like/dislike. It started as a comment about the effect of the bump stock, which allows a rate of fire (with a single action by the user) that is similar to (though likely not equal to) a fully automatic weapon.

You seem to be forgetting (or unaware) that bump stocks aren't needed. Any competent shooter can bump fire without one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhotonGuy]

Yes. He had a pilot license and could have had a much greater effect by smashing his plane into the crowd.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

True, especially if the plane was packed with explosives.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You seem to be forgetting (or unaware) that bump stocks aren't needed. Any competent shooter can bump fire without one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not forgetting it. That's something different - let's call it a special skill, and is outside the area of discussion. Someone doing that is getting an effect similar to a fully automatic weapon.

 

[hoshin1600]

Nope. That's the legal definition of "Full Auto." Bump-fire DOES NOT DO THIS. The BATFE is downright anal about this definition and even designs that "can be readily converted" (which usually means "open bolt" designs).

Even with a bump-fire THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED FOR EVERY SHOT. There is, literally, no way around this legal restriction.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

as i was saying its a technical or definition difference. i am just being honest,, the only purpose of a bump stock is to simulate FA, thus circumventing the restriction and the law.

So far, what everyone seems to be arguing is "I don't like how fast it can shoot."

to be clear for myself,, i have no problem with people owning anything, be it a bump stock, full auto or a flame thrower. i am not against anything here, im just calling it as i see it. heck i would like to own all that myself.

 

[Steve]

No, I don't think so. From everything you have written, it really appears that your objections is "how fast can bullets come out of the end."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Exactly. You guys seem to think I'm trying to explain why a bump stock is equal to fully automatic fire. I'm not. I think you have done a great job of defining the terms. That's the disconnect. You're arguing about vocabulary. I think getting caught up in the vocabulary is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Steve]

Nope. That's the legal definition of "Full Auto." Bump-fire DOES NOT DO THIS. The BATFE is downright anal about this definition and even designs that "can be readily converted" (which usually means "open bolt" designs).

Even with a bump-fire THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED FOR EVERY SHOT. There is, literally, no way around this legal restriction.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

We could all support changing the law so that this loophole is closed. That's one way around this. Isn't it?

 

[lklawson]

Exactly. You guys seem to think I'm trying to explain why a bump stock is equal to fully automatic fire. I'm not. I think you have done a great job of defining the terms. That's the disconnect. You're arguing about vocabulary. I think getting caught up in the vocabulary is missing the forest for the trees.

I understand why you think that, but no. The "vocabulary," really the legal terminology, is hyper important here because (below)

We could all support changing the law so that this loophole is closed. That's one way around this. Isn't it?

That's why I'm "arguing" about "vocabulary." Because it simply is NOT a "loophole." It's the law. To follow this hypothetical, in order to "close" this "loophole" exactly what verbiage would you use? How do you define a "full auto" or "machine gun" so as to "close" this "loophole?"

There's a good reason so many of our Congress Critters are lawyers.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Buka]

I think getting caught up in the vocabulary is missing the forest for the trees.

Missing the forest for the trees? Not me, no sir, I have a scope and laser, I ain't missing nothing, I'm pumping my second amendment muscles! I'm a true American!

I'm so sick of guns, so sick of gun nuts, so sick of the NRA. Everybody go F themselves.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There was no smokescreen in pointing out that the weapons used were not full auto but merely bump fired semi-autos. It was simply clarifying the facts.

It was kinda like my wife coming in saying that something is wrong with her car's carburetor and after pointing out that the car is fuel injected and doesn't have a carburetor she continues to refer to it as the carburetor instead of the fuel injection for the rest of the night.

But at that point, I would just call it a carburetor when talking to my fiancee. She knows what I mean, I know what I mean, we can communicate, so who cares if the word was correct or not. Until someone else comes along and is confused, but even then I just explain to them my fiancee doesn't get cars so we're calling it x but it's really y, and then all 3 of us can continue with our day.

 

[Steve]

I understand why you think that, but no. The "vocabulary," really the legal terminology, is hyper important here because (below)

That's why I'm "arguing" about "vocabulary." Because it simply is NOT a "loophole." It's the law. To follow this hypothetical, in order to "close" this "loophole" exactly what verbiage would you use? How do you define a "full auto" or "machine gun" so as to "close" this "loophole?"

