Jump to content

SFtoVA

Members
  • Content count

    673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SFtoVA

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Team
    Wyoming
  1. You were way off with the 1500 killed by blunt objects claim, big difference from 1500 to 437. Keep in mind this doesn't include Pulse or LV, these number are going to change. There's also 2.477 where firearm type is "not stated", which is disturbing and another thing that bothers me... Why is it so hard to report, at a minimum, simple data from police involved or non-police shootings to a central authority? Doesn't really matter though, magazine capacity affects handguns (6,447) as well as rifles.
  2. Is it possible that the reason that these haven't been used in crime is that it is relatively regulated compared to some random guy buying rifles with 100 round magazines and bump stocks? I've never looked into buying a tank, but I'm guessing there's a lot of paperwork involved.
  3. Not sure what the answer is... I really think the ATF dropped the ball allowing bump stocks, not sure it matters now if they change it back. I think magazine capacity limits is a good thing, but again, there's just so many out there already. Nor do I like the idea of criminalizing after the fact otherwise lawful owners of these things. I think it's also a valid point that most crimes committed with a handgun kill far more people in the course of a year than these mass shooters. That has as much to do with other societal/policy issues that's been pointed out in this thread. And as always, crazy people are going to do crazy things no matter what the laws might be.
  4. I said 150 @ 300 yards, not 300 targets...
  5. Agreed on the accuracy when using a bump stock and just emptying magazine after magazine. However, in this scenario, seems like aiming in a general direction is sufficient. The rate of fire and carrying ammunition, I guess it depends on the scenario. This particular shooter wasn't worried about carrying anything, he had days to stock up. Disagree on the suppressors reducing velocity. The more I read about it, the clearer it is that modern suppressors have little impact on the velocity of the round. Melting, okay... But this guy had multiple rifles. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards he didn't have suppressors because he didn't want to do the paperwork and draw attention to himself. If that legislation had passed and he could just get as many as he wanted, makes me shiver. LEO and victims had a hard enough time trying to figure out where the shots were coming from, no idea how much worse that would have been if the sound is reduced by 30db at the shooter.
  6. You could hit 150 moving targets from 300 yards out in ten minutes? I'm grateful this shooter didn't have that skill set.. Or, maybe he did, but decided volume was better than accuracy. I would suggest that we should consider a semi-auto .223 (I've not actually seen/heard what he had) is sufficiently powerful and accurate enough to be considered "high powered", especially when the "targets" are humans. In my mind the math gets worse, exponentially, when you add high capacity magazines, a bump stock, and a dense group of people. From the pics I saw, he had scopes, so pretty much just aim in that direction and hold your finger. Accurate, no. Effective, yes.
  7. This makes zero sense to me... How would a bump stock with or without a suppressor help victims? Those combinations would be incredibly lethal. Also, you wouldn't hear the "sonic boom" until the round has already gone by, hit its target? What am I missing. As far as the "Hearing Protection Act of 2017", total crap. It doesn't specify that the suppressor needs to be for rifles. House: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367/text?q={"search"%3A["hr367"]}&r=1 Senate: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59/text?q={"search"%3A["s59"]}&r=1 They can/will sell these for handguns as well if this ever passes.
  8. Yeah, that's why I checked as I didn't think it would work.... I guess the idea is that it will not cycle a semi-auto effectively making it a bolt action (sorry if that's wrong terminology), but that's the trade off. They also do list a 5.56 that will cycle with their (proprietary?) upper receiver. None-the-less, it's an rifle round that is manufactured apparently...
  9. http://beckammunition.com/subsonic-ammo/223-subsonic
  10. Oh boy !?! This will fill some underwear

    That's pretty much my interpretation as well... A group supported and managed by the local government, be it State, County, City, etc.. Was discussing with my wife (very liberal), and she pointed out that the piece I was missing is that seizing weapons as the Brits were trying to do at the time would have also seriously affected folks in the rural areas that supplemented their farming/community with hunting. They used the same weapons for both for the most part.
  11. Shooters at Mandalay Bay

    It might just be me, safe bet actually, but there's just something about his brother that is off-putting. Kind of like when you meet someone, they say the right things and seem normal in general, but there's just something about them. Not sure those vibes can come though a TV, but I wouldn't want to have a beer with him or let him in my house. I'm not saying he's hiding something or lying... Not sure, just something is off.
  12. Shooters at Mandalay Bay

    We might never know with this guy, but it's pretty clear (to me at least) he was scoping out several outdoor music festivals. Why was that his preferred target?
  13. Shooters at Mandalay Bay

    I've never heard of that before... I did read or heard somewhere that he would blow cigar smoke into the faces of people smoking cigarettes because he couldn't stand the smell of smoke. Makes zero sense to me but perhaps MCS would explain that behavior. After a read of the wiki, seems similar to hypochondriac, but I don't really know crap about that either. Not really appropriate, but makes me think of Saul's brother in "Better Call Saul"...
  14. I always kind of thought it was both... The founders didn't want to have a large, federally controlled standing army that could be used against our own citizens but at the same time wanted (semi) trained forces that could be called upon for mutual defense? I've nothing to back that up with off the top of my head, just remember thinking that was the case.
×