Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

Your whole premise is based on rate of fire. Is that not true?

 

inherent danger is based on your opinion rather than any valid factual data. And its bogus. If a governmental unit thinks cops can handle machine guns on our city streets, other civilians ought to be able to merely own them and use them on ranges.

 

Interesting claim. Bump fire stocks have a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rpm while the M3 submachine gun has a cyclic rate of 450 rpm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun

Even pure semi-automatic rifles can have a cyclic rate over 400 rpm:


Even old men can hit 300 rpm cyclic:

 

8

HIs argument is a facade serving as a pretext for his real motivation so I doubt you bringing a factual destruction upon an argument he really doesn't believe in will do much good

 

True dat. If he'd attend a national 3 gun championship he'd be quite amazed at how many targets the good ones can hit in sixty seconds.

Heck, this guy could have killed 24 people in 14 seconds. Using 19th century technology:

 

the inherent danger idiocy doesn't distinguish between untrained users and trained users because its very different. Some person, with no training, could conceivably cause more carnage with a full auto weapon sprayed into a crowd then he could with a semi auto. But for anyone with training, the opposite is true

factual proof: almost 30 years ago, Cincinnati wanted to jump on the "assault weapon ban" bandwagon. A local newschick wanted to do a story on this and she came to the local range where your's truly was on the pro staff as an "action pistol shooter". The owner asked I handle the news chick. I had two weapons for the demo. A Colt SMG (looks like a cut down M16) in 9mm and my 3G shotgun an 1187 extensively customized by Mike LaRocca. The range had 10 USPSA official "humanoid" targets hung at 20 yards away. The range officer had a USPSA timing clock that starts to time when activated and records each shot

Drill number one-SMG set on full auto. 32 round magazine. I did my best to "kill" each of the 10 targets. 32 rounds in less than 2 seconds. Most of the targets were hit, some "fatally" Gun was empty and if any of the targets were real people with arms, I'd be dead.

Drill two-set the SMG on semi auto. 3 seconds-Centerpunched each one of the targets. all targets "severely wounded" and I had 22 rounds remaining. then I did the same thing-head shots. took about a second longer. 100% fatal hits on all ten-22 shots left in my weapon

Drill Three. my 1187 loaded with federal tactical buckshot #4.

under three seconds-every target hit with multiple projectiles-all fatal-some targets had 30+ holes-all had at least 25 hits.

End of the lesson. BTW the news chick asked me what sort of shotgun she should buy for home defense!

I told her a Benelli and I got one of the five shot versions out and whacked five targets in about a second and reloaded (3 seconds) and whacked the other five

 

no, evoking the law in a debate is the epitome of childish thought.

 

yeah, 600 rds per min is "inherently" less dangerous.
Your arguments are goofy

 

and still a low risk. 2 is greater than 1, but still a small number

 

No, it was a giant red herring.

 

My arguments are factual.

 

Irrelevant. They pose a greater risk.

 

In the same sense that rifles post a greater risk than handguns, yet they all remain legal and constitutionally protected. The notion that certain firearms are somehow more dangerous than others because of certain design differences, is of no relevance whatsoever. All firearms are dangerous, all firearms can kill if used in such a manner. It makes no difference how they function. Find a law or legal opinion that says otherwise.

 

Yay, a greater but low risk.
Breathe into a bag, you'll be ok

 

But pointless.
Both numbers are large

 

Only poor debaters evoke the law to defend their arguments. Congratulations, you qualify for that distinguished group

 

The NFA act says otherwise, and the Supreme Court agrees.

 

Not a greater but low risk. Just a greater risk.

 

I'm sorry you can't argue the relevant points, and have to resort to red herrings.

 

The NFA says that a double barrel .410 shotgun is as dangerous as a machinegun, and that a rifle with a 15.5" barrel is much more dangerous than a rifle with a 16.1" barrel.

 

Which I don't agree with. SBR's SBS's and some AOW's should be removed from the NFA list, as well as suppressors.

 

It doesn't matter what you think. "The NFA act says otherwise, and the Supreme Court agrees."

 

he thinks that the NFA proves machine guns are too dangerous but sawed off shotguns (which have been used in far more killings-hell I prosecuted a guy for robbing a bank and shooting a teller with one-an H&R with the barrel cut to 12") are ok. IN other words, he is contradicting his own authority-the law is right when it supports his hatred of honest people buying machine guns but its wrong when it bans something he owns or wants to own

 

If wasn't a sorry assed law evoking argument I might think about it.

 

1.0000000000001 is greater than 1. So what?