NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
276 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic ones need tougher regulation, powerful US gun lobby the National Rifle Association says, calling on regulators to determine whether the "bump-stock" devices comply with federal law.
"The National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the lobby group said in a statement,a rare move for the powerful opponent of most gun control initiatives.
"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
Source:
[URL]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-06/nra-calls-for-bump-stock-regulation/9021394[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
This is the type of stuff I'm glad to see.
None of that bullshit about banning suppressors, but about banning/regulating things that actually can make a semi-auto rifle become a more dangerous "full auto".
I feel like this is the NRA taking the initiative to try and set the agenda after the overwhelming cries for gun control in the wake of these mass shootings that don't stop, rather than waiting for the anti-gun lobby to call for harsher and broader restrictions.
It's not the dumbest move, really.
Trying to legislate against this is a pointless feel good measure. People can still bumpfire without special stocks.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c[/media]
Are we really going to start legislating against shooting techniques now? This does nothing to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns.
I wonder if when they do ban the bump-fire stock, will they issue a recall or just have the remaining stocks grandfathered in (like a lot of short/sawn-off shotguns)?
[QUOTE=Stroheim;52750178]I wonder if when they do ban the bump-fire stock, will they issue a recall or just have the remaining stocks grandfathered in (like a lot of short/sawn-off shotguns)?[/QUOTE]
probably since the nra would never support anything to do with confiscation.
where'd all the "these people are the enemy and need to be defended against" commercials go? maybe telling crazy right wing white guys they're going to be killed by the government if they don't horde guns is a bad idea?
[QUOTE=Stroheim;52750178]I wonder if when they do ban the bump-fire stock, will they issue a recall or just have the remaining stocks grandfathered in (like a lot of short/sawn-off shotguns)?[/QUOTE]
Those weapons were never grandfathered in, there was an amnesty period where they could be legally registered. They'll likely ban bump-fire stocks from production/sale but grandfather in existing ones, like how high-capacity magazines were treated under the 1994 AWB.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750175]Trying to legislate against this is a pointless feel good measure. People can still bumpfire without special stocks.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c[/media]
Are we really going to start legislating against shooting techniques now?[/QUOTE]
good fucking luck hitting anything like that?
one of the points of the ban would be to make use of the weapon less effective, and i'm pretty sure going from bumpstocks to literally hip-firing is just that
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750175]Trying to legislate against this is a pointless feel good measure. People can still bumpfire without special stocks.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c[/media]
Are we really going to start legislating against shooting techniques now?[/QUOTE]
Except it isn't about people hooking the trigger to their belts and firing from the hip, what their looking at is stocks like this:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7tzaYgp5g[/media]
(I had a much better video that I posted a while ago about this, but it got removed by YT/BS reports)
There's a difference between a impractical, literal hip fire that takes some time to set up, and a actual 99$ stock that you can actually aim and use to change a semi-auto to a ""precise"" full time full auto.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52750196]good fucking luck hitting anything like that?[/QUOTE]
The same thing could be said about bumpfire stocks or hell, even registered full auto machine guns. The whole point of full auto is to fire for an area of effect.
[QUOTE=Stroheim;52750203]Except it isn't about people hooking the trigger to their belts and firing from the hip, what their looking at is stocks like this:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7tzaYgp5g[/media]
(I had a much better video that I posted a while ago about this, but it got removed by YT/BS reports)
There's a difference between a impractical, literal hip fire that takes some time to set up, and a actual 99$ stock that you can actually aim, and use to change a semi-auto to a full time full auto.[/QUOTE]
What the stock does is provide more control and safety for the user, but banning it won't prevent any potential mass shooters from walking into a room and spraying down the place. This is just punishing people who have guns legitimately because we've crossed some invisible threshold where slapping a piece of plastic onto your already legal gun suddenly makes it too effective for people to be trusted with.
Jesus, you know a shooting was bad when the NRA reacts by calling for regulation.
[QUOTE=Stroheim;52750203]and a actual 99$ stock that you can actually aim, and use to change a semi-auto to a full time full auto.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever used one? You really can't aim when your gun is flying back and forth in front of your face. You can't hold it steady because it's widely reverberating in your hands. And it's hard, even with the stock, to apply just enough pressure to make it reliably work.
I'm tentatively okay with additional regulation because it's clear that they do allow a shooter to fire significantly more rapidly, but a bump-fire stock is not in any way equivalent to actual full-auto. An AR-15 with a bump-fire stock is a novelty that sprays bullets everywhere, an AR-15 with a full-auto registered sear is a controllable and effective weapon.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52750220]Have you ever used one? You really can't aim when your gun is flying back and forth in front of your face. You can't hold it steady because it's widely reverberating in your hands. And it's hard, even with the stock, to apply just enough pressure to make it reliably work.
I'm tentatively okay with additional regulation because it's clear that they do allow a shooter to fire significantly more rapidly, but a bump-fire stock is not in any way equivalent to actual full-auto. An AR-15 with a bump-fire stock is a novelty that sprays bullets everywhere, an AR-15 with a full-auto registered sear is a controllable and effective weapon.[/QUOTE]
A bumpfire may sacrifice accuracy, but when you're firing into a densely packed crowd of 20,000 people, accuracy hardly matters. The rapid-fire capabilities of the aftermarket parts on these weapons unquestionably allowed him to shoot more people.
There is no reason whatsoever why it should be legal. There's no practical legal purpose for it other than just "havin' fun at the range," and that is not a strong enough positive when compared to the chaos it's capable of unleashing to make it worth the risk of keeping legal.
The same goes for trigger modifications that simulate rapid fire, such as crank triggers or echo triggers.
No one ever fired a bump fire AR, put it down on the bench, and said "Wow, look at that grouping!". If they did, it was in horror...
But i like seeing the NRA trying to be a bit more palatable. Also, take note that this is an executive solution, not a legislative.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750248]The same goes for trigger modifications that simulate rapid fire, such as crank triggers or echo triggers.[/QUOTE]
Good luck trying to enforce a ban on 19th century technology which anyone with 2 brain cells can make :v:
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52750256]No one ever fired a bump fire AR, put it down on the bench, and said "Wow, look at that grouping!". If they did, it was in horror...
But i like seeing the NRA trying to be a bit more palatable. Also, take note that this is an executive solution, not a legislative.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, I don't think banning such modifications goes [I]nearly[/I] far enough, but it's a step in the right direction at least. Limited practicality makes them essentially pointless for legal purposes other than just havin' a giggle, but in cases of indiscriminate fire into masses of people where accuracy means very little, they're objectively more deadly.
As long as you can keep the gun pointed in the right direction, rapid automatic fire into a crowd of 20,000 people will result in massive death and injury.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52750220]I'm tentatively okay with additional regulation because it's clear that they do allow a shooter to fire significantly more rapidly, but a bump-fire stock is not in any way equivalent to actual full-auto. An AR-15 with a bump-fire stock is a novelty that sprays bullets everywhere, an AR-15 with a full-auto registered sear is a controllable and effective weapon.[/QUOTE]
I'm not ok with a flat ban. If we're allowed to have fully automatic drop in triggers (for an extortionate amount of money) then why can't we have a piece of plastic which enhances the controlability of a rapid fire shooting technique?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750269]Good luck trying to enforce a ban on 19th century technology which anyone with 2 brain cells can make :v:[/QUOTE]
Never really understood this argument, tbh. Forcing people to figure out how to machine their own parts, and make them reliable enough to actually function similarly and conveniently enough to compare to what they could have just bought at the store for a couple of bucks is better than not doing anything at all. It's an extra barrier, an extra chance for homemade jury-rigged components to fail, an extra chance for those components to never even be utilized in the first place because the shooter didn't even consider them as a possibility, or because any given shooting had little or no advanced planning.
It's not an impassable obstacle for somebody who was clearly as prepared as Paddock was, but it's a barrier nontheless, and one that many mass shooters may not be able or willing to deal with. It's also a barrier that has essentially no impact on law abiding gun owners who are all quick to admit that it's not practical enough for any actual self defense needs. So, how's that a bad thing?
Good luck banning a stick.
[video=youtube;QkWuYr0cD4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWuYr0cD4M[/video]
To be honest whilst it's good to see the NRA trying to take some initiative this won't solve the problem, I'm surprised they haven't advocated for better background checks.
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52750292]Good luck banning a stick.
[video=youtube;QkWuYr0cD4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWuYr0cD4M[/video][/QUOTE]
Considering how fuckin' impractical this is in an active shooter situation, but how easy it is for you to fuck around with if you're just looking to have some fun at the range, why do you even [I]care[/I]? A prebuilt bumpfire stock affixed to the weapon requires no extra hands or thought to utilize, unlike juggling a stick while you try to fire. Use a stick if you want to piss about -- an active shooter sure as hell won't be able to.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52750301]To be honest whilst it's good to see the NRA trying to take some initiative this won't solve the problem, I'm surprised they haven't advocated for better background checks.[/QUOTE]
A better background check wouldn't have done anything, the shooter had no criminal record.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750303]Considering how fuckin' impractical this is in an active shooter situation, but how easy it is for you to fuck around with if you're just looking to have some fun at the range, why do you even [I]care[/I]? A prebuilt bumpfire stock affixed to the weapon requires no extra hands or thought to utilize, unlike juggling a stick while you try to fire. Use a stick if you want to piss about -- an active shooter sure as hell won't be able to.[/QUOTE]
I don't particularly care about bumpfire stocks specifically. Who knows what the wording of the bills to come will be? That is my issue.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52750314]A better background check wouldn't have done anything, the shooter had no criminal record.[/QUOTE]
Just to be clear, it is fully impossible to come up with any legislation capable of preventing [B]all[/B] mass shootings. Just because a piece of proposed gun control legislation may not have been effective for one shooting doesn't it wouldn't help reduce the frequency or severity of others. Better background checks, including criminal and mental health record searches, are a no-brainer. It's basically the single most simple and unobtrusive things we can possibly do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. It's not a [B]perfect[/B] solution, by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. We may not be able to permanently end mass shootings, but through effective legislation we can at least significantly reduce both their frequency and severity. That's worth some minor annoyances to gun owners.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750327]Just to be clear, it is fully impossible to come up with any legislation capable of preventing [B]all[/B] mass shootings. Just because a piece of proposed gun control legislation may not have been effective for one shooting doesn't it wouldn't help reduce the frequency or severity of others.[/QUOTE]
Right but typically after a particularly bad shooting happens people will focus on legislation that will have prevented that particular shooting. I agree that we need better background checks but it's hard for people to be swayed for that by a shooting it wouldn't have even prevented.
As much fun as it would be to own a full auto gun, or at least simulate one, this is one thing I'm willing to give up. By letting the gun control reactionaries kill something that really doesn't have anything to do with day to day gun use, it should divert their attention away from bullshit like AWBs and ridiculous waiting periods.
Losing the ability to emulate a full auto machine gun isn't going to make me lose any sleep, especially since there's at least two big shooting festivals you can go to and rent a REAL machine gun to fire off for relatively cheap, or watch for even cheaper. Plus it's just not as fun to open up and burn all of your ammo at once on the range. It's cool to do once or twice, but then your wallet starts screaming at you for creating such a strong vacuum where your money used to be. Honestly, I'm only surprised that the ATF hasn't banned bumpfire stocks yet. They banned the practice of tying a string around the trigger and the bolt handle, so a purpose manufactured gun part specifically to bypass the NFA should've been banned long ago.
Not that it would've stopped the Vegas shooter. As much money as he had, he could've went and bought an M240B or an M60 and killed even more people. I just hope to fucking god that gun control advocates don't get the idea to regulate how much ammo you're allowed to buy or possess.
What a surprise. The NRA is abandoning gun owners again.
[QUOTE=zombini;52750354]Losing the ability to emulate a full auto machine gun isn't going to make me lose any sleep, especially since there's at least two big shooting festivals you can go to and rent a REAL machine gun to fire off for relatively cheap, or watch for even cheaper. Plus it's just not as fun to open up and burn all of your ammo at once on the range. It's cool to do once or twice, but then your wallet starts screaming at you for creating such a strong vacuum where your money used to be. Honestly, I'm only surprised that the ATF hasn't banned bumpfire stocks yet. They banned the practice of tying a string around the trigger and the bolt handle, so a purpose manufactured gun part specifically to bypass the NFA should've been banned long ago.[/QUOTE]This. Ammo isn't cheap and for most gun owners like myself, full-auto is a waste of money.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52750327]Just to be clear, it is fully impossible to come up with any legislation capable of preventing [B]all[/B] mass shootings. Just because a piece of proposed gun control legislation may not have been effective for one shooting doesn't it wouldn't help reduce the frequency or severity of others. Better background checks, including criminal and mental health record searches, are a no-brainer. It's basically the single most simple and unobtrusive things we can possibly do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. It's not a [B]perfect[/B] solution, by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. We may not be able to permanently end mass shootings, but through effective legislation we can at least significantly reduce both their frequency and severity. That's worth some minor annoyances to gun owners.[/QUOTE]
Define "better" background checks as the current ones already prevent anyone with felony convictions from buying a firearm or even possessing a firearm
Sunshine Patriots, all of em'.
At least the Gun Owners of America still kept their fucking spine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.