Here come the Biden gun control EOs...

[NoGoJoe]

Practical or otherwise doesn't matter. It's an accessory, a piece of plastic that doesn't change the fundamental function of the firearm. Attempting to ban it has provided leverage to Blue team who will gladly use the precedent to ban other pieces of plastic and metal that also don't change the fundamental function of the weapon. Trump used the same logic you are and now Blue team will be more than glad to carry that torch forward.

So the reasoning I'm seeing for a bump stock is "because." That's a terrible reason to advocate for (or against) something.

 

[maxwelhse]

So the reasoning I'm seeing for a bump stock is "because." That's a terrible reason to advocate for (or against) something.

OK then. You might have to lay down suppressing fire to repel a violent riot that is about to burn your house down, but lack the $50,000 to buy a real FA because a bunch of people thought "because" wasn't a good enough reason...

 

[NoGoJoe]

OK then. You might have to lay down suppressing fire to repel a violent riot that is about to burn your house down, but lack the $50,000 to buy a real FA because a bunch of people thought "because" wasn't a good enough reason...

Admittedly I've never used one, so I can't speak with any experience. From what I've read about a bump-stock, which mostly came in the wake of the LAS shooting. They do enable you to rapidly fire, but also make the gun highly inaccurate. If what I've read is accurate, your "suppressing fire" scenario will likely lead to you shooting your neighbor, a family member, or law enforcement and maybe some rioters too.
Moding an AR with a bump-stock to turn it into a cartoon gun and fires a lot of rounds randomly seems irresponsible.

So again, I'm asking if someone can provide a practical reason for a bump-stock. Allowing someone to wildly dispense ammo rapidly is not a practical reason in my book.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Admittedly I've never used one, so I can't speak with any experience. From what I've read about a bump-stock, which mostly came in the wake of the LAS shooting. They do enable you to rapidly fire, but also make the gun highly inaccurate. If what I've read is accurate, your "suppressing fire" scenario will likely lead to you shooting your neighbor, a family member, or law enforcement and maybe some rioters too.
Moding an AR with a bump-stock to turn it into a cartoon gun and fires a lot of rounds randomly seems irresponsible.

So again, I'm asking if someone can provide a practical reason for a bump-stock. Allowing someone to wildly dispense ammo rapidly is not a practical reason in my book.

Yeah, bump stocks decrease accuracy to "minute of barn" (as in the broadside of)

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So ban bumpstrocks because nobody needs a bump stock

I have it on good authority that nobody needs an AR-15 either

 

[maxwelhse]

So again, I'm asking if someone can provide a practical reason for a bump-stock. Allowing someone to wildly dispense ammo rapidly is not a practical reason in my book.

You asked a ridiculous question and I gave you a ridiculous answer. The real answer is since too many people said "because" isn't a good enough reason, now it's the tool we have. So far, you appear to be one of those people.

You were right when you said this would be an unpopular question. Taking up talking points from gun banners usually isn't popular on gun forums.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Think I can live stream an illegal SBR build and then use the "I learned it by watching you!" defense?

View attachment 134746

I for one will be watching for the video

Maybe don't title it "illegal SBR build" though

 

[foszoe]

So the reasoning I'm seeing for a bump stock is "because." That's a terrible reason to advocate for (or against) something.

Looks to me like you're saying there is no real practical reason to own one and also that just because there is no practical reason to own one is a terrible reason to Advocate against it. So my question is are you advocating against only one outright or are you simply wondering what a practical reason would be to own one and not really advocating for or against at this time? Or are you still formulating an opinion so that you can advocate for or against?

 

[Jaybird1980]

Admittedly I've never used one, so I can't speak with any experience. From what I've read about a bump-stock, which mostly came in the wake of the LAS shooting. They do enable you to rapidly fire, but also make the gun highly inaccurate. If what I've read is accurate, your "suppressing fire" scenario will likely lead to you shooting your neighbor, a family member, or law enforcement and maybe some rioters too.
Moding an AR with a bump-stock to turn it into a cartoon gun and fires a lot of rounds randomly seems irresponsible.

So again, I'm asking if someone can provide a practical reason for a bump-stock. Allowing someone to wildly dispense ammo rapidly is not a practical reason in my book.

A Practical reason in my opinion is. They Wanted to own it. That's good enough. It is a material item that doesn't put anyone in danger so therefore why should it ever be an issue.

