Bill, one thing the shooter had was a bump stock, which can convert existing semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic. This modification is rather simple to make and probably doesn't cost a lot to make. AFAIK, they're legal.
The thing is, though, a bump stock would mess up shooting accuracy, but in the case of the Las Vegas shooter, it didn't matter since he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a distance.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Politicians are talking about banning bump stocks, but they're so easy to make and probably easy to improvise as well, so such a ban would be ineffective.
So now what? Ban all weapons that have an effective range of over 200 yards? Meh, why not? Self-defense doesn't mean you should be able to take out your threat from long-range, right?
Seems pretty obvious to me, but I don't know. I'm in the "do something, but do something meaningful" crowd right now, and I'd like to know why what I advocate is wrong.
Tenchusatsu |
