Shootist Jeff

Active shooter on the Vegas Strip

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 but a human size target is not that difficult for a decently skilled marksman.  

And here was I thinking that it was only the leadership skills that are taught in the military that maybe transferable to civilian life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting that this discussion drift that has moved to marksmanship skill begs the question if we should outlaw firearms training.  I mean, people who train to shoot at targets beyond about 6-9 feet should be considered too highly skilled and dangerous to be allowed out into society.  No one "NEEDS" to be able to hit anything accurately at those long ranges.  Especially since militias are only allowed to exercise their militia duties indoors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found out not too long ago they were perishable skills. I decided about 5 years ago to sign up for a regional high power match near me. I bought a decent rifle, some "match" rounds, worked up some dope, and went in thinkinking I might still got it , you know? I always shot expert. I was none of that. Those assholes were punching their markers at 500 meters repeatedly, the fucking 4" marking disc! That's with irons! I was shooting Maggie's drawers at 500m some times, never did that before. In my defense, it was probably the loads, and the fact I was up against Space Guns with my over the counter set up. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

.  If I were using full auto, it would be less than 0%.  

What if full auto shooting into a stadium crowd of 22,000 people at 500 yds? What would you rate? What weapon of choice for, what extra points for, airport jet fuel tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting that this discussion drift that has moved to marksmanship skill begs the question if we should outlaw firearms training.  I mean, people who train to shoot at targets beyond about 6-9 feet should be considered too highly skilled and dangerous to be allowed out into society.  No one "NEEDS" to be able to hit anything accurately at those long ranges.  Especially since militias are only allowed to exercise their militia duties indoors.  

It's Genius Jeff. Hi Jeff.

You are a big Heller fan. Heller quote$ Joyce Lee Malcolm (for CATO, no le$$), all about the English tradition of armed self defense, etc. So explain the 450 years of no riding about armed deal. Show the class where and when either the English or the FF's switched up to armed confrontation outside the home.

Or STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quantum Weirdness". I think the phrase of the day goes to Tom.

"Quantum weirdness arises when a quantum system is enlarged to a macroscopic scale and then measured in a way that would violate the indeterminacy principle if all the measurements were fruitful."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Full auto causes quantum weirdness?

Yes. When asked how you felt about David Koresh's 47 modified fully automatic weapons, you replied "Strangely erotic."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting that this discussion drift that has moved to marksmanship skill begs the question if we should outlaw firearms training.  I mean, people who train to shoot at targets beyond about 6-9 feet should be considered too highly skilled and dangerous to be allowed out into society.  No one "NEEDS" to be able to hit anything accurately at those long ranges.  Especially since militias are only allowed to exercise their militia duties indoors.  

You guys bring up interesting controls. Sure, add it to the list. We’ll get back to ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting that this discussion drift that has moved to marksmanship skill begs the question if we should outlaw firearms training.  I mean, people who train to shoot at targets beyond about 6-9 feet should be considered too highly skilled and dangerous to be allowed out into society.  No one "NEEDS" to be able to hit anything accurately at those long ranges.  Especially since militias are only allowed to exercise their militia duties indoors.  

What about training to hit high speed moving targets that move in all directions?   No sights, no prone or supported shooting either.

And we don't even have a large centre mass to aim for.  Just under 4 1/2 inches. 

We must be the latest scourge on society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mad said:

What about training to hit high speed moving targets that move in all directions?   No sights, no prone or supported shooting either.

And we don't even have a large centre mass to aim for.  Just under 4 1/2 inches. 

We must be the latest scourge on society. 

Its a Trap!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 7:53 AM, jocal505 said:

Acquiring a dozen functioning machine guns is interesting. Koresh was  also interesting in that way.  This guy raised no flags, and you claim it as the new normal?

FAIL.

 

He didn't acquire a single machine gun, and you know it. I know you believe that if you say it with conviction it isn't a lie, but you are lying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, frenchie said:

500 yards with iron sights? 

...define "functional". 

For occasional well trained people it's true. But people toss this number around because they hear it based on someone else's military training. For the average guy a target 500 yards isn't even visible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:

What about training to hit high speed moving targets that move in all directions?   No sights, no prone or supported shooting either.

And we don't even have a large centre mass to aim for.  Just under 4 1/2 inches. 

We must be the latest scourge on society. 

I participate in this training every week. And we are using multiple targets at a time. I don't use a bump stock but I do have a palm swell on my stock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I participate in this training every week. And we are using multiple targets at a time. I don't use a bump stock but I do have a palm swell on my stock. 

Palm swell???  That makes the gun more controllable and accurate, therefore according to jokeal, it must be banned!!!  You are obviously part of the problem with the pervasive gun mentality.  You are killing black kids in Shitcago as a result.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

 I do have a palm swell on my stock. 

There's a really good smartass remark in there but I just can't come up with it. ;)

Give me a few minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 1:33 PM, Bloody Chum said:

That is true. Your odds of shooting perfect scores on the 2 and 3 hundred meter line were just about zero if you weren't hitting the B mod with regularity though. 

 If you did you'd be wearing the pizza and if you wore that you sucked, plain and simple. Rifle qualification wasn't hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LB 15 said:
On 10/14/2017 at 3:02 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't think buying guns legally in stores and going through the required background check is all that interesting. What's interesting about it? Do you think there should be some maximum number of guns a person has the right is permitted to own?

14516459_1275486362493160_44426798667366

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 If you did you'd be wearing the pizza and if you wore that you sucked, plain and simple. Rifle qualification wasn't hard. 

The dreaded toilet bowl. Qualifying wasn't difficult, competing with the top expert shooters was not easy. I never could anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He didn't acquire a single machine gun,"

Quite true, but he DID acquire Mac 10 uppers and flats to make lowers as well as auto sears for AR platforms.  The ATF raid was based on shipping records.

Had a slow day in the university library and read the FBI report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting that this discussion drift that has moved to marksmanship skill begs the question if we should outlaw firearms training. 

There really is nothing interesting about this thread drift at all. It is just standard gun club deflection. Hijack the discussion away from the root cause of mass shootings as quickly as possible. It is no different than say turning a thread about a young girl being raped away from the moral issues and into a discussion about how to train for rape using a sex doll.

