hoshin1600
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,161
- Reaction score
- 1,681
fully automatic
Stopping an active shooter
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Gotcha. Thx.
Saw some video on the news last night from the police cams, it sure as hell sounded like fully automatic.
I understand there is a difference between a bump stock and fully auto, in terms of the functional mechanics, but the results are the same.
He was firing weapons that were functionally fully automatic, regardless of the mechanics of the weapon.
.
lklawson
Grandmaster
"Full Auto"
Fully Automatic or Select Fire. A legal definition for you and I here in the U.S. The ATF (BATFE - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), generally gets to decide what is and is not FA. The legal definition, as passed by congress in the National Firearm Act of 1934 (as a "machine gun" ims), is any gun which fires more than one cartridge with each pull of the trigger, inclusive of guns that MAY BE READILY CONVERTED to full automatic fire. This is usually applied to semi-automatic gun of "open bolt" designs but can (and has) been applied to any number of oddball things inclusive of yard, rubber bands, and even a glove worn by the user with a motorized finger. It has not been applied, thus far, to crank-style attachments (looks like a fishing pole crank), "bump fire" stocks, and double-barred shotguns.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
Apropos to the original subject:
Ben Branam, Marine & Professional Security (retired) and podcaster offers his professional advice on Surviving a Terrorist Machine Gun Attack.
Podcast 207 Surviving a Terrorist Machine Gun Attack | Modern Self Protection
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Ben Branam, Marine & Professional Security (retired) and podcaster offers his professional advice on Surviving a Terrorist Machine Gun Attack.
Podcast 207 Surviving a Terrorist Machine Gun Attack | Modern Self Protection
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
hoshin1600
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,161
- Reaction score
- 1,681
while this idea seems logical and a response many people might believe, the reality is that this was a crowd watching a show. everyone is packed together pretty tightly. the first problem as was mentioned is that most people have no idea what gun shots actually sound like. so while you may hear the ratta tat tat sound you will most likely just be looking around like everyone else. everyone else will just be looking around asking "what was that" you will have no visual context that triggers your brain into flight mode. you will be more inclined to be in freeze mode since your brain has not been able to asses the threat. once you see bodies dropping,,guess what so does every one else and the chaos begins. you will be trampled and pushed ,,pulled away from friends and loved ones, your emotional first response will be to get back to your loved ones. people will be running in EVERY direction. you will be like a fish trying to get up stream. you will have to navigate the crowd. it is a pure fantasy that some how you will make your way to cover as if no one else was there. so your going for cover?,, so are hundreds of other people.
'It was hysteria. People were trampled': panic as Las Vegas gunman opened fire
lklawson
Grandmaster
It is confirmed that he was using a "bump fire" stock.
While bump fire stocks do allow for what appears to be FA-like rates of fire, the way they work means that they are much harder to aim effectively. They require a certain "looseness" to shoot.
People who are trained on FA are repeatedly saying that this giant sucking douchebag sucked at FA technique. The reason that he has as many murders and injuries as he has is because he was shooting into a crowd of more than 20,000 (twenty thousand) people packed together like sardines.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Problem was that he had cameras along his perimeter. He would have killed you before you realized it. Unless you had a ballistic/riot shield against a rifle, you would have been killed. He had a lot of things planned out. If you were next door to him, it would have been dangerous, also. He would be taking on fire and you could become collateral damage.
There was nothing other than SWAT/Special Forces/Special Warfare who could have taken him out.
I hope that we find out his motives soon to determine if things were preventable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Sure, and I understand there are differences in the accuracy and in the definitions.
In this case, the bump stock gave him a method that was very effective for the circumstances in raising his rate of fire to that which rivals a true automatic weapon by definition. It was a device that allowed him to do this, not simply an ability to pull the trigger over and over, very quickly. Accuracy deficiencies be damned, he was firing into a crowded stadium and it didn’t matter.
In effect, he used a fully automatic weapon, regardless of definitions.
In effect he didn't. He used a semi auto weapon equipped with a bump stock or rapid firing device.
To say it was full auto is inaccurate and leads anyone who is familiar with guns to get an inaccurate picture of what went happened.
"In effect" is used to designate that something is operationally so (has the effect of), even though not officially recognized as such. The weapons didn't meet the legal (official) definition of "fully automatic", but the effect is identical. So, in effect, he did.
Still to refer to it as fully automatic is inaccurate.
If you were to tell me he used a fully auto weapon then it makes me wonder was he licensed, if not how did he purchase full auto, was it a straw purchase from a licensed individual, etc...
Where as if you refer to it accurately as a semi-auto with a bump stock then those questions do not come up.
So when Kirk stated there were no FA weapons used....he was correct.
Last edited:
Again, that ignores the phrase "in effect", which has the purpose of making it clear the reference is not to an actual (formally recognized) fully automatic weapon. That's the whole point of using that phrase.
And, yes, Kirk was correct. As was FC.
lklawson
Grandmaster
To use that definition of "in effect" then we could say, "in effect it really wasn't particularly different from using a semi-auto shotgun with buckshot" because every pull of the trigger sent a bunch of projectiles downrange.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that, particularly in this case, terminology is very important.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
At the risk of getting too political, I am a libertarian who mostly hangs out with republicans, I don't know a ton about guns but overhear my friends talking about them. I'm also generally against gun control.
With that said, I see this conversation, and to me it sounds like FA and SA with bump stoke have basically the same level of danger, and if gun-control was an issue I cared about, I would want them legislated in the same way.
Now imagine how someone who is a anti-gun liberal that has never even held a rifle would read this conversation and interpret it. Technicalities/loopholes may be legally important, but to the general public they don't matter all that much.
With that said, I see this conversation, and to me it sounds like FA and SA with bump stoke have basically the same level of danger, and if gun-control was an issue I cared about, I would want them legislated in the same way.
Now imagine how someone who is a anti-gun liberal that has never even held a rifle would read this conversation and interpret it. Technicalities/loopholes may be legally important, but to the general public they don't matter all that much.
Last edited:
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Right. That's what I heard too. Net effect is same. Right?
Exactly true. When folks refer to gun "loopholes", this is an example of what they mean, where someone can achieve something that is illegal by combining two things that are individually legal.
The net effect is that this guy had FA weapons.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Sure, and we can take refuge behind convenient definitions, or we can recognize reality for what it is.
If he had used a semi-auto weapon and had simply pulled the trigger over and over, very quickly, and without some kind of mechanical aid, then I would agree with you.
But he did not do that. He used a mechanical aid that enabled him to fire at a much higher rate than he would have been able to maintain on his own, without that mechanical aid.
He used a fully automatic weapon.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I am usually right there with you, Kirk, but I couldn't disagree more on this one. The net effect is really what needs to be considered here, as in this case we can see that this is a combination of actions that are legal individually, but when combined result in actions that undermine the intent of the law.
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
He used a “work-around” to devise a fully automatic weapon, hidden behind a convenient definition.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Just a point of clarification. There are liberal gun owners and conservatives who are not pro-NRA. And for the record, I am not anti-gun, and my liberal friends think I'm a conservative and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal, when I'm really just on Team Common Sense.
That's fair. Was just making the generality, for the most part liberals are for gun control and conservatives are against it. Definitely not a hard rule.
