http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sen-blumenthal-must-break-grip-nra/ SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-Conn.: This evidence of the use of a bump-stock, as well as a semiautomatic weapon, a weapon of war, along with a high-capacity magazine, shows the need to ban those devices, which are designed simply to kill and maim other human beings. They have no legitimate recreational or hunting purpose. ......We have a bill to do so, which we’re going to introduce, as well as banning the semiautomatics, which were designed as weapons of war, along with the high-capacity magazines........ "Semiautomatics" make up the huge majority of firearms in the USA. The gun controllers would ban almost all firearms immediately. After Sandy Hook, and a few times since, the banners have called bolt action hunting rifles "sniper rifles". The bolt actions will be next on their list of banned firearms. And notice their standard is their subjective determination that a firearm have a "legitimate recreational or hunting purpose". In their eyes, no firearm has a legitimate purpose. Yet another example of the gun banners clearly stating their intent to ban all firearms. No gun control supporter can ever again claim that "nobody is trying to take away your guns".
NRA bans Bump Stocks at its own firing range .... Many firing ranges, including the one at National Rifle Association headquarters, ban the use of bump fire systems like that used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, according to firearms experts. Bump stocks increase the speed at which bullets are fired and cause the entire weapon to move back and forth in the shooter’s grip. As a result, they decrease accuracy and are less safe, the experts say. An NRA spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the group’s shooting range in Fairfax, Virginia. Sources familiar with the range confirmed that bump stocks are banned there. The NRA so far has declined to weigh in on whether Congress should ban the devices. House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday that he's open to holding a vote on a ban, and some top Senate Republicans signaled Wednesday that they would be willing to consider legislation. Several of Paddock’s guns were outfitted with bump stocks, which he fired from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500 others. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/nra-bump-stock-ban-firing-ranges-243495
The vast majority of concealed carriers carry semi-auto. Including dems, progs and other leftist concealed carriers. Revolvers are semi-auto in function as well (1 bullet per trigger pull) with a few exceptions. In short, semi-auto is too popular for a general ban to succeed.
It is safe to say that, Las Vegas isn't a GUN FREE Zone .... ? Where were all the good people with guns in Las Vegas? NOTE: This was originally posted in July of 2016, but it could have been posted 272 times this year alone. So, to repeat myself, Where were all the good people with guns in Las Vegas? You know, the "good people with a gun" who are the only thing that can effectively respond to gun violence. The NRA gun fundamentalists love to state that the only defense against a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. They say this nonsense after school shootings, after theater shootings, after every type of mass shooting. So what happened in Las Vegas? How do we explain this utter absence of response by the mythical "good person with a gun"? Some thoughts: 1) There apparently are no good people with guns in Las Vegas? 2) The good people with guns were paralyzed with fear and unable to respond? And if a good person, or many good persons, had pulled out weapons when the shooting started, what would have been the outcome? 1) Would there have been many more murders because a general shooting free for all would have ensued? 2) Or would a good person with a gun have instantly found the bad person and neutralized the threat? What is incredible, and not at all surprising, is that NRA apologists and paid shills can continue to make the same argument when all the evidence shows that there simply is no protection conferred by carrying a gun, nor is there any statistically significant effective response to this violence by an armed civilian. So how soon before I can repost this again?
Yeah, a good guy with a concealed weapon (that I'm sure was not allowed inside the concert area), should have fired back about 1700 feet and made an impossible precision shot......... with a compact pistol. SMH.
The good guys with guns is a product of the NRA's myth making machinery. Where were they in Dallas? Where were they in Orlando? Who breached the shooters door in Vegas? The cops, that's who, not a bunch of good guys with guns.
Yet people do protect themselves with firearms. How can you write "there simply is no protection conferred by carrying a gun" with a straight face? How many of the mass shootings happen outside of gun free zones? Self-defense may not be statistically significant, but it's significant to those who save their own or others lives. Why are we even talking about CCW?
Concealed carry license holders are not cops and as such have no obligation to get involved. We don't become CCW's to become crime fighters, we do it to protect our families if given the right circumstances. Also, we don't know if there were any CCW's at any of these venues. I know in Orlando, clubs like Pulse are gun free zones....... for good guys. There is no NRA myth about good guys with guns. Successful firearm self defense's occur everyday.
If you observe social media you will find that if you ask these conceal carry, constitutional absolutists, NRA worshiping, gun toters, if they have ever needed their gun, shot their gun in anger, etc., 99% will say no. Then if you ask them then why do you carry, they say, just in case. It's like when I was 14 and some other kid had a rubber in his wallet, and you asked him why he had it, he'd say, just in case. They're both equally infantile.
It's called being prepared. What are the chances you will have a fire in your home? Are you prepared with a fire extinguisher, homeowners insurance or a smoke alarm? Do plan on having a wreck with your car anytime soon? Are you prepared with car insurance? You should have conversations with those that have had to use a firearm for self defense..... More firearm self defense uses do not involve firing the gun. Click below. http://www.wtva.com/story/36445962/...s-teen-at-gunpoint-following-break-in-attempt
Isn't it interesting that the gun banners require a pro-gun argument to work 100% of the time or they declare it a failure and it should be revoked, yet when their gun control laws fail repeatedly they insist they need ever more gun control laws. Even though people with concealed carry firearms stop crime (including mass shooters) every day, in Las Vegas, people with concealed carry permits did not stop the shooter, so the banners say concealed carry is worthless. Yet all the banners proposed gun control laws would not have stopped any of the mass shooters, and with every failure of their gun controls they demand more pointless ineffective gun control.
We have mindlessly chattering chipmunkery going on between the gun huggers and the gun grabbers. Neither side is completely right.
Well, it's too bad that these days it's generally frowned upon in big cities to have rifles in your cars. In the case of the Texas Tower shooter (Whitman, first senseless mass shooter), he was pinned down and pretty much stopped after a bunch of UT college students grabbed rifles out of their cars and started shooting at him.
No, its because firearms are standoff weapons, and when a predator sees one, they tend to stop rather than fight. That, and most gun carriers aren't champing at the bit to shoot someone. They would rather threaten the criminal with their guns than shoot them.
The difference is that the pro-gun side is protecting freedom, while the anti-gunners are authoritarians trying to take away freedom. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
No, it's because most of time a firearm is pulled without incident it wasn't necessary to pull the weapon in the first place.
Considering that most violent crimes are committed by no weapons, I don't really think that's true. The presence of a firearm scares the predators, and stops the attack. It's the only weapon that can do that.
Agreed. I think they realized a few decades ago that pushing for an all-out "European"-style gun ban wasn't going to work, so they've been pushing for incremental gun restrictions ever since. When Clinton's gun ban lapsed and Obama failed to reenact it, they were huuuuugely disappointed. Now they are drooling all over themselves standing on 59 bodies in hopes of passing some major gun control laws.
Pray tell exactly how would such knowledge be possessed by yourself? What makes you an expert on when it is and is not necessary to pull a firearm in a defensive situation?
