Gun Control

Did Bump Stocks Make the Las Vegas Shooting Deadlier?

The accessories, which are legal and widely available, sacrifice accuracy for speed.


Bump Fire Systems

Hillary Clinton was widely ridiculed for claiming that Sunday's mass shooting in Las Vegas demonstrated the folly of an NRA-backed bill that would loosen federal restrictions on suppressors, a.k.a. silencers. Clinton argued on Twitter that the death toll in Las Vegas could have been even higher "if the shooter had a silencer," since "the crowd fled at the sound of gunshots."

As firearms experts immediately pointed out, so-called silencers do not actually eliminate the sound of gunfire; they merely reduce the noise level. Even with a suppressor, the hundreds of shots fired from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Resort and Casino would have been clearly audible.

Counterfactual speculation about the Las Vegas attack has now moved on from an accessory that Stephen Paddock did not use to one that he apparently did. The Associated Press reports that police found two bump stocks in Paddock's hotel room, which could explain why witnesses and people who listened to audio recordings of the attack thought he used a machine gun. [Update: The New York Times reports that 12 of Paddock's rifles were equipped with bump stocks.]

A bump stock is a sliding stock that speeds up a rifle's rate of fire by harnessing recoil energy to reset the trigger. Instead of squeezing the trigger, the shooter holds his trigger finger steady while pushing the barrel forward with his other hand, thereby firing a round. The recoil repositions the trigger, and continuing to exert forward pressure on the barrel makes the rifle fire repeatedly. The gun still fires just once per trigger pull, so it is still a semiautomatic (and therefore legal), but it fires faster than it would if the shooter had to bend his trigger finger each time.

Assuming that Paddock used the bump stocks police found, did they make the number of deaths higher than it otherwise would have been? Not necessarily, since bump stocks sacrifice accuracy for speed; the jostling required by the technique makes the rifle harder to aim, especially at long distances. According to the Wikipedia entry on bump stocks, they "greatly degrade the accuracy of the firearm, due to the necessary jerking of the weapon, which makes viable aiming impossible," and "the inaccuracy renders the practice uncommon."

Although bump stocks are legal, have been around for years, and are readily available, I don't recall any other mass shootings in which they were used. Yet previous mass shooters have managed to kill dozens of people, sometimes with ordinary handguns. While the death toll in Las Vegas (58) was higher than in any other modern mass shooting, Paddock's main advantage seems to have been firing from a height, which made it difficult for his victims to find cover.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), not surprisingly, wants to ban bump stocks. But Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Center, does not seem to think they pose much of a threat. USA Today paraphrased Rand as saying "there's a lot of questions about how effective they really are." She added that "it's just a gimmick to make your YouTube video and show people how fast you're shooting your gun."

Addendum: Several readers have pointed out that accuracy is less important when a shooter is firing on a dense crowd, as in Las Vegas. In that situation, even a shooter firing blindly is apt to hit someone. But that does not mean the injury will be fatal. Paddock might have killed a similar number of people if he had fired more slowly and carefully. Notably, the ratio of nonfatal to fatal injuries in Las Vegas was about 9 to 1, which is unusually high for a mass shooting, even taking into account that some of those injuries were not caused by gunfire. (Most were.) By contrast, the ratio of nonfatal to fatal injuries was less than 2 to 1 in the next four deadliest mass shootings.

NEXT: Trump Visits Puerto Rico, Mark Cuban 'Considers' Presidential Run, and U.S. Kicks Out Cuban Diplomats: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. From the shooter’s reported location and amount of ammunition, there’s nothing you can do short of banning semi-automatic rifles.

    And we all know how likely that is…

    1. Given the number of semi-autos in circulation, banning them wouldn’t work either.

    2. Don’t forget to include bolt action rifles with fixed magazines.

      Our good friends the British, in “The war to end all wars”, were often reported by retreating Germans as having multiple machine guns, when the entire trench was manned by infantry with the Lee-Enfield bolt action, 10 round fixed magazine rifle.
      They invented a little game called ‘the mad minute’. Starting with one round chambered, and 4 in the magazine, fire as many AIMED rounds as possible in one minute.
      The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards (4.5 mils/ 15.3 moa).
      So, in ten minutes, 360 aimed rounds. Probably less due to fatigue and barrel heat, but the point is that you can’t infringe enough on the second amendment to prevent mental illness.

      The fascists objective is to confiscate all firearms.

  2. Perhaps others can advise me in this regard: One individual is said to have murdered approximately sixty individuals and wounded more than 500 other individuals in less than ten minutes.

    1. If he had been more accurate, perhaps he would have killed 100 and wounded 20. Which one is better?

      1. BYOB,

        Your response to my question is: If he had been more accurate, perhaps he would have killed 100 and wounded 20. Which one is better?

        1. You didn’t really ask a question, you made a declarative statement and implied it was a question.

          1. This whole exchange threw me off super hard. I still don’t know what Easterly is asking.

            1. I find this thread to be shallow and pedantic

    2. I’m guessing most of those 500 were minor injuries due to panic and the mob rush. I doubt more than 250 were actual bullet wounds.

    3. What advice are you looking for?

      In Nice, France, a terrorist rented a cargo truck and murdered 84 people by driving over them.

      1. That’s the Nice way of doing it.

        1. Since Swiss isn’t here anymore:

          *narrowed gaze*

    4. If that really done within 10 minutes, I would say that’s pretty efficient. That’s one dead every 10 seconds plus mass casualties.

      1. I was told there would be no math in this debate.

      2. roughly 8-10 minutes of firing within a 17 minute elapsed window between first shot and police showing up outside his hotel door. He fired one last burst at the hotel door but didn’t fire at the crowd from then on. An hour later, cops breached and he killed himself.

        No question that rate of fire bumped up the casualty count

      3. Firing into a solid mass of bodies? Doesn’t seem that impressive

  3. Seems like the accuracy angle is a red herring when you’re shooting into a tightly-packed crowd of 20K.

    1. This is definitely true. Good thing he didn’t place some bombs around that concert instead. Maybe some chlorine gas?

      Seems to me that a firearm is probably the worst possible way to go about doing what this guy did. Hell, even just a Ford Dual F-350 doing donuts in the crowd would have been more effective if you’re going for casualties.

      1. Or a big rig. The Nice guy got 86 with his.

        Simply put, if someone wants to kill a lot of people, even full on banning guns isn’t going to hamper them much. You pack a bunch of people in a crowd, and they’re sitting ducks for whatever method a wack-job chooses. The better solution is increased security, but that has its own issues.

        1. The better solution is increased security, but that has its own issues.

          It’s not a better solution, it just moves the target to an even easier place to hit. It’s a well known catch-22 that there is no protection, it’s just a variable degree of kabuki safety theatre.

        2. This guy apparently spent some time planning this. If a particular method would have presented itself as not viable, he likely would have gone with another, just as deadly. Short of pre-discovery, there was no way to stop this.

      2. Or loading up one of his aircraft with as many gasoline cans as it could take off with and crashing into a crowd.

        Third degree burns on hundreds of people would be absolutely horrendous.

        People have a habit of saying ‘man is inherently evil’ but if that were in fact true, acts like this by random individuals would be significantly more frequent.

        1. Yeah, all in all people are pretty good when it comes to not murdering each other. It’s really not difficult to pull off something like this. If there were a lot of people that evil, this would happen all the time. I’m sure self preservation stops some people. But there are plenty of crazy suicidal people out there.

        2. People have a habit of saying ‘man is inherently evil’

          I’ve never heard that.

      3. He’d have risked a much greater chance of being caught before the attack even started by leaving bombs at the site. If his goal was to maximize the chances of the attack being “a success” at all, rather than foiled beforehand, he unfortunately made the right decision.

    2. Finally, someone notices the obvious. I keep seeing accuracy come up in all these articles and I’m just astounded people don’t realize that he was clearly not aiming at individuals. He was just spraying into the crowd.

    3. Historically muskets were terrible when in came to accuracy, but it did not matter when you are firing into tightly packed groups of people.

    4. That’s what I was thinking. This is the one mass killing scenario where full-auto (or equivalent) fire might be more effective if all you want is to shoot lots of people. But as others note, there are lots of other ways to get lots of random casualties in a big crowd.

    5. Rate of fire from a an automatic or bump-fired weapon is also a red herring when you’re shooting into a tightly packed crowd of 20k.

      You can fire most rifles as fast as you can pull the trigger and you can pull the trigger 3-4 times a second easy compared to a round every .1 sec from an M-16 – and then you still have the magazine change pauses anyway. An automatic weapon would have allowed accurate rapid-fire but all that would mean is instead of one round in 3-4 people each second you’d have 3 rounds in 2 people ever second. And that’s not really any more lethal.

      He could have killed 50 in that crowd with a *lever action* rifle easy.

  4. RE: Did Bump Stocks Make the Las Vegas Shooting Deadlier?

    Yes, bump stocks made the LV shooting deadlier.
    But then, so did oil stocks, bank stocks, and real estate stocks.
    Damn that stock market!
    Damn that stock market to hell!

  5. According to the Wikipedia entry on bump stocks, they “greatly degrade the accuracy of the firearm, due to the necessary jerking of the weapon, which makes viable aiming impossible,” and “the inaccuracy renders the practice uncommon.”

    Patently false and evidently written by a complete moron. The cycling action of a fully-automatic rounds being discharged degrades accuracy far more than a shaky stock ever will. You first shot on target numbers will faulter but, again, the whole reason of using automatic weapons is to ensure that first shot hit rates are moot.

    Between bump stocks and custom triggers the only way to definitively prevent the functional equivalent of fully automatic fire (from an ROF perspective) is to functionally wed the action to the the trigger pull, effectively making every semi-automatic weapon bolt, lever, or pump action.

    1. The cycling action of a fully-automatic rounds being discharged degrades accuracy far more than a shaky stock ever will.

      The problem with bump stocks is that you have to push the gun away from you while you’re using one. With fully automatic fire, you want to keep the gun tight against your shoulder to keep it controllable, but you can’t do that with a bump stock. You then end up not being able to control it very well, which makes accuracy worse.

      1. You then end up not being able to control it very well, which makes accuracy worse.

        Without more detail, this is impossible to know. If you’re barrel’s fouled and your ammo’s shit, you’d never notice. Even with good ammo and a decent gun from the 32nd floor moving between rooms with God-knows-what sort of cross wind, full auto vs. bump fire? Bullshit. What you’re effectively saying (especially at this level of abstraction) is that someone with a shitty hold on the gun but a strong shoulder weld will always beat someone with a firm hold on the gun but a shitty shoulder weld in all conditions and at all rates of fire.

        The notion that it “makes viable aiming impossible” demonstrates a poor understanding of the difference between aiming and fire control and the more fundamental difference between the goal of aiming a rifle for precision vs. spraying rounds into a crowd.

        It sounds very much like someone who’s never done anything more than an abstract physics experiment and discovered some truth that exists only in a vacuum.

        1. Hell, the fact that you can effectively fire full-auto, bump fire, and semi-auto from the same gun without modification alone should render the entire argument moot.

          1. The fact the 2nd Amendment specifically says “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”- means there shall be no law preventing people from keeping and bearing arms.

            1. White people wrote that shit.

  6. Banning bump stocks is, frankly, one of the few control measures I could get behind.

    It’s fun to fire a bump-stocked weapon, yes, but because of the aiming penalty it has no practical use (whether you’re talking military/militia, self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting). And it does make it easier to fire lots of bullets into a crowd quickly.

    A fairly logical move here would be to amend the suppressor deregulation bill to include a bump stock ban.

    1. Banning bump stocks is, frankly, one of the few control measures I could get behind.


    2. Bump stock is not a necessity for bump fire.

      1. That’s the thing (or a thing). It’s pretty easy to improvise something, or even do it without any modifications to your weapon.

    3. And it does make it easier to fire lots of bullets into a crowd quickly.

      I thought you said it had no practical use?

      How about when rioters are storming your store?

      And I’m not familiar with the “practical use” clause in 2A.

      1. And again, the ‘aiming penalty’ is between non-sequitur and fallacy. The aiming penalty is lower or can be of less consequence than windage, elevation, rifle manufacture and maintenence, ammo, experience or technique… banning bump stocks on the basis of the ‘aiming penalty’ is effectively saying you wouldn’t let Paddock have a gun unless he were a better shot and/or the conditions were more favorable.

      2. Has there every been a case in history when a mob of rioters stormed into a store and _didn’t_ stop when someone started shooting at them with a semi-auto or other regular gun? Not likely. They aren’t disciplined, suicidal fanatics.

    4. Considering what a bump stock is, banning them would be symbolic as its easily a DIY thing.

      Ditto with banning motorized devices that cycle a trigger.

      A $5 arduino, servo/stepper motor, something to hold it in place (sugru, zipties, etc), and switch or button to turn it on or off.

      1. If he was willing to DIY, he could have had a freakin’ electric gatling; someone who can wire $100,000 to the Philippines can get a CNC milling machine. Instead, he (apparently) used off-the-shelf stuff, not even bothering to turn the explosive materials he bought into bombs. Even low barriers have effects.

        1. Even low barriers have effects.

          Something almost everyone forgets all the time. Marginal effects may not solve the problem, but they can help

    5. I think suppressors for bump stocks would be a good trade but I don’t see any reason to compromise with the left on any gun legislation.

      1. There is to be no “trade” with gun grabbers anymore.

        In fact, rolling back all gun control is what I push my politicians for.

        The 2nd Amendment should be an absolute protection like the 1st Amendment should be absolute protection and no laws are authorized [period]


        This is kind of how I feel about ‘tradeoffs’ nowadays.

  7. I wish we’d stop responding to their bullshit rhetoric designed to chip away at our rights a little bit at a time.

    The correct answer:

    Liberty isn’t free. If you want to live in a free society (relatively free) you need to accept the fact that there will be nut-jobs who abuse it. These things suck, but they happen. Fuck off and nut up!

    1. Unfortunately, the answer always appears to be ‘we don’t want to live in a free society, we want to live in a society that has the illusion of being safe while being objectively less safe’. Therein lies the problem.

    2. They don’t have the juice to repeal 2A and they know it. That’s why chipping(not the good chippers, like me)is their strategy.

    3. thank you.

      everyone is looking for a “solution”, well the solution is to live in a fucking police state. If someone wants to kill a lot of people with a car, a gun, etc, there’s really not that much stopping them. It literally is the price of living in a free society.

      That’s like saying the solution to some people being poor in a market economy is to go full on communist.

      1. I remember when W Bush said that things like 9/11 are consequences of living in a free and open society. Guess they got right on that assignment.

    4. But what if we just want to have a pointless argument about the relative merits of bump fire, semi-auto fire and full-auto?

      1. I’m in favor of bump fire, but only in the first trimester. And then only when circumcised and with thin crust.

        1. Deep dish full auto without ketchup or gtfo!

    5. I’ve seen multiple people make the argument today that it is in bad taste to argue against gun control right now. That, basically, if you disagree with any facet of expanded gun control right now, you are spitting in the faces of those who lost their lives. You can have your opinion, but have the respect to at least keep it to yourself for a few days while we mourn by blaming the NRA.

      They REALLY think the rational line of argument CENTERS on blaming guns for the acts of crazy fuckers. Perhaps if they learned some patriarchal history, they’d realize that crazy fuckers far precede the first firearm.

  8. Assuming that Paddock used the bump stocks police found, did they make the number of deaths higher than it otherwise would have been? Not necessarily, since bump stocks sacrifice accuracy for speed; the jostling required by the technique makes the rifle harder to aim, especially at long distances

    Is there a WELL AKSHUALLY hall of fame?

  9. My guess is that bump stocks will be outlawed due to this incident. I would agree that he could have done just as much damage, if not more without them. Will be interesting to see if the NRA puts up much of a fight. Won’t be long until people are 3D printing just about anything they want anyways.

    1. No they won’t.

      Any knee-jerk reaction to this shooting will die down in a week.

      TDS is stronger you think and the media cannot afford to not talk about Trump for more than a week. Especially since no more gun control will be passed.

      In fact, Commifornia is facing gun control challenges along with other lefty states relating to their gun control as unconstitutional. Constitutional carry is becoming more popular.

  10. Does a turn-of-phrase make total bullshit into a profound truth? If so, then you must be a progressive …or well on your way to surrendering everything to that tribe. Yes, even you, libertarians.

    1. She wouldn’t.

      1. yes 🙂 and yes 🙁

  11. Imagine how much damage the same guy would have done if instead of going the ‘assault rifle’ route he had merely gotten heavy cargo truck, loaded it up with ANFO (diesel and fertilizer, what Tim McVeigh used) and driven it into the crowd…

    1. “Imagine…”

      Look at John Lennon over here.

    2. Imagine the damage he would have done if he skipped the difficult and dangerous process of mixing ANFO and simply drove the truck through the crowd.

    3. You and every other “but what about the trucks!!” commenter has forgotten that virtually every American urban outdoor space, at least of those where large crowds are expected to gather, is surrounded by bollards. Truck attacks are much harder to pull off than you think.

      1. This particular location has what appears to be nothing more than a chain link fence.
        Good vs passenger vehicles probably. I dunno about vs say a rental Ryder truck.

        That’s not to say they couldn’t or didn’t put a bunch of k-rails around it for events though.

      2. A trebuchet could have launched 90 kg of explosives more than 300 m over your puny little bollards.

  12. He had plenty of time to do the same damage without the fancy stock. But consider how difficult it is to get a flask of whiskey into a concert these days, much less 23 rifles and large amounts of ammunition. The real key was altitude. We clearly need to ban tall buildings.

    1. Absolutely!!
      Spread everyone out, and eliminate any possible justification for tax–sucking mass transit.

  13. I am still waiting to understand the motive. Did he have a brain tumor that drove him mad? Was he recruited to the psychopathic segment of Islam? Did he really just detest country music? Was he an Antifa-Commie on a Trumpkin hunting expedition?

    According to his brother, he was just a normal guy. Normal multimillionaires don’t commit mass murder, they slowly kill their minions by overwork and starvation.

    This thing makes no sense.

    /sarc on the last part. Well, mostly.

    1. He told the damn kids to stop making noise and get off his lawn. They didn’t.

    2. Has anyone considered the possibility that he was executed and framed?

      1. Mel Gibson did. Years ago.

  14. Bump stocks were kind of the secret thing only gun nuts knew about.

    I don’t think they actually do let you fire faster than a skilled shooter, but for the average person yeah.

    1. I doubt a skilled shooter is any better at pulling the trigger really fast than a noob. In fact, they’d probably be “worse” as they have good trigger control habits that would need to be unlearned.

  15. It’s not going to be politically viable to defend bump stocks. They’re not widely used even among gun owners, and have been expressly marketed as a way to circumvent the laws restricting full auto.

    Yeah, yeah, I know that banning bump stocks won’t make this kind of attack impossible. But no law makes the thing it bans impossible, even laws that libertarians support like murder and rape. The law only makes the banned activity/item more difficult and/or makes the consequences less favorable.

    1. All laws are of absolutely no consequence or concern to a suicidal attacker. Laws banning objects are rarely of any concern to even non-suicidal criminals. Even when a banned object becomes rare, it’s reduced availability usually does not “gate” a criminal action, because actions can typically be accomplished via a variety of means. If necessary, the object can almost always be obtained on the black market. By far the greatest effect of prohibition is the negative impact it has on the lives of otherwise law-abiding people of good character and action.

    2. You don’t need to defend bump stocks. You defend the Constitution.

  16. Actually, out to about 200 yards, I am nearly as accurate with a bump fire as I was anything the government provided me.
    As probably mentioned somewhere here, it is about fire control discipline.

  17. Just imagine Dianne Feinstein, or Nancy Pelosi crafting legislation to ban so called ‘bump stocks’.
    How are they even defined?

    ” Any material or devise, that attaches to, or allows any person to touch, hold, bear or control, any firearm……Shall be a felony… ”
    “$250,000 to Planned Parenthood…….”
    ” 6 Billion for a high speed rail to the new Solyndra facility … ”
    ” Gov’t agents, current and retired L.E, and my security detail, shall be exempt… “

  18. Oh, for fuck’s sake- Reason has a preternatural talent for spending several paragraphs nattering about trivialities and irrelevancies instead of talking about the FUCKING OBVIOUS real answer.

    Google: “homemade bump fire stock” and prepare to roll your eyes at how easy it is.

    It’s a goddamn sliding stock. With a pistol grip coming out of it. That’s it.

    That took me 45 seconds, Reason. Forty. Five. Seconds.

    1. But you cheated.
      You used logic and the internet.

      1. Perhaps more impressively, I found a way to use “logic” and “the internet” at the same time. It’s like setting a drowning man on fire.

  19. Here’s a tip. Take the M4 stock off your AR, drop in a spring, put it back on and tie down the lever with some rubber bands. You now have a bump stock.

  20. >Paddock’s main advantage seems to have been firing from a height, which made it difficult for his victims to find cover.

    Yes. The tall building was the shooter’s most deadly accessory and tool and the cause of a horrendous but preventable death toll. People must call on Congress to immediately pass new building control laws. All buildings and structures in excess of single-story height must be banned and the demolition of existing structures mandated to keep tragedies like this from ever happening again!

    1. The aftermath of a tragedy is no time for this sort of panicked overreaction, CMurph. Banning tall buildings might save some lives, but mass killers will just erect tree stands or fire out of the windows of helicopters instead. And without high-capacity buildings, people won’t have enough floors to protect themselves from flooding or horrible commute times. And with 100s of millions of Americans living in or working in high-rises, you could never get rid of them all without mass demolition, which would be a clear violation of our 3rd Amendment right not to house government personnel (busily wiring charges) in our homes. Mass tall-building-ings and fear of heights are part of living in a free society.

  21. While I totally support the second amendment, I find this article, well, just stupid. Accuracy is not needed when firing into a crowd of 20,000 from above. Who is hit and who survives is totally random. You are not trying to shoot a game animal, you are trying to kill a large number of people in a very large crowd.

  22. We should make all guns illegal because doing so with drugs has worked so well! I’m certain there would be no black market on guns (like Australia where 80% weren’t turned in). Ban jets (the 9-1-1 danger) and all automobiles because they cause a lot of damage even when used with no ill intent. Perhaps a well placed counter terrorism sniper? The President (and many others) get this with their protection details. One well placed (ex military) sniper would have greatly reduced casualties with one well placed shot.

  23. First I want to point out that although owning a bump stock is legal, using one is not. Second, the reason this shooting was so deadly is you had 22,000 people in a confined space. All of those innocent people had no place to go or hide once it started. The shooter knew exactly where and who he wanted to shoot. When California passed the law requiring background checks to buy ammo, they only covered factory ammo. Also, what about 80% lowers? You can buy these and the jig to finish the lower. After you buy the other parts, you can easily build a gun without a serial number. As long as you keep it for your own use, it is totally legal. When the 1994 “assault weapons” ban was passed, the law totally ignore all the parts for building an AR. The only it covered were lowers which the people making 80% lowers today have addressed. If by some strange act of insanity progressives got what they actually want, the banning of all guns in private hands, they would only prompt two things to happen. First, the creation of a massive underground economy selling reloaded ammo and ghost guns and second, a second civil war.

  24. I’m a gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, including handguns and semiautomatic weapons, but I am genuinely shocked at the awfulness of this article. The depth of Sullum’s stupidity in imagining that a decrease in accuracy caused by bump stocks somehow made the Las Vegas massacre less deadly is truly staggering. It boggles the mind. If casino owners were that bad at figuring percentages, Vegas wouldn’t even exist! Does Sullum truly believe that the victims of the massacre were aimed at, by and large? What next, that if dictator Kim doesn’t quite hit the right spot with a nuclear-tipped ICBM, it’s not necessarily more deadly for his having had nuclear weapons?

  25. ADDENDUM: So you’re saying that without a bump stock, he might have fired slowly and more accurately, killing about the same number of people but only injuring 1/4 as many?

    And you quote gun expert Kristen Rand as saying that serious gun enthusiasts consider bump stocks “just a gimmick”?

    In other words, they’re not much legitimate use, but they do make indiscriminately firing into crowds 4 times as harmful?

    And this is the best you can do in *defense* of keeping them legal? No wonder legislators are rushing to ban them. You’ve convinced me!

    1. Google “homemade bump fire stock”. And stop acting as if a single Reason article is the sum of all libertarian arguments.

  26. Did Bump Stocks Make the Las Vegas Shooting Deadlier? – Hit & Run : Reason.comis the best post by imo for pc Please visit imo app imo app snaptube for pc snaptube app

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.