That is the rapist equivalent of practicing on 'a man sized target'. But to answer your point, I have never had an issue with target shooting, but why not leave your guns locked up safely at the range? But I guess just like rapists, the real attraction isn't the shooting, it is the power you feel afterwards when cleaning and caressing your gun in the privacy of your own home.

Even better when you have a few and can sit back and enjoy your collection.

fd554bbaad9783185a6a9ac95a01513c--ultimate-man-cave-gun-rooms.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chinabald said:

I participate in this training every week. And we are using multiple targets at a time. I don't use a bump stock but I do have a palm swell on my stock. 

I would have thought it was your stocks that you wanted to swell, not your palms? Are blisters and chafe an issue as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its interesting that this discussion drift that has moved to marksmanship skill begs the question if we should outlaw firearms training.  I mean, people who train to shoot at targets beyond about 6-9 feet should be considered too highly skilled and dangerous to be allowed out into society.  No one "NEEDS" to be able to hit anything accurately at those long ranges.

If you want to delve into the realms of ridiculous, go for it. I've not called for people to be banned from society for what they know before. You accept for other tools that it is reasonable to ban them from public ownership (fissile grade nuclear material, chemical weapons, etc). Once again, you're looking for inconsistency in the other side to complain about and only highlighting your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

If you want to delve into the realms of ridiculous, go for it. I've not called for people to be banned from society for what they know before. You accept for other tools that it is reasonable to ban them from public ownership (fissile grade nuclear material, chemical weapons, etc). Once again, you're looking for inconsistency in the other side to complain about and only highlighting your own.

Last I checked, fissile grade nook-a-ler material and chemical weapons were not constitutionally protected items.  Next......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Last I checked, fissile grade nook-a-ler material and chemical weapons were not constitutionally protected items.  Next......

Jeffie, you can't protect the "constitutional protected" conclusion. The Heller historical account is very, very sketchy. No person on Political Anarchy can defend the crap that $calia bought, from CATO's sources.

Quote

Scholars opposing the "Standard Model's" interpretation of history

From Charles' Historic Guideposts, Footnote 143.

--See Brief for English/Early American Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521) (supported by twenty-one scholars and historians);

--Brief for Thirty-Four Professional Historians and Legal Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521);

-- Brief for Professional Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 081521) (supported by six scholars and historians);

--Brief of Historians on Early American Legal, Constitutional and Pennsylvania History as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald,  130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521) (supported by four historians).

(Sixty five total from various backgrounds)

 

Jeffie,  Did we miss your historical input?  Your case is best presented by these lawyers, they ferment shit in a closed tank (septic) system of legal briefs. Most or all of them are Libertarians.

Quote

 

The Standard Model scholars:

Debunking Malcolm's claim that terror was required for unlawful open carry under the Statute of Northampton

424. Malcolm may have been influenced by David I. Caplan in regards to the Statue of Northampton. See Caplan, supra note 19, at 32.

19. See David I. Caplan, Restoring the Balance: The Second Amendment Revisited, 5 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 31 (1976); see also Kates, supra note 4, at 1213 (discussing Caplan’s important role in the Standard Model movement).

4 . See Don B. Kates, A Modern Historiography of the Second Amendment , 56 UCLA L. REV. 1211 (2009).see p 1213

 

Malcolm’s incomplete research and false characterization of the Statute have had far reaching implications in Standard Model scholarship, which has proved detrimental in maintaining an objective historical account of the legality of going armed in public.

 

For a list of works misled by or agreeing with Malcolm’s unsupported conclusions on the Statute,

  • see David T. Hardy, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: The Present as Interface of Past and Future, 3 NORTHEASTERN U. L.J. 199, 205 (2011) (relying on Malcolm’s research for contemporary legal analysis on the Statute of Northampton);
  • Kopel, supra note 372, at 1347 (same); David B. Kopel, The Licensing of Concealed Handguns for Lawful Protection: Support from Five State Supreme Courts, 68 ALB. L. REV. 305, 317 (2005) (same);
  • David B. Kopel and Clayton Cramer, State Court Standards of Review for the Right to the Keep and Bear Arms, 50 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 1113, 1127, 1133-34 (2010) (same);
  • Carlton F.W. Larson, Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit, 60 HASTINGS L.J. 1371, 1378-79 (2009) (questioning whether the Statute of Northampton was ever enforced);
  • Nelson Lund, The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1343, 1363-64 (2009) (relying on Malcolm’s research for contemporary legal analysis on the Statute of Northampton);
  • Marshall, supra note 294, at 716-17 (same).
  • Eugene Volokh does not cite to Malcolm, but still may have been influenced by Malcolm either directly or by other Standard Model writers that relied on her work.
  • See Eugene Volokh, The First and Second Amendments, 109 COLUM. L. REV. SIDEBAR 97, 101 (2009) [hereinafter Volokh, The First and Second Amendments]; Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1481 (2009) [hereinafter Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms].
  • Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Last I checked, fissile grade nook-a-ler material and chemical weapons were not constitutionally protected items.  Next......

Which doesn't change the fact there is no inconsistency in my position and only serves as a crutch for the inconsistency in yours. Next....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Which doesn't change the fact there is no inconsistency in my position and only serves as a crutch for the inconsistency in yours. Next....

Where did I claim your position was "inconsistent"???  Your position is moronic, but its not inconsistent.  One thing I will never accuse you of is being an inconsistent moron.  You are an extremely consistent moron.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Where did I claim your position was "inconsistent"???

You didn't. I never said you did. That you are looking for inconsistency through your questioning doesn't mean you've claimed it's there. You're not stupid, just zealously ignorant.

 

7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Your position is moronic, but its not inconsistent.  One thing I will never accuse you of is being an inconsistent moron.  You are an extremely consistent moron.  

Yeah... well, it is the position underlying the laws of the vast majority of the first world where we DON'T have your murder rate. We're 4x less likely to be killed in our countries than your homeland. Which makes your position either moronic, sociopathic, or both. As well as inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 8:06 AM, chinabald said:

He didn't acquire a single machine gun, and you know it. I know you believe that if you say it with conviction it isn't a lie, but you are lying. 

Please explain, cb.

  • David Koresh admitted on camera (near the opening of TR's Waco, Terms of Engagement, which TR will not discuss) obtaining parts legally at gun  shows, to adapt legal guns to full automatic function, "legally," Koresh claimed. 
  • Neighbors reported the fully automatic fire. 
  • FBI evidence cited above showed and listed 47 fully automatic weapons, by make and model.
  • Full auto fire was reported by FBI agents during the Davidian gun mayhem.  
  • Court testimony involved the use if fully automatic weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal - you miss the essential gunny deflection minutiae - he didn't "purchase" automatic weapons, he MADE them.

Makes all the difference in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Please explain, cb.

  • David Koresh admitted on camera (near the opening of TR's Waco, Terms of Engagement, which TR will not discuss) obtaining parts legally at gun  shows, to adapt legal guns to full automatic function, "legally," Koresh claimed. 
  • Neighbors reported the fully automatic fire. 
  • FBI evidence cited above showed and listed 47 fully automatic weapons, by make and model.
  • Full auto fire was reported by FBI agents during the Davidian gun mayhem.  
  • Court testimony involved the use if fully automatic weaponry.

I was responding to this statement. Which is obviously not about Koresh since you then compared him to Koresh. Nice try at deflecting. So, Do you have proof that the Las Vegas shooter had a dozen machine guns?  Or was your statement exaggeration at best or a lie?  

On 10/14/2017 at 8:53 AM, jocal505 said:

Acquiring a dozen functioning machine guns is interesting. Koresh was  also interesting in that way.  This guy raised no flags, and you claim it as the new normal?

FAIL.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I was responding to this statement. Which is obviously not about Koresh since you then compared him to Koresh. Nice try at deflecting. So, Do you have proof that the Las Vegas shooter had a dozen machine guns?  Or was your statement exaggeration at best or a lie?  

 

Have an issue or something? You are seeing deflection motivation, but from what I dunno. You claimed some lie, ffs,

Yes, I read that there were eleven or twelve bumpstock setups sitting about in Paddock's gratis gambler room. These things are designed to function with fully automatic fire. I heard the constant fire on several different videos.

Quote

Law enforcement officials have said they found at least a dozen bump stocks attached to rifles in the Las Vegas shooter’s hotel room. 

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/atf-association-says-congress-not-agency-can-ban-bump-stocks/

It seems like dangerous and unusual weaponry, I might add.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Have an issue or something? You are seeing deflection motivation, but from what I dunno. You claimed some lie, ffs,

Yes, I read that there were eleven or twelve bumpstock setups sitting about in Paddock's gratis gambler room. These things are designed to function with fully automatic fire. I heard the constant fire on several different videos.

It seems like dangerous and unusual weaponry, I might add.

 

Bump stocks are not machine guns. You said he acquired 12 machine guns. While bump stocks can increase the shots per second rate beyond what a person could perform with a Semi Automatic weapon. It does not mean he has machine guns, to say otherwise is a bold faced lie. And to clear up another mis direction of yours, just because a gun can shoot automatic, does not make it a machine gun. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Jocal - you miss the essential gunny deflection minutiae - he didn't "purchase" automatic weapons, he MADE them.

Makes all the difference in the world.

Nope. You could be like frenchie and learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 9:23 AM, phillysailor said:

Earlier I posted some sarcasm laden anti-NRA rant about how the right wingers were getting lax surveillance and the minorities have to up their game in the mass murder department.

I've run across an article in Slate Magazine that delved further into the stats of mass murder and it was a little bit interesting to me. Turns out, several minority groups are overrepresented by in bringing mass death (1.7x for African Americans) if defined as more than three homicides at a single go. The amount by which they are overrepresented is, however, much less than the 6.3 times greater murder rates among African Americans than whites, so that merits a "huh."

Interesting article, and I'd recommend it for its dry style and its ability to puncture a couple of hard-held "White Lone Wolf Mass Murder" beliefs I've endorsed.

Thanks for the reference, Philly - a good article indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 9:19 PM, Mark K said:

In counter intelligence they teach ya to watch out for the really-really smart guys who are lonely in some way. The Rooskies loved to target that elk by feeding his or her sense of being under-appreciated. Most are too focused on technical aspects to be put in charge and resent being ordered around by people they can prove oaf with two lines of code.  

  This shooter seems to have been highly intelligent but isolated. He got him a Philippine wife but social standing does not come with such marriages. In Vegas he was just another gambler, really, but the casinos were smart like the Rooskies and fed him comps to make him feel important. Did not help. Hurt, if he was smart enough to know he was only being patronized. The Rooskies are very careful to be sure their quarry never feels like that but they have the personnel and teams of shrinks to dodge that pitfall. The casinos don't, and their employees, being human, didn't particularly like him either. He was born socially awkward. 

 He couldn't figure out a way to gain respect and his mid-life crises was a realization he was too old to change whateverthefuck it was about him that made him a nerd. People would always be polite but that's it. Not good enough! 

 His preparations for a murder/suicide were exceedingly elaborate. He even figured out he would be unable to see where his rounds were hitting in low light and sought tracers. That God he couldn't get those. Most perps are too sad and depressed to give more than half to 2/3ds a shit.  Not this guy. He wanted everyone to know something: "I AM special!!"

 May Satan concur... 

I think that your perspective is quite accurate - it's that need to feel like they count coupled with isolation that I suspect drives many folks who've done things like this.  If we accept this - the question is "how do we find and help these folks before they act out like this?"   I sincerely wish I knew enough to have that answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 12:47 PM, chinabald said:

Bump stocks are not machine guns. You said he acquired 12 machine guns. While bump stocks can increase the shots per second rate beyond what a person could perform with a Semi Automatic weapon. It does not mean he has machine guns, to say otherwise is a bold faced lie. And to clear up another mis direction of yours, just because a gun can shoot automatic, does not make it a machine gun. 

 

Who says? If it quacks like a duck, a lot, then it's probably a duck.  Would you call bump stock guns semi automatic? Really? Your bottom line, and the spirit of your lips when they move, sounds very much like a lie to me...while calling me a liar.

Let's go to the SA Gun Club's loudmouth, the Shootist Princess, for his definition:  he tells us that if one squeeze of the trigger emits constant fire, you have fully automatic, a machine gun. If one squeeze gives you one shot, you have a semi-automatic.

Can we disagree on a term for the weapon, and agree that we had fully automatic fire in play?

