Okay, if it doesn't do anything, why do you have a problem with banning it?
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
If it doesnt change anything, why ban it? Its just one more step toward banning other things or types of guns.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattDehn89
Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. Banning one thing in no way requires banning others. (I favor this ban, oppose many others).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Either way. You still didn't answer my question. If it changes absolutely nothing, why ban it? Just to feel good about yourself?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattDehn89
Many (including the LV shooter) disagree with the claim that it does nothing. Ban to make it harder for people like him to shoot as fast.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Ignorant people that have never used one or don't know anything about guns disagree
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattDehn89
Why do you think LV shooter used bump stock then?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Who knows, maybe he just happened to have it. And really, at 350~ yards, regular semi auto would have been more effective.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattDehn89
More accurate yes, but not an issue when firing into large dense crowd. He installed the stock onto multiple rifles. He thought they helped.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
It was only a dense crowd for a few seconds. Then everyone scattered. And then aiming would've made it worse.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Either way, we're talking about relatively small differences. He would have killed many regardless. But a few lives saved is beneficial
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.