The US of A Shooting Mega-Thread

[J-hop]

^the fact that bump stocks are currently completely legal federally in the US (although soon not to be) just blows me away. The fact that it allows for near auto frequency of rounds and from what I’ve read significantly reduces accuracy to the point where the NRA bans them at public shooting events citing safety concerns makes me wonder what kind of ignorant nut jobs own them and think they are ok

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I love how people claim to be gun nuts, then say nobody should have an AR15 or xyz/whatever.

Also, those claiming you don't need one have NO training or experience with which to make such a statement, at least not from a position of intelligence. A 556 shoulder supported rifle is by FAR the best defensive option in any situation, outside of threats at extreme range, as in 500 meters plus, which is no longer a defensive situation, but a warfare one. 556 has been tested by the FBI and everyone else in buildings/structures, and the round due to its velocity, weight, composition, etc, fragments more often and quickly than handgun rounds, and in fact over penetrates less than handgun rounds. This makes a 555 shoulder supported weapon more safe in built up areas with others around, more lethal than handgun rounds, and also much more of a gross motor skill weapon being shoulder supported. The AR or any 556/etc magazine shoulder supported rifle is by far and away the best option in a fight. When every xyz agency agrees and so arms their own officers, it should be obvious. Subgun handgun caliber weapons are rarely if ever used anymore, and handguns are only carried in low threat or convenience places. If a fight is expected, officers nearly always have a 556 caliber rifle to hand. The reasons are above, and civilians serious about using a firearm for self defense can and should have that same option. Yes, shotguns, even handgun can be effective, but they'll never be as effective in fights overall as much as a magazine fed semi auto rifle.

Full auto is already controlled in the USA. Certain ranges have permits, as do certain people having class 3 etc licenses in the US, or have paid the tax stamp for a full auto weapon (expensive, very expensive). Even in Canada ranges have this, The Shooting edge had a machine gun and high cap/suppressor licence, that's had the 18 round mag ended up in Mitsi's handgun, it got mixed in from the wrong vault there, as there is a full auto/suppresor/etc vault separate from the main vault/renter room. This is also how TSE rented AK47s etc on their wall for so long, using their LE/demo/etc license.

1) Lol, when did I say no one should own an AR15? I said FULLY AUTO AR15, including bump stocks.
I've almost bought an AR multiple times, but usually end up with another bolt or lever action as I enjoy those quite a bit. A 5 round mag in a semi-auto rifle just isn't enjoyable.

2) Once again, read what was said, HOME defense, not combat defense

3) We already covered full auto is illegal, however a bump stock is still not regulated in any way and can have a very similar effect.

Now that you are caught up, carry on.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

^the fact that bump stocks are currently completely legal federally in the US (although soon not to be) just blows me away. The fact that it allows for near auto frequency of rounds and from what I’ve read significantly reduces accuracy to the point where the NRA bans them at public shooting events citing safety concerns makes me wonder what kind of ignorant nut jobs own them and think they are ok

I support a bump-stock ban (it is in line with the fact that full-autos are banned outside special circumstances), I just don't think it will really do anything. Full auto fire is WILDLY inaccurate, and bump stocks are even worse - the fact that they are banned at events where people are trying NOT to hit other people is all the evidence you need to see how ineffective they would likely be in a hostile scenario, especially with the woefully inexperienced people usually carrying out these acts. As horrible as the situation was, look at how ineffective it was in Vegas in what was essentially a "fish in a barrel" scenario. On top of that, that is the only time I have ever read about one even being used. I think the US is using it's ban as a way to appease the anti-gun folks while continuing to ignore the root problems. I am on board with things that reduce the effectiveness of certain firearms (i.e. mag limits, bump stock bans, etc.), rather than outright banning certain types of firearms - that seems to be the most reasonable compromise for responsible users, at least IMHO.

[Gman.45]

1) Lol, when did I say no one should own an AR15? I said FULLY AUTO AR15, including bump stocks.
I've almost bought an AR multiple times, but usually end up with another bolt or lever action as I enjoy those quite a bit. A 5 round mag in a semi-auto rifle just isn't enjoyable.

2) Once again, read what was said, HOME defense, not combat defense

3) We already covered full auto is illegal, however a bump stock is still not regulated in any way and can have a very similar effect.

Now that you are caught up, carry on.

1- I'll address the bump stock/full auto thing below. You should buy an AR15, you never know if they'll be grandfathered. I have short barrel pistol my great grandfather carried on the ship that brought him here, and it was passed down to me when my mother gave it to me, this gives me the 12-6 class which allows me to be in the short barrel club. Again, you never know when the laws may change, and then you're not in said club.

2 - I'm specifically talking about home defense, an AR or other 556 platform rifle is far superior for home defense than a shotgun, as the velocity of the 556 rounds ensures that far less of the projectiles will get through other walls, structures, furniture, etc, than shotgun or handgun rounds. That's a fact based on numerous FBI and other xyz agency tests, you can google it and watch videos of tests in houses proving this. Also the nature of a shoulder supported rifle is far, far superior in terms of accuracy, lethaltiy, and everything else over a handgun or shotgun.

3 - Full auto arguments are ridiculous. Do you guys not realize that full auto is a suppressive factor, and doesn't add lethality to a rifle. At all. When I've been shot at, numerous times, often daily several times on various routes we had to run, full auto incoming fire was and is always less accurate due to the nature of how full auto works and affects the weapon and the person using it. It's not some magic TV thing where all of a sudden you're capable of shooting more accurately and quickly, in fact it has the opposite effect. It's easily demonstratable on a range with targets spread around, that using accuracte semi auto fire always addresses targets more quickly and accurately than full auto fire.

I'll use this example - the idiot in the casino in Vegas, would have killed many times more than he did with his bump stock AR15s, if he used a semi auto or bolt action rifle with a good optic which was zerod and which he knew the dope for. That's also an easily demonstratable fact, at the 300 yard range he was shooting, making a headshot using a bolt/semi rifle with good optics every 5 seconds is simple pie for a shooter with even moderate skill. Spraying rounds indiscriminately with bump firing AR riles just sprays rounds about randomly.

This being the case, worrying about full auto is ridiculous, it gives no added lethality or "danger" to anyone, again, I'd be much more concerned about one guy with a rifle with optics using precision aimed fire, than 3 with full auto weapons shooting at me. By far.

[DonJuan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

2 - I'm specifically talking about home defense, an AR or other 556 platform rifle is far superior for home defense than a shotgun, as the velocity of the 556 rounds ensures that far less of the projectiles will get through other walls, structures, furniture, etc, than shotgun or handgun rounds. That's a fact based on numerous FBI and other xyz agency tests, you can google it and watch videos of tests in houses proving this. Also the nature of a shoulder supported rifle is far, far superior in terms of accuracy, lethaltiy, and everything else over a handgun or shotgun.

3 - Full auto arguments are ridiculous. Do you guys not realize that full auto is a suppressive factor, and doesn't add lethality to a rifle. At all. When I've been shot at, numerous times, often daily several times on various routes we had to run, full auto incoming fire was and is always less accurate due to the nature of how full auto works and affects the weapon and the person using it. It's not some magic TV thing where all of a sudden you're capable of shooting more accurately and quickly, in fact it has the opposite effect. It's easily demonstratable on a range with targets spread around, that using accuracte semi auto fire always addresses targets more quickly and accurately than full auto fire.

I'll use this example - the idiot in the casino in Vegas, would have killed many times more than he did with his bump stock AR15s, if he used a semi auto or bolt action rifle with a good optic which was zerod and which he knew the dope for. That's also an easily demonstratable fact, at the 300 yard range he was shooting, making a headshot using a bolt/semi rifle with good optics every 5 seconds is simple pie for a shooter with even moderate skill. Spraying rounds indiscriminately with bump firing AR riles just sprays rounds about randomly.

I stand by my argument that AR15 has no place for home defense, for precisely the reason you allude to... training. In the hands of law enforcement and professionals with adequate training I am sure a soup spoon can be made more effective than a shotgun for home defense, but ONLY in the hands of trained professionals. The fact is people go out buy their AR, a couple 30 round clips with only "magic TV" training and are now "safe" from robbers. I think if anyone wants to own any weapon capable of loss of life, training must be mandatory, background checks, mental assessments, and clip size limits. The shotgun requires little training, no aiming, simple to use and load, and provides a shock and awe effect to "encourage" robbers to leave.

I have no experience with auto, I believe the reasoning for it is full auto adds to lethality when shooting into crowds at closer range with restricted movement.

Full Auto and bump stocks save lives... nice.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

3 - Full auto arguments are ridiculous. Do you guys not realize that full auto is a suppressive factor, and doesn't add lethality to a rifle. At all. When I've been shot at, numerous times, often daily several times on various routes we had to run, full auto incoming fire was and is always less accurate due to the nature of how full auto works and affects the weapon and the person using it. It's not some magic TV thing where all of a sudden you're capable of shooting more accurately and quickly, in fact it has the opposite effect. It's easily demonstratable on a range with targets spread around, that using accuracte semi auto fire always addresses targets more quickly and accurately than full auto fire.

