No bump stocks have been turned in to Denver police after ban - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]DENVER (AP) — No bump stocks have been turned over to Denver authorities after the city banned the accessories used in last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people and injured hundreds.[/quote] https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/17/no-bump-stocks-turned-in-denver-police/ (This is because they had already banned the types of rifles that can accept bumpfire stocks prior to banning bumpfire stocks)

if you want to quote a specific part of a post, select it and press reply to quote it it's not possible to make quote tags on your own yet though

I see. Thanks.

Good. Many gun owners and gun rights activist are taking a stand against these knee-jerk reaction laws. We will no longer surrender ground for security theater.

It's actually because nobody in Denver has them to begin with, since semi automatic rifles that could accept bump stocks are already banned.

I'm pretty much okay with a ban on bump stocks because a) devices that replicate full-auto fire seem against the spirit of the law banning automatic weapons, and b) they're effectively useless toys. Nothing of value is really lost, in my opinion, and I'm generally against gun regulation based on type.

I was going to type out a long post saying basically the same thing but you put it way better than I could.

The thing about it, is that most of the laws regarding bump stocks are going to be used for any devices that increase rate of fire, including stuff like binary triggers, or even just light-weight triggers. It's already pretty much how the legislation on the federal level was being worded.

Light triggers or lighter recoil springs increase rate of fire but do not replicate fully automatic fire. Binary triggers are a questionable grey area but I'd also classify binary triggers as dumb range toys that have the added bonus of being potentially very unsafe.

It's probably because bump stocks are fucking dumb and you look like a retard when using them, so there probably aren't a lot of people that own bump stocks in the first place.

What he's referring to is the text of some suggested legislation referring to "rate increasing devices" rather than specifically devices used to replicate automatic fire. My issue with the bump stock ban is that I don't think banning an entire category of things, expensive things at that, because of a singular incident, is the right way to go about legislation. Will I miss bump stocks? Not really. But I don't think they should be banned.

I don't like it either, I don't like it one but but I don't think gun control legislation will be effective at all without being retroactive and applying to current gun owners. I'm generally against taking guns away from people or banning certain gun types, as I've said before. But my personal favorite idea right now is a strong gun licensing program heavily resembling drivers' licenses, requiring basic safety training and passing of an exam, a physical license with ID, and ID tags on guns, as well as a robust tracking system. My goal is for no gun to be off the books. Unfortunately, to be effective, this has to apply to people that already own guns, and that's where things get sticky.

Well I'm not going to cut my thumbs off so I'm not turning in my bumpfire stock.

Auto weapons aren't banned, the democrats simply closed the registry so no new ones could be created.

You're correct. But adding a bump stock is creating a weapon that replicates automatic fire. If consistency of policy is a priority, banning bump stocks is logical. And that's a big If.

From the group that keeps pushing the assault weapons ban, consistency is not their convern.

If I had one, I'd probably hold onto it too, just because the whole grandfathering in thing.

If the registry wasn't closed people wouldn't have to replicate it.

If you need some better insight on Bump Stocks this video really opened my eyes to what it actually is capable of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k

I know you can bumpfire with your bare hands but bumpfire stocks significantly reduce the skill barrier necessary to shoot in "full-auto."

No grandfathering, afaik. If you have one, you either turn it in, or sit on it and risk a felony. Sentencing for possession is up to life in at least one state, iirc.

I'd also like to clarify, once again, that I generally disagree with banning types of guns, guns by name, or gun attachments. But bump stocks are a relatively inoffensive thing to ban so I wouldn't shed any tears for them.

It'll work if it comes with a constitutional amendment that outlines use and forbids modification, but I don't trust them otherwise. Once that framework is down, it can be easily modified with any type of restrictions, or just go the route of '86 and close the registry.

It just doesn't make any sense. I would give up bump stocks if it was part of a compromise that re-opened the MG registry. Because then you could say, look, these things are pointless, they're theoretically dangerous to the operator and bystanders - just pay your $200 tax stamp and convert it to full auto legally. But this pointless. It establishes a precedent. Later they'll come for foregrips. "You don't need a foregrip, they just make it easier to control the gun while you murder innocent children... look, you didn't need bump stocks either, you got along just fine without those..." There is really no reason to give up bump stocks for nothing in return.

Conversely, there's no real reason to keep them, either.

This ban makes law abiding citizens felons overnight with zero grandfathering afaik. It's not the point if it's "inoffensive to ban".

We don't ban things based on whether or not you need to have them. If we did that, we'd live in a very bleak country.

That's not my mentality for making laws, at all. I wouldn't ban them were I in charge. I just don't see how fiercely defending bump-stocks is especially productive. If gun control advocates want to take them, I just don't see why not.

I agree with you completely. That just isn't the point I'm trying to make.

Because again, it sets a precedent that you don't need a real reason to take something away.