The AR-15 users report extraction and ejection problems with the spent shell casing. The increased speed may increase the incident of extraction and ejection issues.
I didn't see anyone with a "problem" with it being removed from the market, but that is not going to "solve" the real problem that has surfaced recently.
The burden should be on the person seeking to "remove" something from the market to demonstrate that the removal aids in the elimination or significant reduction in a negative condition. Not, IMO, on the users to show there is no need to remove it. The Government always has the burden to restrict the citizens.
That's like the poster saying you don't "need" an AR-15. That's not what the 2nd Amendment says or even how it's been interpreted. It doesn't say for "hunting"! It wasn't even passed for "hunting rights"! It was passed to protect citizens from the Government ... which is seeking to disarm the citizens by "removing" guns.
BTW: Paddock had a number of rifles set up for the shooting. I haven't seen any reports of stove-piping or other malfunctions on any of the weapons.
Originally Posted by LexusLover
I certainly agree that attaching a bump stock to an AR-15 could cause extraction and ejections problems. I was just asking for some tangible proof.
I see no benefit to keeping the bump stock in the marketplace. People who hunt with an AR-15 wouldn't use it. People who use it for protection in all likelihood wouldn't use it. I see only one use for it.
I agree with you on the AR-15. It is not, in my opinion, an assault rifle. Even if it was banned, I'd be willing to bet that there is some other gun on the market that could easily replace it.