POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[IkeTheGeneric]

Also anyone that says 556 has little to no recoil is a blatant liar.

5.56 / .223 doesn't have enough recoil to justify getting a bump stock. It would be a waste of money.

.308 would tho

[Ad Bot]

[Corderlain]

It doesn't need a bump stock to have controllable recoil but saying it wouldnt be effective in any way is handicapped.

Also Frankie I still want to know why you're blocking me and doing the avatar thing.

[PhantOS]

Bump stocks intended use is to reduce recoil when firing. Not to make your gun automatic

what? the whole purpose of bump firing is to fire a semi auto fast enough to not destroy your finger but still be almost automatic. Bump stocks just make it vastly easier. Just because bump stocks use recoil to operate doesn't mean they mitigate recoil in any way. I mean it does mitigate some recoil but that's not the intended purpose, just a feature required to actually bump fire it

[Kearn]

i really dont get the impression that people understand that any benefits you get from shooting faster with a bump stock are completely lost due to the atrocious recoil control and repeated need to reload

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTb6hsSkV1w

[SeventhSandwich]

It doesn't need a bump stock to have controllable recoil but saying it wouldnt be effective in any way is handicapped.

Full disclosure: I have never fired a gun before, but there are a wealth of people that have, who claim bump stocks have no functional utility because of the absurd recoil you get. Rally, who is by no means a gun control advocate, has made that exact same claim in this thread.

I don't think bump stocks should be banned because I don't think it'll actually be effective at curbing gun violence. If you can mimic the same effect as a $800 stock using a couple of rubber bands, then legislating on the $800 stock is pointless because it's trivially easy to create an illegal version of it. Whereas making a hand grenade requires some level of expertise and certain materials which are easily regulated.

i really dont get the impression that people understand that any benefits you get from shooting faster with a bump stock are completely lost due to the atrocious recoil control and repeated need to reload

I think the gun-control angle to that exact point is that the recoil control isn't an issue if you're, say, firing from a tall building into a music festival.

[Kearn]

I think the gun-control angle to that exact point is that the recoil control isn't an issue if you're, say, firing from a tall building into a music festival.

so clearly the solution to that is to just ban bump stocks because you totally cant shoot at a roughly comparable speed with far better long-distance accuracy in simple semiauto

[SeventhSandwich]

so clearly the solution to that is to just ban bump stocks because you totally cant shoot at a roughly comparable speed with far better long-distance accuracy in simple semiauto

I don't think bump stocks should be banned because I don't think it'll actually be effective at curbing gun violence. If you can mimic the same effect as a $800 stock using a couple of rubber bands, then legislating on the $800 stock is pointless because it's trivially easy to create an illegal version of it.

jesus do you people even read

[Kearn]

im not talking about you

[PhantOS]

It would actually be better if ammunition was manufactured with heat-destructive casing so if your barrel is too hot the primer will like melt and the bullet won't fire. That's basically feasible design wise, it would force controlled fire until people learn how to install ported barrels

[SeventhSandwich]

It would actually be better if ammunition was manufactured with heat-destructive casing so if your barrel is too hot the primer will like melt and the bullet won't fire.

Realistically speaking, all current gun owners would hold onto whatever stock of traditional ammunition they have as a 'just-in-case' kind of deal, and then naturally the one kid who raids his dad's stash of guns and ammo to shoot up a school would have plenty of viable equipment to work with. You can't avoid this either unless you allow the police to perform warrant-less searches of people's households for old-style ammunition.

[Kearn]

It would actually be better if ammunition was manufactured with heat-destructive casing so if your barrel is too hot the primer will like melt and the bullet won't fire. That's basically feasible design wise, it would force controlled fire until people learn how to install ported barrels

basically any time you try to introduce some restriction there is always going to be some kind of modification to get around it

see: 80 lower receivers

[PhantOS]

Nah I mean, if every new bullet gets manufactured this way, then eventually old bullets will leave circulation. Of course people can keep some just in case but like, in 50 years they probably will be so expensive that people won't even shoot them anymore they'll just put it on display

[SeventhSandwich]

Why is it impossible to, say, institute a mandatory AR-15 buyback program in a state or populous-county, wait 5-10 years, and then look at whether it made a dent in violent crimes/shootings as compared to similar counties?

Like ultimately, any approach to gun regulation is speculative until it happens and we get some data on it. Why not start small-ish and then inform federal laws based on collected evidence?

[Tactical Nuke]

Why is it impossible to, say, institute a mandatory AR-15 buyback program in a state or populous-county, wait 5-10 years, and then look at whether it made a dent in violent crimes/shootings as compared to similar counties?

Like ultimately, any approach to gun regulation is speculative until it happens and we get some data on it. Why not start small-ish and then inform federal laws based on collected evidence?

you haven't been paying attention have you

[SeventhSandwich]

you haven't been paying attention have you

well I'm not sure what you're getting at here, so evidently not?