I'll use this example - the idiot in the casino in Vegas, would have killed many times more than he did with his bump stock AR15s, if he used a semi auto or bolt action rifle with a good optic which was zerod and which he knew the dope for. That's also an easily demonstratable fact, at the 300 yard range he was shooting, making a headshot using a bolt/semi rifle with good optics every 5 seconds is simple pie for a shooter with even moderate skill. Spraying rounds indiscriminately with bump firing AR riles just sprays rounds about randomly.

This being the case, worrying about full auto is ridiculous, it gives no added lethality or "danger" to anyone, again, I'd be much more concerned about one guy with a rifle with optics using precision aimed fire, than 3 with full auto weapons shooting at me. By far.

This. I have been saying from the beginning how ineffective his attack was, all things considered. Everyone is freaking out about bump stocks (even most criminals aren't dumb enough to use them), and banning them lets the US make it look like they're doing something while really doing nothing at all.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no experience with auto, I believe the reasoning for it is full auto adds to lethality when shooting into crowds at closer range with restricted movement.

Full Auto and bump stocks save lives... nice.

Full auto is for supressive fire. You'd be amazed how hard it is to hit anything, even at close range, at full auto - what it does to both the weapon and the shooter's body is something you need to experience to fully understand. Even heavy machine gunners shooting from a bipod are taught to fire in short, controlled bursts because full auto fire is so wildly inaccurate. I would MUCH rather be running from some idiot spraying and praying than someone with a semi-auto AR and even a tiny bit of skill.

You will find that the military and law enforcement's use of fully automatic fire is pretty well zero for the reason that it is wasteful, inaccurate, and ineffective even in close quarters.

Nobody is saying that full auto & bump stocks save lives per-se, but it is a long standing fact that those things are FAR less effective at the one thing people often wrongfully assume they are designed for.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1- I'll address the bump stock/full auto thing below. You should buy an AR15, you never know if they'll be grandfathered. I have short barrel pistol my great grandfather carried on the ship that brought him here, and it was passed down to me when my mother gave it to me, this gives me the 12-6 class which allows me to be in the short barrel club. Again, you never know when the laws may change, and then you're not in said club.

2 - I'm specifically talking about home defense, an AR or other 556 platform rifle is far superior for home defense than a shotgun, as the velocity of the 556 rounds ensures that far less of the projectiles will get through other walls, structures, furniture, etc, than shotgun or handgun rounds. That's a fact based on numerous FBI and other xyz agency tests, you can google it and watch videos of tests in houses proving this. Also the nature of a shoulder supported rifle is far, far superior in terms of accuracy, lethaltiy, and everything else over a handgun or shotgun.

3 - Full auto arguments are ridiculous. Do you guys not realize that full auto is a suppressive factor, and doesn't add lethality to a rifle. At all. When I've been shot at, numerous times, often daily several times on various routes we had to run, full auto incoming fire was and is always less accurate due to the nature of how full auto works and affects the weapon and the person using it. It's not some magic TV thing where all of a sudden you're capable of shooting more accurately and quickly, in fact it has the opposite effect. It's easily demonstratable on a range with targets spread around, that using accuracte semi auto fire always addresses targets more quickly and accurately than full auto fire.

I'll use this example - the idiot in the casino in Vegas, would have killed many times more than he did with his bump stock AR15s, if he used a semi auto or bolt action rifle with a good optic which was zerod and which he knew the dope for. That's also an easily demonstratable fact, at the 300 yard range he was shooting, making a headshot using a bolt/semi rifle with good optics every 5 seconds is simple pie for a shooter with even moderate skill. Spraying rounds indiscriminately with bump firing AR riles just sprays rounds about randomly.

This being the case, worrying about full auto is ridiculous, it gives no added lethality or "danger" to anyone, again, I'd be much more concerned about one guy with a rifle with optics using precision aimed fire, than 3 with full auto weapons shooting at me. By far.

1) That pistol would be super cool so see, very neat story.

2) Doing a little more research, it seems you are correct that the AR15 is a good platform for home defense, but that is very ammunition dependent. Most of the reading I did had pretty much a split between an AR style rifle (5.56 rd) and a shotgun with a bird shot (again, ammunition plays they key factor in penetration). The worst option of the three is a handgun.

3) The law of averages disagrees. According to "Hatchers Book of Garand" an the army and marine corps tested the fire rate vs hits on target at various distances with a bolt action rifle. At 300 yards with moving silohuettes the fire rate was 14.25 shots/ min with a hit rate of 3.27 for a hit rate of 23%, in a 10 minute span this would equate to 140 shots taken for 32.2 hits, these are trained military personnel. An untrained shooter with a bolt action rifle will likely have an at best 10% accuracy rate from a range of 300yds for a moving silhouette, in a 10 minute time span with the same 140 shots down range the hit rate falls to 14.

The Vegas shooter was able to shoot over 1100 rounds in that same 10 minute time span, killing 58 and wounding 851.

Based on that data alone, being able to fire maximum lead down range, EVEN IF LESS ACCURATE in general will cause more damage. That said, I do not disagree with semi auto being significantly more accurate in every measurable way.

We have to remember he was largely untrained. We aren't comparing a trained individual because by and large the idiots carrying out these atrocities have zero formal training. IT would be much worse if they did. That may also change their methods/ firearms used, but in most cases its an attempt to inflict mass casualty in a short period of time and an automatic weapon will do that.

[killramos]

Just out of curiousity but how common are bump stocks anyways?

People always bring them up as a boogie man but I have never seen one in the wild. Is this really an epidemic?

As people have brought up. Auto is useless anyways, at least on an AR.

Lightweight carbines are a lot of fun to shoot though, there is a reason why AR15’s are so popular with sport shooters. That said I don’t own one because I find the conditions on restricteds to be so onerous it’s not worth owning one. I take my handgun out of the safe once a year to clean and maintain it and that’s about it sadly.

I have nothing to comment on school shootings.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just out of curiousity but how common are bump stocks anyways?

Considering retailers have suspended orders temporarily due to so much demand, I would say quite common.

I read an article with a shop owner in Texas saying he gets asked ~50x/day for bump stocks.

[Kloubek]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

2) Doing a little more research, it seems you are correct that the AR15 is a good platform for home defense, but that is very ammunition dependent. Most of the reading I did had pretty much a split between an AR style rifle (5.56 rd) and a shotgun with a bird shot (again, ammunition plays they key factor in penetration). The worst option of the three is a handgun.

3) Based on that data alone, being able to fire maximum lead down range, EVEN IF LESS ACCURATE in general will cause more damage. That said, I do not disagree with semi auto being significantly more accurate in every measurable way.

For the first point, I still maintain a shotgun is best, and it lies in the spread. While at close range the spread is dramatically decreased, the fact it exists at all both helps guarantee a hit, as well as a potential hit in more than one point - reducing the chance the perp is going to be mobile enough to continue to engage you. I do think if there is any concern with wall penetration, etc that bird shot is the best bet - and it also increases the amount of pellets to take advantage of the aforementioned spread.

In regards to full auto, I see what he's trying to say. Properly aimed and controlled shots are more lethal than full auto which inevitably goes where it wants from the recoil. I think it really depends on the situation. If a guy was calm and sitting down and wanted to kill 1 person, semi auto and a scope is the way to go. But the guy in Vegas wanted to hurt as many people as possible, in which case full auto is the way to do it as you can get way more bullets into the crowd in the same timeframe. When most shots are a hit thanks to crowd density, it doesn't really matter to the guy as long as they hit something soft. Similarly, in the heat of the moment someone who wants to hurt as many people as possible in a "standard" close-quarters scenario is still better off with a full auto imo because accuracy isn't paramount in such a situation.

I do think full autos (as fun as they are) and bumpstocks really don't have a place in the hands of a civilian. I realize that their entertainment value is high but even as a gun enthusiast I just can't see the justification. Even still, on the unlikely event they were banned it isn't like we are going to see a significant reduction in these shootings. At best, we might see a reduction in casualties. To truly address the situation, I think rules in the US should be similar to what they are in Canada whereby proper storage and vetting of potential owners needs to be mandated. Owning a gun should be a privilege and not a right, but good luck getting anyone to amend the amendments.

[J-hop]

I see a lot of talk from Calgarians about owning a gun for home security. Do people not look at the statistics? IMO saying you need a gun to protect yourself from a violent home invasion is not a legitimate argument. The statistics of non-gang/targeted violent home invasions are extremely low.

Not saying it won’t happen but extremely unlikely.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I see a lot of talk from Calgarians about owning a gun for home security. Do people not look at the statistics? IMO saying you need a gun to protect yourself from a violent home invasion is not a legitimate argument. The statistics of non-gang/targeted violent home invasions are extremely low.

Not saying it won’t happen but extremely unlikely.

It's different for rural areas, but owning a firearm for home defense in a major Canadian city is largely unnecessary IMO. Also in Canada, the intruder has more rights than you do, so bringing a firearm into the equation is much more likely to get the homeowner in more trouble. The only time you are really allowed to use a firearm for defense in Canada is after it's already too late, so the risk of getting into way more trouble than the intruder is fairly high. Few people have the time to prepare if a home invasion is in progress anyway, and even fewer could hit the broad side of a barn whilst scared for their lives without intensive training. As you say, it's so incredibly rare, it's not really worth it IMO. Most home invasions are mid-day (when people are at work), non-violent, and last no more than a few minutes.

[rage2]

Yesterday's Jacksonville Shooting at a Madden competition: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/26/us/ja...ing/index.html

Pretty crazy, gamer lost a game, got pissed off, got a gun, came back and shot a bunch of people. Twitch live streamed one of the fatal victims. Watch at your own risk (aka trigger warning).:

[phreezee]

Seriously WTF, it's a fucking video game. This generation has been trained to get so emotional about everything. #millennials

[NissanFanBoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I love how people claim to be gun nuts, then say nobody should have an AR15 or xyz/whatever.

Also, those claiming you don't need one have NO training or experience with which to make such a statement, at least not from a position of intelligence. A 556 shoulder supported rifle is by FAR the best defensive option in any situation, outside of threats at extreme range, as in 500 meters plus, which is no longer a defensive situation, but a warfare one. 556 has been tested by the FBI and everyone else in buildings/structures, and the round due to its velocity, weight, composition, etc, fragments more often and quickly than handgun rounds, and in fact over penetrates less than handgun rounds. This makes a 555 shoulder supported weapon more safe in built up areas with others around, more lethal than handgun rounds, and also much more of a gross motor skill weapon being shoulder supported. The AR or any 556/etc magazine shoulder supported rifle is by far and away the best option in a fight. When every xyz agency agrees and so arms their own officers, it should be obvious. Subgun handgun caliber weapons are rarely if ever used anymore, and handguns are only carried in low threat or convenience places. If a fight is expected, officers nearly always have a 556 caliber rifle to hand. The reasons are above, and civilians serious about using a firearm for self defense can and should have that same option. Yes, shotguns, even handgun can be effective, but they'll never be as effective in fights overall as much as a magazine fed semi auto rifle.

Full auto is already controlled in the USA. Certain ranges have permits, as do certain people having class 3 etc licenses in the US, or have paid the tax stamp for a full auto weapon (expensive, very expensive). Even in Canada ranges have this, The Shooting edge had a machine gun and high cap/suppressor licence, that's had the 18 round mag ended up in Mitsi's handgun, it got mixed in from the wrong vault there, as there is a full auto/suppresor/etc vault separate from the main vault/renter room. This is also how TSE rented AK47s etc on their wall for so long, using their LE/demo/etc license.

Wow, G.Man is definitely one guy I don't want being able to legally buy guns. It's one thing to be kind of into guns and like to go hunting or shooting at the range but to know this much is obsessive and scary. Scary... very scary. So scare!

[ZenOps]

Nice touchdown.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wow, G.Man is definitely one guy I don't want being able to legally buy guns. It's one thing to be kind of into guns and like to go hunting or shooting at the range but to know this much is obsessive and scary. Scary... very scary. So scare!

Apparently he knows as much as he does due to his experience in military and law enforcement (correct me if I'm wrong Gman), but I would expect him to know as much as he does...

[NissanFanBoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Apparently he knows as much as he does due to his experience in military and law enforcement (correct me if I'm wrong Gman), but I would expect him to know as much as he does...

That makes it even more So Scare... some of these mass shooters have been military trained and knew what they were doing... then you get people like him that go online that basically say how the shooter did this and that wrong and that if they did this and that they could've killed way more people, etc etc etc... that is just as fucked up.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That makes it even more So Scare... some of these mass shooters have been military trained and knew what they were doing... then you get people like him that go online that basically say how the shooter did this and that wrong and that if they did this and that they could've killed way more people, etc etc etc... that is just as fucked up.

So your solution is to try and legislate what people are allowed to say on topics you might find triggering and allow ignorance to run rampant?

Ignorance and irrational fear is why many of the gun laws in Canada are useless and do little or nothing to enhance public safety. Is that better than having honest and factual discussions about things?

[rage2]

I'm pretty sure NFB is being sarcastic, but not sarcastic enough where it can be construed as idiocy.