 

[NoGoJoe]

So ban bumpstrocks because nobody needs a bump stock

I have it on good authority that nobody needs an AR-15 either

Need....? This is not a discussion about needs, its an inquiry about practicality. I'm genuinely trying to obtain some knowledge in this forum, but I'm reading a lot of emotion, and am still awaiting an answer to my initial question. What is the practical use of a bump stock? An AR-15 is a precision instrument which has many practical applications. Adding a bump stock to an AR-15 changes it from a precision instrument to a wild purveyor of hot led down range.

 

[maxwelhse]

I for one will be watching for the video
View attachment 134761
Maybe don't title it "illegal SBR build" though

All that same great AR flavor, but with less calories!

 

[NoGoJoe]

A Practical reason in my opinion is. They Wanted to own it. That's good enough. It is a material item that doesn't put anyone in danger so therefore why should it ever be an issue.

I can make the case for owning most any firearm. It is a material item, which Stephen Paddock did effectively use to increase his kill-count during the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. Other than using it for what Stephen Paddock used it for, what purpose does it serve?

 

[bobzilla]

I see we have another one. There’s no practical reason to have ac, or a big screen TVs. Yet here we are. Just because YOU don’t have a need or desire does not give you the right to deny someone else.

 

[NoGoJoe]

Looks to me like you're saying there is no real practical reason to own one and also that just because there is no practical reason to own one is a terrible reason to Advocate against it. So my question is are you advocating against only one outright or are you simply wondering what a practical reason would be to own one and not really advocating for or against at this time? Or are you still formulating an opinion so that you can advocate for or against?

I'm not advocating either way, just trying to get some perspective on what purpose it serves. I hear a lot of people saying they want it because it's their right. Okay, fine, but just because someone has the right to be an a-hole, should they be? The only use I've seen on a bump-stock is an increased kill-count by shooting more rounds randomly into a crowd. That's obviously a negative. I don't want one event to color my entire perspective on bump-stocks, which is what prompted the initial question.

 

[indykid]

The reason for a bumb-stock is to get that full auto feel without spending the thousands of dollars for a full auto because of the NFA constitutional shred and waiting for government approval, after paying a $200 blackmail fee for the right to bear arms uninfringed.

 

[foszoe]

I'm not advocating either way, just trying to get some perspective on what purpose it serves. I hear a lot of people saying they want it because it's their right. Okay, fine, but just because someone has the right to be an a-hole, should they be? The only use I've seen on a bump-stock is an increased kill-count by shooting more rounds randomly into a crowd. That's obviously a negative. I don't want one event to color my entire perspective on bump-stocks, which is what prompted the initial question.

The the only use that you've seen is because that's the only one that was highly publicized. I have friends that go to the range or wherever and pop off with a bump stock. Personally I think it's stupid think it's a waste of money that you could practice and do more with all that ammunition however that's not a reason not to Advocate against ownership. They do it to have fun. I like to stand out on the back deck naked and **** off into the grass for fun but it's probably not a real practical reason to do it

If my experience with something is only what I've seen in a media that has proven to be hostile in general to the 2nd Amendment and gun owners, than I would be very hesitant to use that as a basis point for forming an opinion.

 

[NoGoJoe]

I see we have another one. There’s no practical reason to have ac, or a big screen TVs. Yet here we are. Just because YOU don’t have a need or desire does not give you the right to deny someone else.

 

[jsx1043]

I can make the case for owning most any firearm. It is a material item, which Stephen Paddock did effectively use to increase his kill-count during the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. Other than using it for what Stephen Paddock used it for, what purpose does it serve?

Allegedly.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm not advocating either way, just trying to get some perspective on what purpose it serves. I hear a lot of people saying they want it because it's their right. Okay, fine, but just because someone has the right to be an a-hole, should they be? The only use I've seen on a bump-stock is an increased kill-count by shooting more rounds randomly into a crowd. That's obviously a negative. I don't want one event to color my entire perspective on bump-stocks, which is what prompted the initial question.

Does everything have to be practical? Can't anything be "just for fun"? I never had a desire to have one, because I just viewed them as a way to create a lot of empty brass in a hurry, but I'm not going to try and stop someone else from having one just because I don't see a need for it. That's liberal logic. "I don't like it, therefore, you should not have it."

 

[Jaybird1980]

I can make the case for owning most any firearm. It is a material item, which Stephen Paddock did effectively use to increase his kill-count during the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. Other than using it for what Stephen Paddock used it for, what purpose does it serve?

Could be it brings joy to the person who wants it. It is that simple.