I hate to say it, but I think you are the fibber, chinabald, by introducing semantics, not function. Paddock's extended fire over ten minutes sounded like one or more machine guns. Cops reported fully automatic fire. Civilians recorded fully automatic fire. 200 rounds fired into the hallway (alone representing a total greater than Adam Lanza's 154 shots) sounds like a machine gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 5:29 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Nope. You could be like frenchie and learn something.

Thanks for another link not worth opening. How is the .22 caliber assault weapon crisis going today? We'll need updates on your confusion all day, every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Who says? If it quacks like a duck, a lot, then it's probably a duck.  Would you call bump stock guns semi automatic? Really? Your bottom line, and the spirit of your lips when they move, sounds very much like a lie to me...while calling me a liar.

Let's go to the SA Gun Club's loudmouth, the Shootist Princess, for his definition:  he tells us that if one squeeze of the trigger emits constant fire, you have fully automatic, a machine gun. If one squeeze gives you one shot, you have a semi-automatic.

Can we disagree on a term for the weapon, and agree that we had fully automatic fire in play?

I hate to say it, but I think you are the fibber, chinabald, by introducing semantics, not function. Paddock's extended fire over ten minutes sounded like one or more machine guns. Cops reported fully automatic fire. Civilians recorded fully automatic fire. 200 rounds fired into the hallway (alone representing a total greater than Adam Lanza's 154 shots) sounds like a machine gun.

The lie is in your constant exaggeration and then to deflect when caught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 9:17 AM, chinabald said:

The lie is in your constant exaggeration and then to deflect when caught. 

No lie was intended, or is intended. I think I have a good point here, and your love for guns and your name-calling doesn't negate what I'm saying.

Furthermore, your own untruthfulness is exposed here.

  • A room full of guns functioning in fully automatic mode are suddenly not machine guns.
  • The fully automatic fire, which was recorded on audio,  does not relate to machine gun policies, or to established, common sense logic related to machine guns.

Bullshit, chinabald. Fully automatic fire shall not be hidden or sustained behind such cheap semantics. You want to make the issue about a name...I could tell a thousand lies an hour, but the fucking elephant in the room is fully automatic gunfire being marketed legally via bump stock devices.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Orders Autopsy Release
 

Quote

 

A District Court judge on Tuesday ordered the Clark County coroner’s office to release the autopsy reports of Stephen Paddock and the 58 people he killed in the Oct. 1 Las Vegas massacre.

...

Review-Journal Editor-in-Chief Keith Moyer added: “The shooter’s body was cremated Dec. 21. How can the autopsy report not be ‘finalized’ when the body was cremated more than five weeks ago? The law is squarely on the side of the public’s right to open government.”

The coroner’s office has fought to keep autopsy reports confidential. Three weeks ago, a judge ordered the coroner to pay about $32,000 in legal costs to the Review-Journal for refusing to release public records to the newspaper.

...

Review-Journal Editor-in-Chief Keith Moyer added: “The shooter’s body was cremated Dec. 21. How can the autopsy report not be ‘finalized’ when the body was cremated more than five weeks ago? The law is squarely on the side of the public’s right to open government.”

...

“The court correctly recognized the presumption of public access to records, even when a mass tragedy occurs,” McLetchie said. “(The judge) also rejected arguments by the coroner’s office that there were any privacy interests with regards to the autopsy of Stephen Paddock, let alone any that outweighed the strong presumption of access to records in Nevada.”

...

The families of some of the victims have voiced concerns about the coroner’s delay in providing autopsy reports to them.

The brother of Andrea Castilla, a 28-year-old California woman killed during the mass shooting, said earlier this month that he was angry that his family had not received a copy of his sister’s autopsy.

“We can’t even get a response from the coroner’s office,” Adam Castilla said. “It’s been over 100 days and I’ve called at least 20 times. I haven’t gotten one call back. I feel like they’re definitely trying to protect someone or themselves.”

 

The authorities continue to act strangely in this case. I wonder what privacy interest they were talking about?

A guy who sold him ammo has been charged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Judge Orders Autopsy Release
 

The authorities continue to act strangely in this case. I wonder what privacy interest they were talking about?

A guy who sold him ammo has been charged.

 

Eleven bunpstockas were found, and twelve bursts of gunfire were experienced by a summer concert crowd. So Pooplius is cooking up conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 1:54 AM, LB 15 said:

And here was I thinking that it was only the leadership skills that are taught in the military that maybe transferable to civilian life. 

See? It's all transferable once we finally trash that "forever in peace may you wave" thing.

Until we have another war where we actually live, we can keep chatting about "human sized targets" with all casual banter of a goofball in a sitcom episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 1:47 PM, chinabald said:

Bump stocks are not machine guns. You said he acquired 12 machine guns. While bump stocks can increase the shots per second rate beyond what a person could perform with a Semi Automatic weapon. It does not mean he has machine guns, to say otherwise is a bold faced lie. And to clear up another mis direction of yours, just because a gun can shoot automatic, does not make it a machine gun. 

I haven't really followed this, but how many shots per second does a homicidal maniac need to pump out before his automatic-shooting weapon is considered an actual automatic weapon?

And if a slightly less homicidal maniac slows down his automatic weapon somehow to a slightly slower rate than his friend with a few bump stockaaaas, does that mean that the first maniac's weapon is no longer an automatic weapon?

 

Golly, there are so many things I need to learn to properly accept a country in which maniacs are allowed to arm up in perfect legality, and do what they do, up until the moment they pop that "homicidal" onto the front of their "maniac." No gradual encroachment, it's just legal, legal, legal, legal, legal, legal, legal, legal ... wait, you just murdered 58 people and injured hundreds, ur, now ya did it! You're in illegal territory now, buster!

Hey! Y'know what would be fun? Let's do the same thing with motorized vehicles! Drive 128 mph? Legal. Do it while texting? Legal. Do it while texting your friend about having your tenth slug of Southern Comfort? Legal. Do all that while pumping 120 decibels of Justin Beiber out of your sound system? Legal. Window tinting on your windshield? Legal. A giant cloud of black soot from your tailpipe? Legal. No headlights, no marker lights, cut across three lanes of traffic while waving your Glock at the idiot in the Saab? Legal, legal, legal. Wait, you just crashed and now four families are being burned alive in their vehicles? Bzzt. Game over, illegal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Judge Orders Autopsy Release
 

The authorities continue to act strangely in this case. I wonder what privacy interest they were talking about?

A guy who sold him ammo has been charged.

 

Eleven bunpstockas were found, and twelve bursts of gunfire were experienced by a summer concert crowd. So Pooplius is cooking up conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy?

I find it strange that a judge is ordering a coroner to release the autopsy. Seems like something a coroner would do without any order. Like communicating with the families of victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

Most people with only one brain cell can read what the ATF consider a FA weapon. You don't seem to meet that requirement so I will let you know: "anything that will fire more than one round per action of the trigger"

Simple enough?

So, a trigger finger with no additional action on a weapon that keeps shooting is a automatic weapon? So then, a gun modified with a bump stockaaaaa is or is not an automatic?

Does the trigger finger remain mostly still while the stock oscillates?

I guess this definition requires the use of only one brain cell, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, 

I will pay you $500 for the assault .22 just to get you to shut the fuck up about it.  You have to promise to never post on any gun-related thread/post on this site as part of the deal,  Failure to do so will result in your left testicle (assuming you have one...not clear you have any based on your posts) being shot off by said assault rifle.  If you don't accept my offer, please shut the fuck up about a .22 none of us care about.  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Tom, 

I will pay you $500 for the assault .22 just to get you to shut the fuck up about it.  You have to promise to never post on any gun-related thread/post on this site as part of the deal,  Failure to do so will result in your left testicle (assuming you have one...not clear you have any based on your posts) being shot off by said assault rifle.  If you don't accept my offer, please shut the fuck up about a .22 none of us care about.  

 

You are intentionally avoiding Tom's point - his .22, by any rational assessment, is an innocuous plinker, but, as he correctly points out, it is still characterized as an "assault weapon" according to aesthetic descriptions contained in proposed and active legislation.   You want him to shut up about it?  Write the congresscritters that are proposing stupid, poorly articulated legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pssst.... the Ar-15 (and it's cousin the M-16) is a 22 caliber weapon too. 

(sure, the gun nuts will try to deflect and point out it's usually called '.223', or 'Nato 5.56mm'  which converts to 0.219" diameter.)

This was by design, so a soldier could carry more ammo.  (it was also made to tumble on impact, so as to cause more damage).

I guess some people get a kick out of owning "something made to kill humans"... and too many actually use them for this purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You are intentionally avoiding Tom's point - his .22, by any rational assessment, is an innocuous plinker, but, as he correctly points out, it is still characterized as an "assault weapon" according to aesthetic descriptions contained in proposed and active legislation.   You want him to shut up about it?  Write the congresscritters that are proposing stupid, poorly articulated legislation. 

I would suggest that Tom puts his innocuous little .22 plinker well up his ass and pull the trigger but that would be rash, unseemly and impolite, so I won't suggest it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

Pssst.... the Ar-15 (and it's cousin the M-16) is a 22 caliber weapon too. 

(sure, the gun nuts will try to deflect and point out it's usually called '.223', or 'Nato 5.56mm'  which converts to 0.219" diameter.)

This was by design, so a soldier could carry more ammo.  (it was also made to tumble on impact, so as to cause more damage).

I guess some people get a kick out of owning "something made to kill humans"... and too many actually use them for this purpose. 

 

.22LR rounds...teeny tiny for plinkers, and plunkers

 

NOT designed to kill humans

22.jpg.12089a3d7ac22fdad1fc6c779f0b3394.jpg

 

 

.223  designed to kill humans

223.jpg.1b25a88cf568aae1374eb549a917b53a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:
  37 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You are intentionally avoiding Tom's point - his .22, by any rational assessment, is an innocuous plinker, but, as he correctly points out, it is still characterized as an "assault weapon" according to aesthetic descriptions contained in proposed and active legislation.   You want him to shut up about it?  Write the congresscritters that are proposing stupid, poorly articulated legislation. 

Outraged much by Pooplius Propagandus I?

What state do you live in, sir? Your elk get to make their own laws there, and mine here as well. Don't confuse and conflate one state's laws with another, the situations and votes may be different. And eighteen rounds is a lot of sustained shooting, considering. I own this model.

 

This situation is in flex, with a trajectory. Whingeing, panic, and frustration is nice, but what else you got? A better research roadmap than mine, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dacapo said:

 

.22LR rounds...teeny tiny for plinkers, and plunkers

 

NOT designed to kill humans

22.jpg.12089a3d7ac22fdad1fc6c779f0b3394.jpg

 

 

.223  designed to kill humans

223.jpg.1b25a88cf568aae1374eb549a917b53a.jpg

They say otherwise on SAILING ANARCHY. Greever offered that this pic is a squirrel round, another that it's not suitable for compassionate deer hunting compared with a 30:06 (which are kinda too big for LCM's anyway or somesuch) Um, huge flesh cavitations occur with the .223, with fragmentation effect, decapitation possible, de-limbing pretty routine. Docs don't like these bullets.  Survivors face eight or ten operations. Increasingly multiple bullet wounds in ER's are now associated with this round. The round did not kill as much as create tissue mayhem, to occupy enemy transport capability and enemy medics.

Flamesuit on, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

They say otherwise on SAILING ANARCHY. Greever offered that this pic is a squirrel round, another that it's not suitable for compassionate deer hunting compared with a 30:06 (which are kinda too big for LCM's anyway or somesuch) Um, huge flesh cavitations occur with the .223, with fragmentation effect, decapitation possible, de-limbing pretty routine. Docs don't like these bullets.  Survivors face eight or ten operations. Increasingly multiple bullet wounds in ER's are now associated with this round. The round did not kill as much as create tissue mayhem, to occupy enemy transport capability and enemy medics.

Flamesuit on, I guess.

The key to the destructiveness of the .223 military round is the pointy full metal jacket.  If the bullet encounters soft tissue, it will cause a little damage but if it doesn't hit anything solid, not so much damage. But the minute that pointy end encounters bone or tough connective tissue, it starts tumbling like a drunken sailor on an icy gangplank.  Tiny entrance hole, gaping exit wound, if it even comes out, far from the point of entry.  Unfortunately the human body being what it is the fleshy parts are not as common as the harder bits.

Just like the bump stock is a transparent effort to dodge the ban on full auto weapons for the average gun nutter, the pointy, metal jacketed bullet was designed to circumvent the Geneva Convention ban on 'dum dum, or fragmenting rounds.  

Just think of how ugly war could be if we didn't have rules governing its conduct.  I am so relieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You are intentionally avoiding Tom's point - his .22, by any rational assessment, is an innocuous plinker, but, as he correctly points out, it is still characterized as an "assault weapon" according to aesthetic descriptions contained in proposed and active legislation.   You want him to shut up about it?  Write the congresscritters that are proposing stupid, poorly articulated legislation. 

Fat Point Jack also said it was poorly written.

I don't think so. I think it bans the things intended by the authors, so the language works.

Replies to your post indicate general agreement by grabberz here that assault weapons of the type owned by Joe and me should be banned. Further indication the legislation is well written: it appeals to those being represented.

Whatever else it may be, the legislation is not poorly written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

223.jpg

A head-shot to a Kangaroo with this round will sometimes completely remove the head (soft-tip), often leaving one ear hanging by a strip of neck skin.

 

 

22.jpg

A head-shot to a kangaroo with this round will put a nice neat hole through the skull, killing it immediately.

Similar things would happen if the target was human, even if they are called plinkers by some here.  Both produce the same dead human.

 

 

Might be urban myth, but I've heard assassins use .22's, close in. 

My .22 LR science project bullet went through three layers of chipboard at 35 ft. About two inches. It deformed the last panel with a mound the size of of a hardball cross section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always tell Moderate's latest sock by their clever names.  Right on par with the content.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

I see that single brain cell is evading you.

"a trigger finger with no additional action on a weapon that keeps shooting is a automatic weapon?"

Never said that. Read the words again: "action of the trigger"

You can keep trying to move your goal posts all you want, you can't get around the term "action of the trigger" no much how you want to talk about fingers and oscillating stocks the term is "action of the trigger."

Any further questions?

Action of the trigger is your answer.

 

I've never fired a bump stockaaaaa, have you? I understand that once you pull the trigger that the finger performs no further action and the stock oscillates to create a firing rate up to a dozen rounds per second. 

You wrote that the requirement is "anything that will fire more than one round per action of the trigger". the action is performed on the trigger, then the recoil takes over through the stock and keeps firing.

So, is "the action" what is performed by that trigger finger or by the recoil system or both?

And by the way, you might try having a functional conversation without resorting to insults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The few autopsy details that have emerged indicate Mr. Paddock (or someone) shot him in the mouth. But with only one round.

Maybe they won't release it because the fact that he killed himself with one round doesn't do much to bolster the grabberz' case for using suicides as a reason to ban bump stocka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You want him to shut up about it?  Write the congresscritters that are proposing stupid, poorly articulated legislation. 

That will never happen as few gun grabberz ever feel like any anti-gun law goes too far.  Instead of writing their congresscritters about it and asking them to stop with the BS, they just instead move them across state lines.  Or just keep them and then lecture others on why the rest of us having them is so evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2018 at 7:56 PM, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

I apologise for the insult, I though you were trying to make a political debate not a mechanical one.

The ATF uses the words action of the trigger for a precise reason, any outside influence acting on the gun is not an action of the gun as the case with the bump stock. (Yes I have fired one and own one, but it just sits in my safe as it is a dumb thing)

With the many different trigger arrangements I will go over the standard AR trigger. When the trigger is pulled the hammer is released and strikes the firing pin. As the round travels out of the barrel the expelled gas is captured and drives the bolt carrier back (this contains the firing pin) and cocks the hammer again. At this time the hammer is cought on the disconnect. The hammer will not release again as the bolt carrier travels back into position. 

That is one action of the trigger. In short hand trigger pulled round fired and all is reset. No further action will occur while you hold down the trigger. 

With a bumpstock it is just a cup with a spring in it. You hold the cup and place the gun in the cup with a spring between them. When fired the recoile moves the gun into the cup and away from your trigger finger. A single round is fired per the action of the trigger. The spring then drives the weapon back into the trigger finger causing a second action of the trigger and over again.

For a FA weapon when you pull the trigger it will continue to cycle firing round after round till no further rounds are available or a failure.

The ATF writes the definitions very precisely, and gun manufacturers use this to get around them. Bump stocks are one example, AR pistols get around short barrelled rifles, the new wave gets around short barrelled shotguns and AOW, and just recently a company made a straight grooved rifle that per the ATFs terms is not a rifle because a rifle must have a rifled barrel.

It is cat and mouse just like in Tech industry.

Thanks for the description. They're not "automatic weapons" in the current definition then?

They're a "dumb thing" and they're silly, inaccurate and ridiculous, but they seem to have been used for exactly what they were designed in Vegas. What should be done about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 1:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The few autopsy details that have emerged indicate Mr. Paddock (or someone) shot him in the mouth. But with only one round.

Maybe they won't release it because the fact that he killed himself with one round doesn't do much to bolster the grabberz' case for using suicides as a reason to ban bump stocka.

 Not that anyone has made the claim that bump stocks should be banned because they cause more suicides, besides yourself, which would make you the gungraberz, but you are making that claim in reference to the only known case of bump stocks involved in a suicide. 

   You OK??     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 10:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The few autopsy details that have emerged indicate Mr. Paddock (or someone) shot him in the mouth. But with only one round.

Maybe they won't release it because the fact that he killed himself with one round doesn't do much to bolster the grabberz' case for using suicides as a reason to ban bump stocka.

Jesus, you jumped the shark on that one.  

The beauty of my complete gun confiscation plan, among many other things, is that with no guns, folks can't play silly games to avoid sensible restrictions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

They are not a weapon at all. The only part that is illegal to own is an auto sear.

To me, yes they are dumb. They were designed to ease the process of bump firing a rifle. He had a bi-pod that made his rifle more stable. Why are you not worried about it? The rate of fire concerns you but not the accuracy? 

Anywho what should be done about them? Nothing, I can bump fire my rifle with out one. What are you going to outlaw, my finger?

What should be done about Las Vegas? Large buildings should have much tighter security. How he got a dozen rifles into his room is amazingly incompetent on the hotels part. You can't get nail clippers into the airport or court house, yet a dozen rifles to the fourth floor, no problem!

I didn't know that someone could bump fire without the special stock. How many rounds a second can a amateur shoot per second like that? Not in the style of those mad-minute guys, but just a regular hobbyist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

Yeah it is not that hard but I could not give you a round count to be honest. I guess the best I could describe it as is like whistling, it can be difficult, but once you get it it becomes second nature. You can use something like your belt loop to assist, and I could teach you that in a few minutes to dump a whole standard 30rd mag, but a barn would be the only target you would hit.

Honestly this guy would have been 100x more deadly if he was on the ground in the crowd doing this, sitting higher up in the hotel he was less lethal. I really wish things like LV didn't happen, but he seemed the type of person that was just looking for a body count. He would have just used the next available tool if a gun wasn't available.

Maybe. But these homicidal maniacs are often monumental pussies, they want to go out on their own terms, something they don't afford their victims.

The mad minute guy can shoot around the same speed as a machine pistol, but he trained for a lifetime to do that. He has balls to be able to do that. These homicidal maniacs don't have balls, why make it easy for them to do anything, when it seems even you admit that these stockaaaas are silly? If some asshole is going to drive drunk, I would rather him be behind the wheel of something light like a moped rather than something heavy like a Goldwing.

But after this discussion, I'm not sure that a ban on bump stockaaaas would even matter, it might be a waste of time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

I didn't know that someone could bump fire without the special stock. How many rounds a second can a amateur shoot per second like that? Not in the style of those mad-minute guys, but just a regular hobbyist?

IME, its much harder than most people think.  I've bump fired rifles by accident, because it had a very light trigger.  I have a buddy who's precision AR-15 has something like a .5 lb trigger pull with an aftermarket target trigger.  I think its too light but he likes it for benchrest shooting.  Anyway, The recoil of the rifle causes it if you don't have good follow through on the trigger.  I've gotten 3 rounds off when I intended on.  I think if you really practice, you could do OK, but the only people I've ever seen be able to consistently be able to bump fire more than a doublet or triplet are people who hold the gun down at their hip.  Its very difficult to bump fire if you hold the stocka against your shoulder because the gun has to move in recoil more than it could if held correctly against the shoulder.  

That's the whole point of the bump stockas.... they are spring loaded to allow the rifle to recoil enough to cause the gun to run into your trigger finger on the way back forward.  

I'm torn on what to do about them.  On one hand, they have been used in precisely ONE incident in a unique set of circumstances.  And I believe in my heart of hearts that live were likely SAVED by the use of the bump stocka because even a very average shooter from the vantage point that he had with the scoped rifle that he used would likely have been able to kill 3x as many as he did with even semi-controlled fire.  The fact that they founds rounds all over the place, even way over at the airport which is a LOOONG way away means that many rounds were sprayed up into the air, likely from the sustained fire causing the muzzle to rise and many rounds going harmless over the crowd.  So I believe the bump stocka issue is hugely blown out of proportion and is nothing more than the usual knee jerk reaction from uninformed dupes.

However, OTOH - I have no issue banning or restricting them either.  They DO make a rifle function pretty closely to what a full auto M-16 would be like.  Therefore for all intents they make an AR or AK close enough to their full auto cousins to be the same.  So I would treat the stockas as essentially the same as an auto sear for an AR-15.  Regulate it the same.  

And I suspect the NRA is supportive of a ban or restrictions for much the same reason I am - that bump stockas are a total "Meh" to the vast majority of the gun community, even those of us who like battlefield type gunz.  So banning or regulating them is an easy sacrifice to the grabberz who will feel like they got something and they can crow about their gun-control victory.  But in the end, not a whole lot will change and our rights will still be intact.  

Bye bye bump stockas.  We hardly knew ye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:
On 2/6/2018 at 4:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The few autopsy details that have emerged indicate Mr. Paddock (or someone) shot him in the mouth. But with only one round.

Maybe they won't release it because the fact that he killed himself with one round doesn't do much to bolster the grabberz' case for using suicides as a reason to ban bump stocka.

 Not that anyone has made the claim that bump stocks should be banned because they cause more suicides, besides yourself, which would make you the gungraberz, but you are making that claim in reference to the only known case of bump stocks involved in a suicide. 

   You OK??    

I guess you haven't kept up with the self-murder thread or you'd know I was talking about this gungrabby lobbyist, not myself:

On 11/8/2017 at 8:27 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Gun Control Lobbyist Worries About Federal Judges

Quote

It is one thing if the current Congress lacks the courage to tackle domestic gun violence. It would be another thing altogether for the judicial branch to say the Second Amendment prevents legislators from banning bump stocks, regulating the assault weapons used in Las Vegas and Texas, or otherwise addressing the gun violence that claimed 38,000 lives last year.

I'm not sure how bump stocks are related to suicide prevention.


About 2/3 of those "gun violence" victims are always suicides when you see the number reported by a grabby lobbyist.

Do you think banning bump stocks will have any affect on the 2/3 of those deaths that are suicides? Or was it just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

The beauty of my complete gun confiscation plan, among many other things, is that with no guns, folks can't play silly games to avoid sensible restrictions.  

And the beauty of you is that you're able to imagine the combination of government competence and Cooperative citizens that might achieve your goal.

The other is that you make it obvious that you're saying what the others only dare to think. This group is quick to disagree with someone who is being unreasonable. Obviously, your plan doesn't strike too many as unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I would treat the stockas as essentially the same as an auto sear for an AR-15.  Regulate it the same.  

If I thought that likely, I'd be buying as many as I could.

We saw what happened to the price of ordinary machine guns once the registry closed. If bump stocka are to be somehow added to a closed registry, they're going to become very, very expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I guess you haven't kept up with the self-murder thread or you'd know I was talking about this gungrabby lobbyist, not myself:


About 2/3 of those "gun violence" victims are always suicides when you see the number reported by a grabby lobbyist.

Do you think banning bump stocks will have any affect on the 2/3 of those deaths that are suicides? Or was it just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control?

What flimsy bullshit you gave to Mark. The article was about Trump's poor judicial choices.

2/3 of 38,000 is 25,080 suicides, in one fucking year. Each was a powerful and unfortunate occurrence.Many were confused teens, others were your contemporaries and equals. We don't need to enable this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

the price of ordinary machine guns

No machine guns are ordinary, Tom. And 11,500 are to be found registered just in NV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 (Mark K to Mr. Uncooperateve:) You OK?? 

Not in my opinion, Mark. Pooplius is way out there promoting many dangerous mis-representations of gun mayhem. Curiously, he spices his presentations with several race-baiting mechanisms. I can cite them after tossing them in a folder for a few years.

Carry on, Pooplius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
25 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I guess you haven't kept up with the self-murder thread or you'd know I was talking about this gungrabby lobbyist, not myself:


About 2/3 of those "gun violence" victims are always suicides when you see the number reported by a grabby lobbyist.

Do you think banning bump stocks will have any affect on the 2/3 of those deaths that are suicides? Or was it just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control?

What flimsy bullshit you gave to Mark. The article was about Trump's poor judicial choices.

2/3 of 38,000 is 25,080 suicides, in one fucking year. Each was a powerful and unfortunate occurrence.Many were confused teens, others were your contemporaries and equals. We don't need to enable this problem.

OK, how will banning bump stocka help to reduce our suicide rate?

Do you think maybe the secret autopsy shows that he managed to fire more than one round into his mouth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've bump fired rifles by accident, because it had a very light trigger.

Um, prone to accidental discharge? What could go wrong with that?

 

8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, how will banning bump stocka help to reduce our suicide rate?

Do you think maybe the secret autopsy shows that he managed to fire more than one round into his mouth?

You are prancing around stoked about suicides?

I think you got your attention this morning by glibly, shamelessly,  standing on the bodies of suicide victims. What is wrong with you?

You're going to bless guns by normalizing suicide? Don't the Libertarians use pastors, counselors, or shamans or something? Get a clue soon, sonny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Um, prone to accidental discharge? What could go wrong with that?

Hard to call pulling the trigger an AD, Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Hard to call pulling the trigger an AD, Joe.

No biggie? You're pretty composed while discussing accidental discharges. Is that composure based on experience?

How do these guns fire inside of backpacks and dropped purses? No fingers in there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

No biggie? You're pretty composed while discussing accidental discharges. Is that composure based on experience?

How do these guns fire inside of backpacks and dropped purses? No fingers in there. 

I'm pointing out, Joe, that pulling the trigger is supposed to result in something happening, unless the chamber is empty.  Which fits with what was described - namely - he soft pulled a light trigger and got it to bump fire. Not an AD.

So then you describe an actual AD, but throw in a snide comment about fingers.

I'll give an easy AD example - any rifle with a floating firing pin can do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I'm pointing out, Joe, that pulling the trigger is supposed to result in something happening, unless the chamber is empty.  Which fits with what was described - namely - he soft pulled a light trigger and got it to bump fire. Not an AD.

The "light trigger" is the problem. Some backpacks and purses execute the "light pull". Not even Dead Eye Dick can find fingers in there...

My training is to not accept accidental discharges casually. How about yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I guess you haven't kept up with the self-murder thread or you'd know I was talking about this gungrabby lobbyist, not myself:


About 2/3 of those "gun violence" victims are always suicides when you see the number reported by a grabby lobbyist.

Do you think banning bump stocks will have any affect on the 2/3 of those deaths that are suicides? Or was it just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control?

 Since you failed to show any evidence of anybody, besides yourself, making a case that bump-stocks will affect suicides...I'll take that as a "no" to my question, and possibly a conscious or sub-conscious cry for help.

 

  I can't claim to have any expertise in this area, but my suggestion is either cut back on whatever it may be you are smoking...but if you aren't smoking anything...start. Unless, of course, it's something attached to Ted Nugent. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mark K said:
17 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I guess you haven't kept up with the self-murder thread or you'd know I was talking about this gungrabby lobbyist, not myself:


About 2/3 of those "gun violence" victims are always suicides when you see the number reported by a grabby lobbyist.

Do you think banning bump stocks will have any affect on the 2/3 of those deaths that are suicides? Or was it just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control?

 Since you failed to show any evidence of anybody, besides yourself, making a case that bump-stocks will affect suicides.

Yeah, that's a pretty good indicator that it was that second thing. Just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control.

We agree that the gun control he was calling for is unrelated to bump stocka. And he was using suicides to call for it. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yeah, that's a pretty good indicator that it was that second thing. Just another gungrabber exploiting suicides to call for unrelated gun control.

We agree that the gun control he was calling for is unrelated to bump stocka. And he was using suicides to call for it. So...

What does this say? I can't even tell, something silly, You don't sound well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The "light trigger" is the problem. Some backpacks and purses execute the "light pull". Not even Dead Eye Dick can find fingers in there...

Joe gets caught making shit up, attacks the messenger. How surprising.

You might want to look into hammer/striker falling on dropped firearms. Hint: it has nothing to do with the trigger being pulled.

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

My training is to not accept accidental discharges casually. How about yours?

And Joe plays the "I have superior training" angle, because he still doesn't understand that pulling the fucking trigger normally results in something happening, it is when you don't pull the trigger and something happens that you have an AD.

I tried to point you to an example, Joe, but your amazing knowledge probably kept you from looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Joe gets caught making shit up, attacks the messenger. How surprising.

You might want to look into hammer/striker falling on dropped firearms. Hint: it has nothing to do with the trigger being pulled.

And Joe plays the "I have superior training" angle, because he still doesn't understand that pulling the fucking trigger normally results in something happening, it is when you don't pull the trigger and something happens that you have an AD.

I tried to point you to an example, Joe, but your amazing knowledge probably kept you from looking.

 

yapper dog.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

[at least we were spared a memegenerator picture]

Aww, how cute, Joe is using his normal debate methods. Which one will it be next, Joe?

I'm still waiting for that Castile SCOTUS opinion that you claim was 9-0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Aww, how cute, Joe is using his normal debate methods. Which one will it be next, Joe?

I'm still waiting for that Castile SCOTUS opinion that you claim was 9-0.

You wait in your own misery, which is showing. As I mentioned, you must mean Castleman, the house that Lautenberg built. 

High centered or something? You have offered no insights or intelligent pros or cons, but keep bringing it up. If you can't discuss it, or Wrenn, maybe you need to let 'em go.

One of the most interesting aspects of this case, IMO, is that Castleman only got caught because he and his current wife were engaged in gun trafficking.

She was his straw purchaser, and he was selling guns into the gray and black markets via the private sales loophole. A gun recovered in a criminal investigation (in Illinois, IIRC) was traced to the FFL in Tennessee where she had bought the gun.

That led to a federal investigation of them, and his indictment under federal gun law. It worked out great for American women, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites