ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th October 2017, 10:00 PM   #321
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,593
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post


What is disappointing is the number of people who are all butt hurt that someone used a device (slide fire stock) which probably had little effect on that night's tragic outcome.
You are trying to be rational with folks who aren't using reason. They have (1) fear, and (2) a way to - as they see it - punish their opponents. Reason can't compete with emotion fueled tribalism; you're wasting your time.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 10:27 PM   #322
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,821
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
You are trying to be rational with folks who aren't using reason. They have (1) fear, and (2) a way to - as they see it - punish their opponents. Reason can't compete with emotion fueled tribalism; you're wasting your time.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 11:28 PM   #323
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Everyone that heard the audio of the shooting and isn't hung up on some ludicrous technicality the gun lovers seem to think matters.

So your point challenging the consensus then?

Honestly Ranb, there may be more than a few members of this forum and other gun communities that care about some piddly little technicality. For me and other people I know who are not gun techies, no one gives a rip. The gun shots were rapid enough for drill. Why argue it wasn't automatic fire because... some stupid not relevant thing?
At least three Las Vegas officers at the scene said it was automatic fire.

Reality is that the NFA needs a minor amendment to close a loophole.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:18 AM   #324
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I didn't mean as a government power. I meant an individual using their ability... searching the internet, asking questions, etc.
Well, I've lost interest in what you think, Bob. At this point, my only interest in you is what happens if your brain fails catastrophically, as human brains are prone to do.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 6th October 2017 at 12:23 AM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:40 AM   #325
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,079
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I've done a lot of reading about the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founders.

They clearly saw government tyranny as a real threat that had to be kept in check by an armed populace.

I don't support the idea but its pretty clear they made the 2nd Am to provide for an armed public that could repel govt. tyranny AND to be called upon by the government to repel invasion and fight insurrection.

Neither purpose seems particularly relevant in the 21st century.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:46 AM   #326
fritznien
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
At least three Las Vegas officers at the scene said it was automatic fire.

Reality is that the NFA needs a minor amendment to close a loophole.
maybe or maybe not.what are you going to do about the way the gun is held? Bump fire can be done without a device. but more important getting rid of all autoloaders is still not going to help much. According to wiki the Lee Enfield rifle.

"The Lee bolt-action and 10-round magazine capacity enabled a well-trained rifleman to perform the "mad minute" firing 20 to 30 aimed rounds in 60 seconds, making the Lee–Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute"
Yes it took training. Lots of people would consider the training fun.

Last edited by fritznien; 6th October 2017 at 12:47 AM.
fritznien is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 12:56 AM   #327
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,079
Originally Posted by fritznien View Post
maybe or maybe not.what are you going to do about the way the gun is held? Bump fire can be done without a device.

I really don't have a handle at all on this 'bump fire' thing.

How hard is it to learn to do accurately?

How much easier does the device make it?


If it's difficult to learn and the device makes it easy I can see the case for banning a device that replicates automatic fire. If it's not at all difficult to learn and the device is just a gimmick that makes little to no difference then surely the legislation would be pointless.


(Full disclosure: The root of the USAs gun death problem is not the ubiquity of guns)
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 02:02 AM   #328
Sherkeu
Critical Thinker
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What good will it do when a person can bump fire rapidly without a slide fire stock? I asked you before, but only got evasion.

The rules currently say slide fire is legal without NFA registery. So no jail for you. The rubber bands and string, well, get a lawyer.
If I told you that any firearm capable of being modified or handled in any way that increases the rate of fire above X rounds/min, where X rounds is illegal, would only be allowed in designated ranges and otherwise locked inside those designated locations.... What happens?

What firearms, in general, would be moved to a designated range?
Which ones could still be kept at home for hunting and personal security?
Which ones could be redesigned to restrict any tampering so that only a legal rate of fire possible?

eta: I'm thinking rate of fire may be impossible to regulate, as 3point14 said, since there could always be some new 'trick' devised that no one thought of yet. Then the people who purchased those guns that later developed new 'tricks' would need to move their guns. You couldnt assure people that they could keep their guns where they intended to (home/business/etc...) when they bought them.

Last edited by Sherkeu; 6th October 2017 at 02:23 AM.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 03:41 AM   #329
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,605
Originally Posted by fritznien View Post
maybe or maybe not.what are you going to do about the way the gun is held? Bump fire can be done without a device. but more important getting rid of all autoloaders is still not going to help much. According to wiki the Lee Enfield rifle.

"The Lee bolt-action and 10-round magazine capacity enabled a well-trained rifleman to perform the "mad minute" firing 20 to 30 aimed rounds in 60 seconds, making the Lee–Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute"
Yes it took training. Lots of people would consider the training fun.
Earlier in this thread it was posited that the Las Vegas gunman was shooting several hundred rounds a minute, that's at least an order of magnitude more than Sergeant Instructor Snoxall and equivalent to the difference between Sergeant Instructor Snoxall's performance and that achievable with a muzzle-loading musket.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:06 AM   #330
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
People seem to be hung up on the rate of fire as if this was the primary reason why there were so many casualties. I'm suggesting that the spray and pray technique employed by the shooter might have been less effective than simply aiming each shot rapidly. Two shots per second still enables him to dump a 1000 rounds into a crowd in ten minutes including mag changes.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:08 AM   #331
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
If I told you that....
Some people would obey the law, others wouldn't. The only way to prevent modifying a rifle to stop increases in rate of fire is to do away with auto loading capability.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:10 AM   #332
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,079
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
People seem to be hung up on the rate of fire as if this was the primary reason why there were so many casualties. I'm suggesting that the spray and pray technique employed by the shooter might have been less effective than simply aiming each shot rapidly. Two shots per second still enables him to dump a 1000 rounds into a crowd in ten minutes including mag changes.

Isn't that going to depend on the skill level of the shooter?

You might be a more effective lunatic picking your shots, I, almost certainly would be a much more effective lunatic just letting many bullets fly as I couldn't really aim anyway.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:15 AM   #333
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Yes it most certainly would depend upon the skill of the shooter. Although I have limited experience in using bump fire, I think it would take more skill to hit a large target at long distance using a slide fire stock than with slower aimed fire. High volume fire does not always make up for aiming.

It is only the bullets that hit the target that do any good. People seem to be very impressed with the audio of the effect. They also point to videos showing high rates of fire which do not show anything hitting the target or at best bullets haphazardly hitting/missing the target.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:30 AM   #334
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,807
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
It is only the bullets that hit the target that do any good.
For some meaning of the word 'good'.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 06:47 AM   #335
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
People seem to be hung up on the rate of fire as if this was the primary reason why there were so many casualties. I'm suggesting that the spray and pray technique employed by the shooter might have been less effective than simply aiming each shot rapidly. Two shots per second still enables him to dump a 1000 rounds into a crowd in ten minutes including mag changes.
He had a huge target area that was extremely target rich. Look at the videos - people were literally laying on top of each other because there was nowhere else to go. He only needed to constrain his fire with within about a 5 degree arc to stay within the crowd. If he stayed within that 5 degrees, nearly every shot would hit at least one person.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:22 AM   #336
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,262
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not the way you've explained it, no.
I got it about right.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

Similar to District of Columbia vs Heller

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."


So the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is not absolute and the government can ban certain kinds of weapons.

Just like I said.

And any 5-4 decision could conceivably go the other way if similar cases are revisited.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:27 AM   #337
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
He had a huge target area that was extremely target rich. Look at the videos - people were literally laying on top of each other because there was nowhere else to go. He only needed to constrain his fire with within about a 5 degree arc to stay within the crowd. If he stayed within that 5 degrees, nearly every shot would hit at least one person.
Based on my experience, that is a small arc for rapid firing. What do you think his actual arc was?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:49 AM   #338
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
I got it about right.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

Similar to District of Columbia vs Heller

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."


So the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is not absolute and the government can ban certain kinds of weapons.

Just like I said.

And any 5-4 decision could conceivably go the other way if similar cases are revisited.
Tru, but misleading.the devil is in the "certain kinds."
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:52 AM   #339
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Neither purpose seems particularly relevant in the 21st century.
We in the USA, Canada and most other Western nations have the luxury of saying this.

Other countries? Not so much. Look at what's happening in Spain.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:54 AM   #340
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
At least three Las Vegas officers at the scene said it was automatic fire.

Reality is that the NFA needs a minor amendment to close a loophole.
Yup, NFA needs to amended to ban attachments and tools that facilitate rapid fire.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:03 AM   #341
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I really don't have a handle at all on this 'bump fire' thing.

How hard is it to learn to do accurately?

How much easier does the device make it?
In my limited experience the slide fire stock makes it a bit easier. Bump fire in my experience is never accurate at all compared to actually aiming each shot.

This is anecdotal only, but I read a book about soldiers and weapons a while back. One part had to do with aimed vs sprayed high volume fire. A group of instructors was in Vietnam devoting some time to making the infantry more effective. They felt that the M-16's high rate of fire led to soldiers simply pointing at the enemy and spraying bullets in the hope they hit something.

One of the things they did was bring a platoon to the range for target practice. They took one man aside (they tried to pick the weakest shooter) for 30 minutes of instruction separate from the other troops. A target was set up and the platoon, one man at a time, was told to hit it as much as they could. The usual method was to stand and empty a 30 round magazine full auto into the target; most bullets missed the target. Then they had the last man shoot; prone and on semi-auto only. Typically the single man who shot supported and aimed each shot put more holes in the target than the rest of the platoon combined.

I have never encountered anyone using a slide fire stock on their AR-15 at a shooting competition. Some of these events involve timed fire into targets that vary in size and distance. Some of the targets are very close and the size of a man. All that counts is hitting the target (some require multiple hits) and the time to complete the course. Even those competitors who were allowed to bring a machinegun to the range to compete probably never even considered using full auto to compete knowing it was less effective at hitting the target. I've never encountered any full auto or bump fire at a competition that required any degree of accuracy.

Bullets go where they're aimed, not where the shooter hopes.

Last edited by Ranb; 6th October 2017 at 08:20 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:09 AM   #342
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I really don't have a handle at all on this 'bump fire' thing.

How hard is it to learn to do accurately?

How much easier does the device make it?


If it's difficult to learn and the device makes it easy I can see the case for banning a device that replicates automatic fire. If it's not at all difficult to learn and the device is just a gimmick that makes little to no difference then surely the legislation would be pointless.


(Full disclosure: The root of the USAs gun death problem is not the ubiquity of guns)
From what I've seen over the last few years, slidefire stocks are just a gimic not taken seriously by real hunters or marksmen.

Its a toy for folks who want to rip **** apart very quickly without being able to aim well.

The sooner its banned, the better.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:16 AM   #343
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
From what I've seen over the last few years, slidefire stocks are just a gimic not taken seriously by real hunters or marksmen.

Its a toy for folks who want to rip **** apart very quickly without being able to aim well.

The sooner its banned, the better.
So do you think it makes a rifle more lethal? What evidence do you have that a marksman is able to put more bullets on target (for example at 400 yards) with a slide fire stock than without one?

You claim it's a gimic (I agree) for people who can't aim well. Does it somehow improve their aim or provide a higher volume of fire that makes up for the poor aim?

How will banning slide fire stocks make people safer?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:17 AM   #344
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,262
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Tru, but misleading.the devil is in the "certain kinds."
So do you think the current difficulty in obtaining a bump stock is due to the irrational fear that the government is going to ban certain kinds of devices?
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:22 AM   #345
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
In my limited experience the slide fire stock makes it a bit easier. Bump fire in my experience is never accurate at all compared to actually aiming each shot.

This is anecdotal only, but I read a book about soldiers and weapons a while back. One part had to do with aimed vs sprayed high volume fire. A group of instructors was in Vietnam devoting some time to making the infantry more effective. They felt that the M-16's high rate of fire led to soldiers simply pointing at the enemy and spraying bullets in the hope they hit something.

One of the things they did was bring a platoon to the range for target practice. They took one man aside (they tried to pick the weakest shooter) for 30 minutes of instruction separate from the other troops. A target was set up and the platoon, one man at a time, was told to hit it as much as they could. The usual method was to stand and empty a 30 round magazine full auto into the target; most bullets missed the target. Then they had the last man shoot; prone and on semi-auto only. Typically the single man who shot supported and aimed each shot put more holes in the target than the rest of the platoon combined.

I have never encountered anyone using a slide fire stock on their AR-15 at a shooting competition. Some of these events involve timed fire into targets that vary in size and distance. Some of the target are very close and the size of a man. All that counts is hitting the target (some require multiple hits) and the time to complete the course. Even those competitors who were allowed to bring a machinegun to the range to compete probably never even considered using full auto to compete knowing it was less effective at hitting the target.

Bullets go where they're aimed, not where the shooter hopes.
Against individual targets I agree. I suspect it might be different against a tightly packed crowd, however.

Then again, to back up your point, this is also the reason newer M16 models went away from full auto to burst fire. Sustained full auto wastes rounds, burst fire is much more accurate.

I've stated before I'm not against restricting bump fire stocks. If machineguns are deemed worthy to be restricted, it makes sense that devices intended to mimic the function should be as well. On the other hand, I also don't think it would have made a huge difference in the casualty count in this case. Just a moderately educated guesstimate, but I'd say we'd have seen at best a 25% reduction in casualties if he'd been restricted to semi-auto fire.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:27 AM   #346
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
.... Just a moderately educated guesstimate, but I'd say we'd have seen at best a 25% reduction in casualties if he'd been restricted to semi-auto fire.
In my opinion there would have been more casualties if he had used aimed rapid fire without bump firing.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:29 AM   #347
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
In my opinion there would have been more casualties if he had used aimed rapid fire without bump firing.
I leave that in the list of possibilities. I suspect, though, he was aiming at a general area and throwing rounds as fast as possible. I was assuming the same scenario with semi-auto fire (i.e.-not aimed in anything more than a general sense).
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:32 AM   #348
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Using aimed semi-auto fire would have ensured he kept all or nearly all of his rounds in the target area, but not on any one person. Rapid fire using bump firing or even a machine gun ruins the sight picture through sights or a scope. I think the best the shooter in Vegas could have hoped for was keeping some of his rounds in the crowd with a sizeable percentage missing the target area completely.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:42 AM   #349
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 172
From the shooter's perch, a person (whose mean diameter might be 2.5 feet) at a range of 2,000 feet subtends an angular size of ARCTAN(2.5/1000) = 0.07 degree, or 4.3 arcminutes (about 1/8 the Moon's apparent diameter.)

A crowd of some 20,000 people might cover an area of something like that of a football pitch, or 300 feet across. That angular width would be 8.5 degrees.

If given this target distance and environment I had to choose between the world's most skilled marksman firing *individual* shots at almost inhuman rapidity, or a just barely competent shooter dumping rounds via a bump fire device, I'd pick the latter as being far more likely to obtain the greater number of hits in any given interval of time.

As seen by the shooter, at the given slant angle, standing people in such a crowd would in the vertical aspect often overlap somewhat in projection. Even when crouching there would still often enough be target overlap in the vertical. And in the horizontal there would be a not large gap-to-target ratio. Spraying shot into such a crowd would be effective, and as long as the barrel pointing could be largely constrained to that ~300 foot area, 10X more rapid unaimed fire, in the initial onslaught at least, beats the slower sniper hands down.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:47 AM   #350
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Actually, I have to agree with Ranb that aimed semi-auto would've likely produced as many casualties. Maybe not more, but that's easily a possibility.

My 25% reduction was an "at best" case, and was assuming he simply aimed, then started pulling the trigger as fast as possible (with no or minimal re-aiming between pulls).

Just fast trigger pulling on a semi-auto can achieve impressive rates of fire; I don't believe a bump stock would be 10x as many. Trigger pull could easily get you in the 120 to 240rounds per minute area.

Either way, I don't think it's necessarily central to this conversation.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 08:49 AM   #351
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
So do you think the current difficulty in obtaining a bump stock is due to the irrational fear that the government is going to ban certain kinds of devices?
I don't care enough about bump stocks enough to have an opinion.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:10 AM   #352
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Based on my experience, that is a small arc for rapid firing. What do you think his actual arc was?
I wrote that before finishing my morning coffee. So I went back at looked at it with google earth and held a protractor to the screen.

From the corner of the Mandalay Bay where his room was, the flat field in the stadium was 12 degrees of arc. We know there was a medical tent somewhere at the festival with at least one person shot while in the tent. Presumably that was not in the stadium field itself - so the minimum arc size was at least 12 degrees, likely a fair bit more. The entire festival complex covered about 40% degrees arc (horizontal, I didn't look at vertical).
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:12 AM   #353
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,695
The Rules of the Gun Debate

Quote:
A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.

At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.

After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?”

So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:29 AM   #354
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,331
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I really don't have a handle at all on this 'bump fire' thing.

How hard is it to learn to do accurately?

How much easier does the device make it?


If it's difficult to learn and the device makes it easy I can see the case for banning a device that replicates automatic fire. If it's not at all difficult to learn and the device is just a gimmick that makes little to no difference then surely the legislation would be pointless.


(Full disclosure: The root of the USAs gun death problem is not the ubiquity of guns)
I'll just throw this out there:

If its purpose is to circumvent prohibitions against automatic fire, then to me that's reason enough to restrict it.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:39 AM   #355
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Quote:
But in an America where guns were viewed as they are in Australia or Canada, the project of moving two dozen of them into a hotel suite would likely be detected somewhere along the way. The person moving those guns would find himself in trouble—not for murder—but for some petty gun infraction.
Anyone who planned as well as the Vegas shooter did would probably not be detected. I can fit six disassembled AR-15's in a large suitcase, the same kind frequently used by air travelers. It would weigh 50 pounds, but on wheels it was be easy to manage and not attract any attention at all. Moving four suitcases into the room over a matter of days will not attract any attention either.

Why Mr. Frum thinks this way is perplexing.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 09:46 AM   #356
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Hmmm, are we drifting off-topic here? Just wondering if we should request some recent posts be moved to the Vegas thread in Social instead of here.

The two threads kind of blur together, so I dunno.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:14 AM   #357
ZiprHead
Critical Thinker
 
ZiprHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 279
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Except that's not what "well regulated militia" means at all.

"Well regulated," in the sense that applied during that period, meant "well equipped."

The "militia" referred to the individual states' need, of being able to raise their own citizens under arms to deal with local and regional threats. Remember, at this time there was no National Guard. There was no standing army that could be deployed anywhere in the 13 states at a moment's notice. For everything from slave revolts to native raids to incursions by French and British troops, the states were their own first line of defense. And their own well-equipped citizens, raised as a militia in times of need, were their armed forces.

In this context, the other clause of the amendment becomes clear: Because the states need to have well armed citizens that they can call on to form a militia for security, the federal government is prohibited from infringing on the citizens' right to possess firearms.

And note the implication here, as well: The amendment explicitly recognizes that the right to bear arms exists--independently of the states' need to have an armed militia. The amendment gives one reason for not infringing upon that right. But there is an established body of constitutional law, that can be traced back to the written arguments of the Framers as they drafted the Constitution, that it is not necessary to list *all* the reasons, in order for the right to enjoy Constitutional protection. And there is an established body of constitutional law, that to infringe upon *any* right, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest, and no lesser infringement that adequately serves the interest.

I think you might have better luck making a "compelling interest" argument, rather than sticking on a misreading of the amendment.
I don't post here very often but I read here almost daily.

The post above intrigued me so I did a little research.

From Sheridan's Dictionary Of The English Language 1780 - "REGULATE, to adjust by rule or method; to adjust"

From Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary 1791 - "REGULATE, to adjust by rule or method; to direct"

References to both books in links at the bottom of this page.

From Noah Webster's Dictionary Of The American Language 1828 - "Regulate
REG'ULATE, verb transitive

1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Regulate

Last edited by ZiprHead; 6th October 2017 at 10:22 AM. Reason: To add third reference
ZiprHead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:44 AM   #358
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by fritznien View Post
maybe or maybe not.what are you going to do about the way the gun is held? Bump fire can be done without a device. but more important getting rid of all autoloaders is still not going to help much. According to wiki the Lee Enfield rifle.

"The Lee bolt-action and 10-round magazine capacity enabled a well-trained rifleman to perform the "mad minute" firing 20 to 30 aimed rounds in 60 seconds, making the Lee–Enfield the fastest military bolt-action rifle of the day. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute"
Yes it took training. Lots of people would consider the training fun.
The average person doesn't have ninja level skills with firearms, knives or any other weapons.

It's also worth noting that an expert who can fire 30 rounds in a minute is unlikely to keep that rate up for a long period. The Las Vega shooter had no problems keeping up a high rate of fire for 11 or 12 minutes.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:46 AM   #359
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,557
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
In my opinion there would have been more casualties if he had used aimed rapid fire without bump firing.
Really? On what basis? At 400+ yards? Against moving targets? At night? Firing hundreds of rounds in minutes? He was spraying into a crowd. That was his only target.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:49 AM   #360
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,669
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
In my opinion there would have been more casualties if he had used aimed rapid fire without bump firing.
Should machine guns be legal because they are actually less dangerous? It sounds like you are saying that they are actually less dangerous. You think he could have hit upwards of 500 people in 9 minutes without the bump stock? Now I don't know that all 500 were gun shot victims, but if they were, we're talking about almost 1 hit per second. For nine minutes straight. No way. And we're talking about actual hits, not just trigger pulls. I find your posts about guns pretty well informed, but I think you are off here. What if he were much closer to the crowd? ETA: I can't format this post properly for some reason. Should be more than one paragraph.

Last edited by mgidm86; 6th October 2017 at 10:53 AM.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.