There's a good reason so many of our Congress Critters are lawyers.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

What do you think a loophole is? I looked it up to see how the term is defined on the interweb and it's precisely what I thought it was: "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." That is exactly how I view this situation. A is illegal, but I can circumvent the intent of the law by combining B and C, which are both legal and get me to an A equivalent.

I'm not disputing your position. I'm adding to it. I'm saying, "Everything Kirk says, AND...." Of course, defining things will be integral to closing the loophole. At that point, it will be very important to think about how things are defined. However, at this point, when we are still discussing whether a loophole even exists, these things are a distraction from the real question. You're looking for agreement on vocabulary. I'm looking for agreement that we have a problem, and if so, what that problem is.

Simply put, you're stuck on arguing the rule. I'm actually past that and am much more concerned with what the rule might look like to address the loophole. Call it a bump stock or automatic or Jennifer and it makes no nevermind to me.

 

[Steve]

There was no smokescreen in pointing out that the weapons used were not full auto but merely bump fired semi-autos. It was simply clarifying the facts.

It was kinda like my wife coming in saying that something is wrong with her car's carburetor and after pointing out that the car is fuel injected and doesn't have a carburetor she continues to refer to it as the carburetor instead of the fuel injection for the rest of the night.

For what it's worth, I totally understand that the vocabulary is important to you and why. I know you're not trying to smokescreen anything and are simply clarifying facts.

I think you and Kirk have done a really good job of explaining the technical and legal terms in lay English so that everyone understands what we're discussing.

 

[Steve]

So, getting things back to the subject of the thread, an "expert" was on the local news yesterday morning discussing tactics that can help you in a situation like the one in Vegas. Some things he recommended were below. Disclaimer, I am not an expert. This is my recollection of what the "expert" on the radio said that I'm sharing for discussion:

1: Try to identify where the bullets are coming from and either run sideways to it or, in some cases, toward it. The idea being that if you run directly away from it, the shooter can simply follow you with his fire. If you run to the side it's harder to chase you with any accuracy. And in some cases, if you run toward the shooter, you can actually make it harder for him to track you (think if you're up against the building and he's trying to shot straight down.)

2: Avoid lights and try to find shadows and dark spaces.

3: Keep your phone lights off to avoid drawing attention to yourself.

4: Find cover (duh).

5: First choice is to run and flee the scene. If you can't run, hide. If you can't hide, confront the shooter only if you have no other choice.

6: Focus on surviving the first 10 minutes. Statistically I guess these guys tend to shoot themselves after about 10 minutes. No idea if this is true or not.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head.

 

[drop bear]

Yes. He had a pilot license and could have had a much greater effect by smashing his plane into the crowd.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

But he didn't.

Considering the amount of time spent on whether he was using full auto or not. Inventing a plane packed full of explosives seems a stretch.

 

[lklawson]

Simply put, you're stuck on arguing the rule. I'm actually past that and am much more concerned with what the rule might look like to address the loophole. Call it a bump stock or automatic or Jennifer and it makes no nevermind to me.

I know it's frustrating to you but that's just not how laws work.

"Loophole" is what people call it when the law doesn't cover what they want it to cover, either ex post facto, or because they didn't write the law to cover what they thought they were.

There is a reason why laws are so detailed and specific. Lack of specificity means that whoever is interpreting the law can shift it one direction or another. That's why Maryland's Attorney General Maura Healey was able to interpret Maryland's "Assault Weapon" ban's language of “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon to ban rifles which were apparently not intended using the reasoning that, "If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a 'copy' or 'duplicate,' and it is illegal." Because the law lacked sufficient specificity, she suddenly decided to ban a bunch of guns, previously ruled as legal under the exact same law (it's important to remember this), that they were "copies" or "duplicates" because they shared a common operating system or could swap a component. So any gas-operated or recoil operated semi automatic rifle is a copy or duplicate. Any rifle which can share a barrel or a trigger with a named banned rifle is therefore a copy or duplicate.

It's not a loophole. That's just what people say.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

But he didn't.

Considering the amount of time spent on whether he was using full auto or not. Inventing a plane packed full of explosives seems a stretch.

Not really. Particularly given that planes have been used as weapons in high profile attacks before.

 

[lklawson]

So, getting things back to the subject of the thread, an "expert" was on the local news yesterday morning discussing tactics that can help you in a situation like the one in Vegas. Some things he recommended were below. Disclaimer, I am not an expert. This is my recollection of what the "expert" on the radio said that I'm sharing for discussion:

1: Try to identify where the bullets are coming from and either run sideways to it or, in some cases, toward it. The idea being that if you run directly away from it, the shooter can simply follow you with his fire. If you run to the side it's harder to chase you with any accuracy. And in some cases, if you run toward the shooter, you can actually make it harder for him to track you (think if you're up against the building and he's trying to shot straight down.)

2: Avoid lights and try to find shadows and dark spaces.

3: Keep your phone lights off to avoid drawing attention to yourself.

4: Find cover (duh).

5: First choice is to run and flee the scene. If you can't run, hide. If you can't hide, confront the shooter only if you have no other choice.

6: Focus on surviving the first 10 minutes. Statistically I guess these guys tend to shoot themselves after about 10 minutes. No idea if this is true or not.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head.

Somewhat sorta, kinda.

The first rule of a gunfight (even if you don't have a gun) is MOVE! Moving targets are an order of magnitude harder to hit and this guy wasn't using aimed fire apparently. Don't stand around and try to determine where the bullets are coming from. Move.

The second rule is move to cover. This is harder because cover is loosely defined as a barrier which stops the bullets. What is cover from a 9mm pistol is not always cover against a .308 rifle, for instance. The corollary is that if cover isn't available, move to concealment. Concealment is a visual barrier which hides you and therefore makes it harder to be deliberately targeted.

The third rule is to return fire as quickly as possible, preferably while moving to cover or concealment. As a general rule no one wants to be shot and having your target shoot back creates a non-zero chance of you being shot, even if he's moving (to cover) while shooting at you. Most people understand that when your target is shooting back that they should hunker down. This usually means ceasing fire, reduced fire, and/or less accurate fire.

The fourth rule is to be the first to put accurate shots on target. This is hard to do but if you can put shots on the target, your chances of winning go way up. The more accurate the shots (to vital areas) the more your chances go up. The more quickly you put shots on target, the more your odds go up. While an attacker might be able to continue to attack you after he's been injured, he also might not, however, not being injured ensures that he is still capable of continuing to attack you. This rule is often (slightly erroneously) summarized as "The first person to put shots on target usually wins."

To be specific to this horrible event (may the murderer's soul be tortured for eternity), the recommendations are to MOVE to cover; walls, indoors, brick walls, hiding, etc. I do not believe it very likely that it would have been a great benefit to stopping the shooting had anyone in the victim zone been armed, even with a rifle. The murderer was active, according to official police timelines, for 11 minutes. It is not easy for people trained to it to track down the source of fire at that distance, hight, and location, deploy their weapon, and return fire. Particularly if it is not a two-person team with one acting as a "spotter." A few minutes of confusion followed by the team trying to find a good place to setup for fire, then tracking down the exact location as well as the requirement for much better accuracy than the murderer.

What made this murderer stop was apparently his discovery by the hotel security guard. Once he shot the guard, it appears that he stopped and likely committed suicide soon after. LEO was on the floor and in position in 11-12 minutes. I did not believe this at first. Heck it takes 8 minutes to climb the stairs to get the right floor. However, it has come out that a 8+ man police team was, by pure coincidence, right there on site and responded immediately (good training there!). But it was still well over an hour before LEO breached the room.

That said, if you are armed and do have sufficient training and practice, making difficult shots at distance, even with a pistol, is not only possible but has been done, as shown when Airman Andy Brown (AF Security Police) stopped the mass murderer at Fairchild AFB Hospital with a shoulder shot and a head shot from 70 YARDS using is issue Beretta M9 9mm pistol.

So would it have stopped sooner had any in the victim zone shot back? Probably not, but there is evidence to support a solid "maybe."

My bet? Move to cover.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk