I am probably alone in this opinion, having seen several saying otherwise, but I don't believe the use of bump-fire stocks by the Las Vegas evil loser necessarily saved lives.
The argument is that a bump-fired rifle is difficult to aim accurately, bouncing around as it does due to how bump-fire stocks work, and had he aimed more carefully, he could have killed more people. I think this is completely irrelevant.
That's because if you are firing into a dense crowd, from a distance (and at height), you're probably not going to be really aiming, beyond generally pointing at the crowd. You aren't going to pick out individual "prey animals", but you're going to spray the "herd" with bullets and see what you hit. A bump-fire stock would mess up aimed shots, but not indiscriminate rapid fire. And, someone choosing to carefully pick targets at that distance would probably have chosen an entirely different type of rifle, to begin with.
Of course, I'm suspicious that the narrative around that event is being manipulated and lies are being pushed. But, it doesn't matter.
No one has the right, or the "authority" to make up "laws" against weaponry, weapon parts, or add-ons. It doesn't matter what some evil loser uses a particular weapon for. The right is absolute and not subject to a v*te, majority opinion, or anyone's feelings. It doesn't change after a tragedy or a malevolent act.
Any "laws" against bump-fire stocks are evil and stupid, as are those advocating them. Regardless of what an evil loser chose to do with them. The "laws" against self defense and against the proper tools to successfully exercise it are the problem-- one which could be solved so easily, if anyone actually wanted to.
Anti-gun nuts need to be rounded up and shot.
ReplyDeleteThe shooter was well within effective point target range for e.g. an AR-15 to fire aimed shots.
ReplyDeleteAutomatic fire -- or semi-automatic fire at rates approximating automatic fire -- results in muzzle rise, and bump firing in particular is very difficult to control.
If the guy had any marksmanship training at all, there's no doubt in my mind he would have killed at least half again as many people with aimed shots as he did with his stupid bump stock stunt.
I haven't seem any evidence (or claim) he had any marksmanship training. I might have missed it, though.
DeleteHe's probably a patsy. The whole thing reeks of psy-op stench. ...and I haven't even researched it that well. It's kind of obvious with too many discrepancies to be believed.
DeleteKent,
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether or not he had any marksmanship training.
But it's not like getting a college degree. Back when it was my job, I could get someone from zero to "hit a man-size target at 500 meters 10 times with 10 aimed shots from a stable position (generally prone for Marine Corps marksmanship qualification, but outside of a testing environment there are any number of ways to improvise a position where your body isn't fighting the rifle)" in two or three days.