When you're a homicidal maniac spraying bullets into a crowd, accuracy is secondary to rate of fire. Come on dude, this is mass shooting 101.
Oh, I agree.
Thing is...a bump fire stock, by nature of how it works....isn't really that great or reliable if you are trying to move around with your gun.
If you are set up in a sniper area like he was, with multiple weapons fitted with them, to allow cooling and not having to reload as often and being somewhat able to stand stationary while using them, then they are dangerous as we saw.
However, you really can't be moving, walking or running trying to use one in a crowd....they just don't work that well, again, by nature of how they work.
So, aside from set ups like the LV shooter used, they generally aren't that effective for general use.....converting to FULL AUTO would be the best way to go, and of course, that is already ILLEGAL.
And a bump stock doesn't increate rate of fire THAT much. There was a demonstration not long back, that showed:
A regular semi-auto AR15 could be shot about 5 rounds per second.
A bump stock AR15 could fire about 7.5 rounds per second.
A Full Auto fired about 15 rounds per second.
So....combined with their problems, that's why you've not seen much prior crime committed with a bump stock...and likely banning them won't prevent much either. It will primarily ONLY keep law abiding citizens from having a bit of fun at the gun range.
ee subject & demand that your government BANS BUMP STOCKS IMMEDIATELY. Banning bump stocks is the ONLY way to prevent future mass shootings like the Las Vegas shooting.
Hmm....I guess you're right, as that there had not been a single mass shooting to date prior to the Vegas shooting that seemed to involve bump stocks.
Hmm...I guess we'd better ban fingers and belt loops and sticks that can emulate that bump stock too.....
Strange, we'd not heard of many crimes involving the bump stocks prior to this, even though they have been around for years and year now....hmmm.
Im not a fan of them so much myself, but aside from the special sniper case set up in the Vegas shooting, in general bump fire stocks aren't reliable enough to use in a crime situation or even home defense.
If I were a criminal (you know the ones that DON'T follow the law by definition)....I'd go the route of modifying my gun to truly be full auto....much more effective and reliable.
The Vatican doesn't want bump stocks banned & is spending millions of dollars to LOBBY AGAINST banning bump stocks.
That being said....this connection to the Vatican is a new one on me....
I'd love to sign up to your newsletter on that one....
;)
As far as conspiracy theories go....and there do seem to be some strange facts around this case for sure...the main thing I see as been at all a suspicious coincidence, was that for the first time in ages, some pro gun legislation was about to go through for votes....including the SHARE act, which I think included one or more of the hearing protection acts that would have relaxed the hoops to jump through to buy and own a suppressor (silencer).....and of course that all got tabled after the nut in Vegas did what he did.
Hmm.....so, if these councils reviewing these algorithms that are finding actual bonafide trends, that happen to break along racial, sexual, [insert special interest here]...and that don't happen to fit the politically correct meme of the day, that they will insist these be thrown out?
So, facts....if inconvenient....are not to be used or trusted?
Obligatory reminder: Correlation does not imply causation
In this case, however, it pretty much does.
Obamacare for many reasons has failed and caused costs to skyrocket for most everyone.
But one main reason for me is...they dictate that my insurance must cover fucking everything....for instance, I have prenatal and other having babies related care coverage, but I have no kids, intend to have no kids, and as a guy, I personally cannot have one by myself as that I'm in between girlfriends right now....and I'm getting to the age where I wouldn't even consider it at all.
Yet, I pay for that coverage.
If I could tailer my policies to my needs more like I used to....I am self employed and only want a basic policy, what we used to call "major medical" for emergency care...along with a high deductible ($1300 or so) and have my HSA for my pre-tax savings for routine medical visits, meds and care....I'd pay much less than the almost $1100/mo my current policy is jumping up to....I've had to drop to bronze to keep it only $730/mo.
This was only about $420/mo about 3 years ago.
There was never this type of seemingly exponential increase year to year until the obamacare regulations hit...and we all got much less choice in our insurance needs.
I"m pretty far away from being a liberal, and I pretty much agree with the OP.
Allowing the entity that can arrest and charge you with something allowing them to seize valuable assets from you, seems quite dangerous if they are to directly benefit from them.
I mean, there is 100% incentive for them to try to charge someone just to get money. That is seriously dangerous. And it isn't like we've never seen a crooked cop or politician, right?
So, I would also like it, if property is to be seized....that the proceeds from it go back to the tax payers or maybe like suggested, to paying off the national debt, and that way it would help insure that the ONLY motivation of the law enforcement entities is PURELY for justice and enforcing the law.
I've often suggested that we take local and state fines collected from traffic offenses and at EOY, give them back as a check to all citizens that drive that have not committed any offenses as a reward.
The trouble with that is, I'm guessing cops would likely give up sitting around looking for someone going 5-10mph over the limit. Frankly, I would rather them look more for criminals cruizing at 10mph looking to do a drive by, rather than a citizen going 10mph over the limit trying to get to work on time to be productive, but that's just me.
But yes, while I support law enforcement...we need them to protect from violent crime, etc....we should not give them fiscal incentive to enforce laws as that the presents a conflict of interest...law should be enforced ONLY for the sake of enforcing the law, not for monetary gain.
Well, we do have a bottom safety net, medicaid...but for those of us (hopefully the majority) with real jobs, we can pay our own way...individualism and all that.
But anyway, very nice discussion with you on this...nice to have a respectful discussion of differing opinions.....
I think we've confirmed that you and I have different philosophies on insurance. If I understand you correctly, people who have more expensive medical needs by being black, female, whatever, will pay for life for their bad decision. People with chronic conditions like genetic disorders will be fucked. You'll be fine.
"Routine" can vary radically from one person to another based solely on where you stand at birth. Just having a vagina is pretty expensive. I don't mind subsidizing people who opt for a vagina. "Saving up" for chronic conditions can be insurmountable even though expensive treatments are "routine" for that patient.
Making women 100% responsible for the cost of all pregnancies because men "don't need that coverage" is something I strongly disagree with. I thought that opinion would be pretty much universal.
Ok..so, you're saying I should pay for everyone else's problems?
Why is that?
Are you assuming that be virtue of my sex, race, {add category here} that I don't/won't have special needs in my life too?
It all balances out...but I shouldn't have to pay up front for everyone else/s special needs, just like they shouldn't pay for mine.
As far as having kids and all the costs that go with it...hey, it takes two to tango and have one, therefore those that CHOOSE to have kids should be the ones that pay for it with insurance, etc.
I choose not to have them, why should I subsidize others that have them?
And I realize we disagree, I'm guessing you are much younger than me.
I remember a time growing up, where medical insurance is exactly what I'm describing...it was for catastrophic needs, not routine care.
That insurance for routine care is a fairly new paradigm....I'm just wanting to go back to what it was decades back, before medical insurance costs skyrocketed.....
It is just that America is so proud of its health system (most expensive one in the world) that produces one of the lowest life expectancy in the west world....
Funny, I"ve never had a problem with it...works fine for me.
About my only complaint is, that ever since Obamacare, my insurance prices have skyrocketed....
And besides, they aren't consumable Medications....what harm if you get contacts?
Hell, they sell contacts that don't alter vision without prescriptions (for halloween, etc)....what's the big deal if someone gets some that are prescription?
Hell, who would actually WANT prescription contact lenses that aren't in a prescription that would help their vision in the first place?
I mean, this isn't gonna get them high or harm them, just will make their vision blurry....
And there are still plenty of people who don't want to pay several hundred dollars for the privilege of planting listening devices all over their home.
THIS ^^
I can't imagine that many people wanting to voluntarily bug their own homes....but then again, look at all the people that gladly voluntarily give all their personal information, location, images, etc. to places like Facebook and other social media corporation without a second thought.
I guess they must have removed 1984 as required reading in schools a few decades back or something?
You know...this was YEARS back on/. where they had an article about schools putting cameras into classes to monitor grade school kids.
I thought this was creepy back then, but I did mention that "what one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces".
Sadly this has proven quite prophetic, and just getting worse.
So if somebody's born with a genetic disorder, they pay rates comparable to their expected cost of treatment? I think you and I have different ideas about the purpose of insurance. But then, I'm one of those kooks that thinks even unemployed women should get prenatal care.
I don't think insurance is there for routine care.
It is there ONLY for emergencies....heart attack, cancer, getting hit by a bus....it is for catastrophic needs.
But your routine care, that should be planned and paid for by the individual. That would lower insurance costs to what insurance should be.."insurance against catastrophic loss".
I think it would help if the govt would loosen up and broaden the allowance of HSA's so people could save their money monthly pre-tax for these routine medical needs.
You save money monthly for food, shelter, etc...why should you not also save for routine medical/health needs?
Maybe different rates for the preexisting condition, black [webmd.com]?
Well, different things cost different amounts to treat, and different things affect the sexes and yes, some races have different pre-dispositions to different illnesses. Hell, why not mention Jews, Canadians and Cajuns and Tay-Sachs disease?
Thing is, not everyone is the same, but everyone generally has things wrong unique to their genetic makeup. Some are worse than others and hence yes, they will cost a bit more.
You know...at their worst I never saw the tea party rioting, hurting people, and doing everything the current LEFT has been doing in order to prevent people from merely speaking at a college like they have continuously done at Berkley and other supposed institutions or learning, diversity and sharing of ideas.
Cool. But then you can't cut health care costs much (single-payer or otherwise) because that's where most of the money goes.
I disagree, I would posit that most of the $$ that could be cut, would be getting rid of the HMO's and other bean counter middlemen.....to put our pharmaceutical costs more on par with what the rest of the world pays for meds, tort reform would help and physicians wouldn't have to charge as much to CYA for all the trivial legal problems people give them...quit letting hospitals get away with $12 aspirins and the overcharging of everything else there, etc.
The salaries are a drop in the bucket for healthcare costs in the US.
Are you suggesting that having a vagina should be considered a preexisting condition?
Well, it is potential for having a kid.
ON the other hand, I have no problem paying for insurance covering prostate problems...having one is pretty much a potential pre-existing condition for that...so, sure, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I agree.
Thing is...a bump fire stock, by nature of how it works....isn't really that great or reliable if you are trying to move around with your gun.
If you are set up in a sniper area like he was, with multiple weapons fitted with them, to allow cooling and not having to reload as often and being somewhat able to stand stationary while using them, then they are dangerous as we saw.
However, you really can't be moving, walking or running trying to use one in a crowd....they just don't work that well, again, by nature of how they work.
So, aside from set ups like the LV shooter used, they generally aren't that effective for general use.....converting to FULL AUTO would be the best way to go, and of course, that is already ILLEGAL.
And a bump stock doesn't increate rate of fire THAT much. There was a demonstration not long back, that showed:
A regular semi-auto AR15 could be shot about 5 rounds per second.
A bump stock AR15 could fire about 7.5 rounds per second.
A Full Auto fired about 15 rounds per second.
So....combined with their problems, that's why you've not seen much prior crime committed with a bump stock...and likely banning them won't prevent much either. It will primarily ONLY keep law abiding citizens from having a bit of fun at the gun range.
Hmm....I guess you're right, as that there had not been a single mass shooting to date prior to the Vegas shooting that seemed to involve bump stocks.
Hmm...I guess we'd better ban fingers and belt loops and sticks that can emulate that bump stock too.....
Strange, we'd not heard of many crimes involving the bump stocks prior to this, even though they have been around for years and year now....hmmm.
Im not a fan of them so much myself, but aside from the special sniper case set up in the Vegas shooting, in general bump fire stocks aren't reliable enough to use in a crime situation or even home defense.
If I were a criminal (you know the ones that DON'T follow the law by definition)....I'd go the route of modifying my gun to truly be full auto....much more effective and reliable.
That being said....this connection to the Vatican is a new one on me....
I'd love to sign up to your newsletter on that one....
As far as conspiracy theories go....and there do seem to be some strange facts around this case for sure...the main thing I see as been at all a suspicious coincidence, was that for the first time in ages, some pro gun legislation was about to go through for votes....including the SHARE act, which I think included one or more of the hearing protection acts that would have relaxed the hoops to jump through to buy and own a suppressor (silencer).....and of course that all got tabled after the nut in Vegas did what he did.
OH well.....like is sure interesting.....
So, facts....if inconvenient....are not to be used or trusted?
Hmm...isn't that kinda deleting the purpose?
Err...seriously?
So, in the days before social media on the web, when there was nothing BUT things to read, we were all depressed and feeling bad???
Somehow I missed that.
You consider Slashdot to be social anything???
Hmm....I dunno....I don't find /. to really be social media...just is a simple forum where people post messages and opinions.
Not really what I'd consider social media, like Twitter or FB.
Would you term USENET as being social media?
In this case, however, it pretty much does.
Obamacare for many reasons has failed and caused costs to skyrocket for most everyone.
But one main reason for me is...they dictate that my insurance must cover fucking everything....for instance, I have prenatal and other having babies related care coverage, but I have no kids, intend to have no kids, and as a guy, I personally cannot have one by myself as that I'm in between girlfriends right now....and I'm getting to the age where I wouldn't even consider it at all.
Yet, I pay for that coverage.
If I could tailer my policies to my needs more like I used to....I am self employed and only want a basic policy, what we used to call "major medical" for emergency care...along with a high deductible ($1300 or so) and have my HSA for my pre-tax savings for routine medical visits, meds and care....I'd pay much less than the almost $1100/mo my current policy is jumping up to....I've had to drop to bronze to keep it only $730/mo.
This was only about $420/mo about 3 years ago.
There was never this type of seemingly exponential increase year to year until the obamacare regulations hit...and we all got much less choice in our insurance needs.
Nah...we're both too old to be snowflakes.
Where did you get that number? Can you cite your sources?
Well, I care about others, but I don't feel the need to have to PAY for everyone, I'm not my brother's keeper, and you can't save the world.
It's an unfair world we live in and there are and always have been, winners and losers.
Sad but true....
I do tend to listen at times to the radio (FM) in the car....and just recently got a new car.
I'm playing with the free intro on that new car with XM radio....but doubtful I'll pay for it at end of free 3 mos trial.
I mean, between free FM radio and streaming amazon prime off my phone or using my iPod....I've got plenty of free music options.
If I swap out my CB radio from the old car to the new one, I also get weather radio with that in case of emergencies while out driving....
I"m pretty far away from being a liberal, and I pretty much agree with the OP.
Allowing the entity that can arrest and charge you with something allowing them to seize valuable assets from you, seems quite dangerous if they are to directly benefit from them.
I mean, there is 100% incentive for them to try to charge someone just to get money. That is seriously dangerous. And it isn't like we've never seen a crooked cop or politician, right?
So, I would also like it, if property is to be seized....that the proceeds from it go back to the tax payers or maybe like suggested, to paying off the national debt, and that way it would help insure that the ONLY motivation of the law enforcement entities is PURELY for justice and enforcing the law.
I've often suggested that we take local and state fines collected from traffic offenses and at EOY, give them back as a check to all citizens that drive that have not committed any offenses as a reward.
The trouble with that is, I'm guessing cops would likely give up sitting around looking for someone going 5-10mph over the limit. Frankly, I would rather them look more for criminals cruizing at 10mph looking to do a drive by, rather than a citizen going 10mph over the limit trying to get to work on time to be productive, but that's just me.
But yes, while I support law enforcement...we need them to protect from violent crime, etc....we should not give them fiscal incentive to enforce laws as that the presents a conflict of interest...law should be enforced ONLY for the sake of enforcing the law, not for monetary gain.
Well, we do have a bottom safety net, medicaid...but for those of us (hopefully the majority) with real jobs, we can pay our own way...individualism and all that.
But anyway, very nice discussion with you on this...nice to have a respectful discussion of differing opinions.....
Hmm...do we have DAB in the US?
This is actually pretty much the first I've heard of this...
Ok..so, you're saying I should pay for everyone else's problems?
Why is that?
Are you assuming that be virtue of my sex, race, {add category here} that I don't/won't have special needs in my life too?
It all balances out...but I shouldn't have to pay up front for everyone else/s special needs, just like they shouldn't pay for mine.
As far as having kids and all the costs that go with it...hey, it takes two to tango and have one, therefore those that CHOOSE to have kids should be the ones that pay for it with insurance, etc.
I choose not to have them, why should I subsidize others that have them?
And I realize we disagree, I'm guessing you are much younger than me.
I remember a time growing up, where medical insurance is exactly what I'm describing...it was for catastrophic needs, not routine care.
That insurance for routine care is a fairly new paradigm....I'm just wanting to go back to what it was decades back, before medical insurance costs skyrocketed.....
Funny, I"ve never had a problem with it...works fine for me.
About my only complaint is, that ever since Obamacare, my insurance prices have skyrocketed....
Hell, they sell contacts that don't alter vision without prescriptions (for halloween, etc)....what's the big deal if someone gets some that are prescription?
Hell, who would actually WANT prescription contact lenses that aren't in a prescription that would help their vision in the first place?
I mean, this isn't gonna get them high or harm them, just will make their vision blurry....
THIS ^^
I can't imagine that many people wanting to voluntarily bug their own homes....but then again, look at all the people that gladly voluntarily give all their personal information, location, images, etc. to places like Facebook and other social media corporation without a second thought.
I guess they must have removed 1984 as required reading in schools a few decades back or something?
You know...this was YEARS back on /. where they had an article about schools putting cameras into classes to monitor grade school kids.
I thought this was creepy back then, but I did mention that "what one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces".
Sadly this has proven quite prophetic, and just getting worse.
I don't think insurance is there for routine care.
It is there ONLY for emergencies....heart attack, cancer, getting hit by a bus....it is for catastrophic needs.
But your routine care, that should be planned and paid for by the individual. That would lower insurance costs to what insurance should be.."insurance against catastrophic loss".
I think it would help if the govt would loosen up and broaden the allowance of HSA's so people could save their money monthly pre-tax for these routine medical needs.
You save money monthly for food, shelter, etc...why should you not also save for routine medical/health needs?
Well, different things cost different amounts to treat, and different things affect the sexes and yes, some races have different pre-dispositions to different illnesses. Hell, why not mention Jews, Canadians and Cajuns and Tay-Sachs disease?
Thing is, not everyone is the same, but everyone generally has things wrong unique to their genetic makeup. Some are worse than others and hence yes, they will cost a bit more.
So what?
I"m good with it...
Seriously?
You know...at their worst I never saw the tea party rioting, hurting people, and doing everything the current LEFT has been doing in order to prevent people from merely speaking at a college like they have continuously done at Berkley and other supposed institutions or learning, diversity and sharing of ideas.
I got new for ya....there are plumbers out there that DO make six figure salaries...have you not hired one lately?
You think a highly schooled and skilled doctor/nurse should make less than a plumber?
I disagree, I would posit that most of the $$ that could be cut, would be getting rid of the HMO's and other bean counter middlemen.....to put our pharmaceutical costs more on par with what the rest of the world pays for meds, tort reform would help and physicians wouldn't have to charge as much to CYA for all the trivial legal problems people give them...quit letting hospitals get away with $12 aspirins and the overcharging of everything else there, etc.
The salaries are a drop in the bucket for healthcare costs in the US.
Well, it is potential for having a kid.
ON the other hand, I have no problem paying for insurance covering prostate problems...having one is pretty much a potential pre-existing condition for that...so, sure, why not?
You know..why not let people pick and choose what coverage they want?
Let women worry about prenatal stuff if they plan on having kids.
I don't intend to have kids, but I will happily pay for my own coverage of prostate problems.
Why are you bringing up relationships...?
We were talking about having enjoyable and fulfilling SEX.
LUXURY!!!
I do Night Train...or Thunderbird, if I'm feeling like splurging!!!