I am probably alone in this opinion, having seen several saying otherwise, but I don't believe the use of bump-fire stocks by the Las Vegas evil loser necessarily saved lives.
The argument is that a bump-fired rifle is difficult to aim accurately, bouncing around as it does due to how bump-fire stocks work, and had he aimed more carefully, he could have killed more people. I think this is completely irrelevant.
That's because if you are firing into a dense crowd, from a distance (and at height), you're probably not going to be really aiming, beyond generally pointing at the crowd. You aren't going to pick out individual "prey animals", but you're going to spray the "herd" with bullets and see what you hit. A bump-fire stock would mess up aimed shots, but not indiscriminate rapid fire. And, someone choosing to carefully pick targets at that distance would probably have chosen an entirely different type of rifle, to begin with.
Of course, I'm suspicious that the narrative around that event is being manipulated and lies are being pushed. But, it doesn't matter.
No one has the right, or the "authority" to make up "laws" against weaponry, weapon parts, or add-ons. It doesn't matter what some evil loser uses a particular weapon for. The right is absolute and not subject to a v*te, majority opinion, or anyone's feelings. It doesn't change after a tragedy or a malevolent act.
Any "laws" against bump-fire stocks are evil and stupid, as are those advocating them. Regardless of what an evil loser chose to do with them. The "laws" against self defense and against the proper tools to successfully exercise it are the problem-- one which could be solved so easily, if anyone actually wanted to.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
The hard simple truth is that if there exists the will to snuff out lives, a way will be found. See Europe for prime examples.
These tragedies are being quickly politicized and turned into debate where there is no debate to be had. In other words, they can take it up with the U.S. Constitution.
I too have my doubts about the narrative being fed however that surely doesn't detract from the problem at hand. Bad people do bad things. The prime component being, in this case; why did he do it?
As is the standard operation procedure of government entities and such, address the symptom, forget about the problem.
"They" don't want to go there because then this whole charade is exposed for exactly what it is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit