• NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
    276 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751283]Those countries have sane gun control laws that prevent these things from happening. Thourough background checks being chief among them.[/QUOTE] No level of background check would have prevented this bastard from doing what he did. He had zero history, ran up zero red flags. Even his own fucking girlfriend apparently didn't realize what he was planning.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52751334]No level of background check would have prevented this bastard from doing what he did. He had zero history, ran up zero red flags. Even his own fucking girlfriend apparently didn't realize what he was planning.[/QUOTE] Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but for some reason people can't/won't understand: - A ban on either cosmetic or "assault weapon" features will not and already have not done anything to improve gun crime, and that gun crime was already decreasing when the '94 ban took place while also having negligible results entirely. - A ban on guns won't remove the ~300 million guns already in circulation in this country and the majority whose whereabouts aren't registered or known. - A ban on guns will be virtually impossible to implement due to the fact a massive portion of the country [i]want[/i] their 2nd Amendment rights and don't share the opinions of our European friends. - A ban on guns won't make people (criminal or not) who actually want to keep their guns from handing them in in the first place. History has shown pitiful numbers from gun buybacks in this country. Now try to force them to hand it over without the cash incentive. Ever heard of the Bundy standoffs? The Oregon militia? - A ban on guns would topple a multi-billion dollar industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses, the effects of which I 100% bet would cause even more problems both economically and socially than a ban would ever hope to solve. - A gun ban won't remove our just-under 6,000 mile long northern and southern borders where a not-so-small history of narcotics, criminals, and firearms have already traversed. Unless Trump's wall is part of the deal I have no reason to believe this would get any better. - A gun ban won't do anything to help the economic inequality, young adults in poverty, and the resultant gang violence and instability in major cities which is already causing the majority of gun-related homicides. I don't consider taking guns out of gangbangers' hands and giving them knives any better of a solution than finding out why these criminals exist in the first place and fixing that first. - A gun ban never mentions the tens of thousands of defensive firearm uses every year in this country ranging from merely deterring a criminal from causing harm to justified self-defense homicides. It is admittedly difficult to know and quantify whether or not a deterred criminal was a guaranteed deterred murderer/rapist, but so is a ban the likes of which has never been done in a country even remotely close to America. - The whole government tyranny thing which has been beat to death so I won't talk about it. The list goes on and on, but you get the picture. This is such a complicated multi-faceted issue with so many variables that a ban isn't the panacea gun control activists wish it to be, and trying to take things away from the ~100 million gun owners [i]might not[/i] go so well. People need to ask themselves why do people feel the need to kill/rape/steal and fix the root of the problem instead of tying America in a straight jacket so nobody can possibly hurt each other.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750217]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. 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.[/QUOTE] ya thats kind of the point, there's no lethality test out there that determines if a weapon is too deadly, if it were that simple then gun laws wouldn't be nearly this hard, it is an invisible line between what society at large deems unacceptable or not, whether that is the right way to do it is another debate
[QUOTE=Sableye;52751448]ya thats kind of the point, there's no lethality test out there that determines if a weapon is too deadly, if it were that simple then gun laws wouldn't be nearly this hard, it is an invisible line between what society at large deems unacceptable or not, whether that is the right way to do it is another debate[/QUOTE] Yea that would never work. Firearm lethality is dependent on dozens of varying factors and you can't really test it effectively or base firearm legislation off of it. Its silly to assume that every firearm, or accessories, sold in the US will be used in a crime. Gun crime in the US is an anomaly considering how many firearms and firearm owners exist in this country. So its dumb to punish the vast majority who are completely law aiding just because a complete minority are abusing the right or circumventing already in place restrictions. I've said this a million times, the best way to solve a problem isn't to target the symptoms, but to focus on the actual problem. Gun violence in the US, and violence in general, is a symptom of a larger problem in this country. Restricting or removing guns isn't going to solve that violence.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52751235]A suppressor from that distance and over the sounds of the concert would have without a doubt made his spree more "dangerous"/lethal[/QUOTE] Suppressors don't stop super-sonic rounds from making bullet cracks when they pass by, which you can hear in videos of the shooting. Banning suppressors won't save lives because they're not magical and remove all sound from a firearm. The only thing a suppressor does is lower the volume of a gunshot to "really goddamn loud and damages your hearing" to just "really goddamn loud". If shooters really valued suppressors that much, they would screw on oil filters onto the ends of their weapons to act as a makeshift suppressor (this is a real thing and it does work) -- but they don't, because suppressors don't give you as much as an advantage as movies and TV would make you believe.
Because regulating guns solves mass shootings. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. but it doesn't matter. Shit you could make an air powered gun that fires nails accurate up to 100 meters just by going to your local plumbing supply store. If any thing should come of this shooting it should be more funding and support for the Mental health fields.
I'm deeply disturbed that no one seems to be realizing the potential for the vague wording of this law to be abused on accessories or parts not specifically designed to simulate full automatic fire rates.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751253]Has anyone murdered innocent people by spouting bullshit on the air or shitposting on the internet? That's not a relevant comparison.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TraderRager;52751283]Maybe people should be better educated so they know to check their sources. Maybe if people didn't have access to deadly firearms rash attacks based on flawed information wouldn't be able to happen. I agree the press should be accountable to the truth and we should fight misinformation, but average citizens can't end each others lives with words, unlike weapons.[/QUOTE] That's special pleading. A man walked into a pizza restaurant with intent to kill entirely because of misinformation on the Internet. Cell phones were used to coordinate the Paris attack. The Internet is being used by organizations like ISIS to recruit people to their cause every day- in fact, the Nice attacker who killed more people with a truck than the Vegas shooter did with a gun is believed to have been radicalized through the Internet. Our modern communications technologies have enabled terrorism like never before. If you're going to say that a Constitutional right is invalid because technology has made it more dangerous to the public, you have to be consistent in your reasoning. You can't just say modern guns aren't Constitutionally protected because they're harmful when misused, but modern free speech methods are Constitutionally protected because they're only harmful when misused.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52751976]I'm deeply disturbed that no one seems to be realizing the potential for the vague wording of this law to be abused on accessories or parts not specifically designed to simulate full automatic fire rates.[/QUOTE] I'm fully aware and don't like it any more then you do the bill is being proposed by someone who has literally no formal experience with firearms and the wording is vague as hell or oddly specific depending on how you look at it. If it was just a bump stock ban I wouldn't give a shit but the wording leaves the door open for regulations beyond the bills intended target and that is the reason why in general I do not support gun regulation or at the very least gun regulation proposed by democrats because all too often the gun regulation proposed is intentionally vague or flat out tries to "regulate" (read ban) items not in the original scope of the bill
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52751976]I'm deeply disturbed that no one seems to be realizing the potential for the vague wording of this law to be abused on accessories or parts not specifically designed to simulate full automatic fire rates.[/QUOTE] The laws so stupid it might not even ban bump fire stocks. Bump fire stocks don't increase the rate of fire of a weapon, they allow you to reach the rate of fire. The problem is its so vague that the ATF could be convinced that anything on a gun short of a freaking grip could change the rate of fire.
If the bumpstock is such a useless novelty range toy, why care if it gets banned? So far these past few days I haven't seen a single reason not to ban it. It's not gonna help you in self defense, not gonna make you better at target shooting and hunting with it would be insane. If you're afraid that this will bring forth more gun regulations, then face it, if you have good and solid arguments you will win the case. But this time around a guy was able to, with the help of bumpstocks, sustain a 9-rounds per second firerate for about nine minutes.
I don't care if they ban bump stocks what I care about is unintentional or intentional consequences beyond the intended target of the bill
[QUOTE=booster;52752427]If the bumpstock is such a useless novelty range toy, why care if it gets banned? So far these past few days I haven't seen a single reason not to ban it. It's not gonna help you in self defense, not gonna make you better at target shooting and hunting with it would be insane. If you're afraid that this will bring forth more gun regulations, then face it, if you have good and solid arguments you will win the case. But this time around a guy was able to, with the help of bumpstocks, sustain a 9-rounds per second firerate for about nine minutes.[/QUOTE] You don't know anything about gun politics if you think a "good solid argument" is enough to deter improper gun legislation. [editline]6th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52751976]I'm deeply disturbed that no one seems to be realizing the potential for the vague wording of this law to be abused on accessories or parts not specifically designed to simulate full automatic fire rates.[/QUOTE] We're aware, the thread just got hijacked by someone talking out of their ass.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52752457]You don't know anything about gun politics if you think a "good solid argument" is enough to deter improper gun legislation. [/QUOTE] Well the gun legislation still has to be approved by a majority of both a committee and the senate. If such an improper and vaguely worded legislation still managed to get through, then you obviously have a corrupt and biased government. If your legislative process is this warped, then you guys have way bigger problems than the ban of some rifle modifications.
Gun laws alone will never fix the problem, even as a gun-hating british leftist I can see that. And even if guns were regulated, humans are very VERY good at finding new and innovative ways to kill and maim each-other. Preventing mass murder completely is impossible without some kind of ethically questionable actions. However do not fall for the idea that just because people can get their hands on illegal weaponry in spite of the world harshest regulation that it is fruitless to even try to regulate in the first place. Regulation will make it harder for potential shooters to get guns and that might be enough to stop some of them. But just regulation will not be enough, what matters more is people, the police need more people to police the illegal purchase and misuse of guns, emergency teams need better means to reach a crisis situation and potentially diffuse it in time, the national perception of guns needs to be changed so people treat them with more respect and care. This is not to say all gun owners are [I]gun[/I]g-ho nutjobs who use a rifle to clean their gutters but there are people who take guns a wee bit too much for granted. I know its written into the constitution and all but that doesn't mean it should be seen as socially acceptable to wave them around like its a new set of golf clubs. The issue here isn't bump stocks, or guns-a-plenty or a lack of regulation alone. Its a multi-headed issue that would need a lot of careful thought and planning in order to tackle.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52752277]That's special pleading. A man walked into a pizza restaurant with intent to kill entirely because of misinformation on the Internet. Cell phones were used to coordinate the Paris attack. The Internet is being used by organizations like ISIS to recruit people to their cause every day- in fact, the Nice attacker who killed more people with a truck than the Vegas shooter did with a gun is believed to have been radicalized through the Internet. Our modern communications technologies have enabled terrorism like never before. If you're going to say that a Constitutional right is invalid because technology has made it more dangerous to the public, you have to be consistent in your reasoning. You can't just say modern guns aren't Constitutionally protected because they're harmful when misused, but modern free speech methods are Constitutionally protected because they're only harmful when misused.[/QUOTE] At least you got the point I was trying to make. His arguments were emotional appeals, they didn't really hinge on anything factual.
[QUOTE=booster;52752427]If the bumpstock is such a useless novelty range toy, why care if it gets banned? So far these past few days I haven't seen a single reason not to ban it. It's not gonna help you in self defense, not gonna make you better at target shooting and hunting with it would be insane. If you're afraid that this will bring forth more gun regulations, then face it, if you have good and solid arguments you will win the case. But this time around a guy was able to, with the help of bumpstocks, sustain a 9-rounds per second firerate for about nine minutes.[/QUOTE] Because any inch we give up as another nail in the coffin. If we got offered a Hughes Amendment repeal or passage of the HPA we might actually be willing to listen to this, but because it's ban this with no compromise why should we take a step back? Our right that supposedly will not be infringed keeps being infringed and we don't make any progress. We like to spout that avoiding a gun control a bill was a win but all it is winning a single fight where any loss for us is irreversible. The only win we've ever made is the AWB not getting extended.
[QUOTE=booster;52752427]If the bumpstock is such a useless novelty range toy, why care if it gets banned? So far these past few days I haven't seen a single reason not to ban it. It's not gonna help you in self defense, not gonna make you better at target shooting and hunting with it would be insane. If you're afraid that this will bring forth more gun regulations, then face it, if you have good and solid arguments you will win the case. But this time around a guy was able to, with the help of bumpstocks, sustain a 9-rounds per second firerate for about nine minutes.[/QUOTE] Because of this: [QUOTE]During an exchange with CBS News' Nancy Cordes, Pelosi suggested that Republicans might feel such a ban would be a "slippery slope" for other gun bills. "So what?" she said, adding, "I certainly hope so."[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-calls-on-ryan-bring-bump-stock-ban-to-floor/"]CBS News[/URL] The slippery slope when it comes to gun rights and gun control isn't imaginary. It's a real thing people are pushing hard for.
Remember that the burden of proof always lands on the person trying to institute a ban. It's not enough to say, "Why shouldn't we ban it?" The default stance should always more freedom, unless someone can present a strong argument as to why it ought to be banned. It needs to be demonstrated that this specific ban will actually help in a considerable way.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52753199]Remember that the burden of proof always lands on the person trying to institute a ban. It's not enough to say, "Why shouldn't we ban it?" The default stance should always more freedom, unless someone can present a strong argument as to why it ought to be banned. It needs to be demonstrated that this specific ban will actually help in a considerable way.[/QUOTE] We all know it won't actually do anything to help prevent gun crime even if people want to pretend that it will. In the long term this won't have any discernible effect, and in the short term it's having the Streisand effect making everyone want to grab it before legislation gets passed. [QUOTE=booster;52752485]Well the gun legislation still has to be approved by a majority of both a committee and the senate. [B]If such an improper and vaguely worded legislation still managed to get through, then you obviously have a corrupt and biased government. If your legislative process is this warped, then you guys have way bigger problems than the ban of some rifle modifications.[/B][/QUOTE] This literally happens all the time, yes we do have much MUCH bigger problems than gun control. Like I literally wouldn't know where to begin if you asked me how corrupt our government institutions are. Insider trading and lobbying (glorified bribery) for law makers, a pro gun control senator being arrested literally for gun running, Anthony Weiner who got arrested for sending pictures of his dick to people on multiple occasions, Donald fucking Trump, the DOJ reinterpreting sex discrimination laws to exclude transgender persons from protection, the ATF interpreting laws to ridiculous extremes (a shoestring is a machine gun) etc...
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52750292]Good luck banning a stick. [video=youtube;QkWuYr0cD4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWuYr0cD4M[/video][/QUOTE] offtopic but i hope the doggys ears are ok :(
As a non-American, maybe someone can give an answer to this: What is the actual purpose of a bump stock? I mean apart from shooting faster- what is the real use/what's an application for it? I'm assuming you'd be shooting at a range as you wouldn't be using a bump stock when hunting for example, so is it just to emulate a full-auto rifle without the license(s) etc which come with them? That's the only reason I can think of where you'd use one. If that's their only use, sounds a pretty weak reason to keep them as unregulated as they are at the moment when their purpose seems to just be for laughing in the face of bureaucracy by effectively converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon without the regulations/need for additional licenses etc.
[QUOTE=Zenamez;52753629]As a non-American, maybe someone can give an answer to this: What is the actual purpose of a bump stock? I mean apart from shooting faster- what is the real use/what's an application for it? I'm assuming you'd be shooting at a range as you wouldn't be using a bump stock when hunting for example, so is it just to emulate a full-auto rifle without the license(s) etc which come with them? That's the only reason I can think of where you'd use one. If that's their only use, sounds a pretty weak reason to keep them as unregulated as they are at the moment when their purpose seems to just be for laughing in the face of bureaucracy by effectively converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon without the regulations/need for additional licenses etc.[/QUOTE] People can already bumpfire without any special tools or accessories. The stock just adds a slightly better degree of control and makes it much safer for the user. Also people go pig hunting with automatic weapons, so I don't see why it couldn't be used for that.
[QUOTE=Zenamez;52753629]As a non-American, maybe someone can give an answer to this: What is the actual purpose of a bump stock? I mean apart from shooting faster- what is the real use/what's an application for it? I'm assuming you'd be shooting at a range as you wouldn't be using a bump stock when hunting for example, so is it just to emulate a full-auto rifle without the license(s) etc which come with them? That's the only reason I can think of where you'd use one. If that's their only use, sounds a pretty weak reason to keep them as unregulated as they are at the moment when their purpose seems to just be for laughing in the face of bureaucracy by effectively converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon without the regulations/need for additional licenses etc.[/QUOTE] Because the only way to get an automatic firearm is be in the business of buying or selling firearms, which is approximately 3000 dollars not including the equipment the ATF requires that you have to be a manufacturer of firearms or the location you need to do business because you aren't allowed to do this in your garage. This method is pretty much unattainable because the equipment you require is incredibly expensive and unless you're actually going into business running a business isn't a do it while you work at Target kind of job. The other way is pay 6000 dollars minimum for a machine gun manufactured before 1986, these machine guns are the bottom end and are typically Uzis or Stens, typically they prices range around 15000 and up getting into guns like ARs or AKs. This also requires you to submit photos and fingerprints to the ATF to perform the same exact background checked performed when you buy a normal firearm along with a 200 dollar tax. Most Americans don't have 15,000 dollars so a 140 dollar stock, 40 dollar gat crank or 500 dollar trigger are far better options. If they opened the Machine Gun registry Americans wouldn't bother with these simply because they wouldn't be needed. This is regardless of the fact that the only crime committed with a legal machine gun was by a law enforcement officer and no civilian has committed a crime with a legal machine gun. In other words, because Reagan was an asshole who closed the Machine Gun registry in '86 and forced gun owners to come up with alternate but legal methods to make up for our rights being taken away.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52750411][B]Sunshine Patriots[/B], all of em'. At least the Gun Owners of America still kept their fucking spine.[/QUOTE] lmao sorry we've disappointed you mr. 1776 how ever can i make it up to you?
[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? This does nothing to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52750292]Good luck banning a stick. [video=youtube;QkWuYr0cD4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWuYr0cD4M[/video][/QUOTE] Ah yes, because those are definitely accurate and not awkward at all:hiddendowns:
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52753734]Ah yes, because those are definitely accurate and not awkward at all:hiddendowns:[/QUOTE] You don't need accuracy when you're firing into a densely crowded venue with 20+ thousand people.
[QUOTE=booster;52752485]Well the gun legislation still has to be approved by a majority of both a committee and the senate. If such an improper and vaguely worded legislation still managed to get through, then you obviously have a corrupt and biased government. If your legislative process is this warped, then you guys have way bigger problems than the ban of some rifle modifications.[/QUOTE] Newsflash: our government is corruot, broken, and inept.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;52751971]Because regulating guns solves mass shootings. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S. but it doesn't matter. Shit you could make an air powered gun that fires nails accurate up to 100 meters just by going to your local plumbing supply store. If any thing should come of this shooting it should be more funding and support for the Mental health fields.[/QUOTE] strawman but chicago has the unregulated gary right next to it and is surrounded by unregulated illinois, you don't have to go far to get around their gun laws
[QUOTE=Zenamez;52753629]As a non-American, maybe someone can give an answer to this: What is the actual purpose of a bump stock? I mean apart from shooting faster- what is the real use/what's an application for it? I'm assuming you'd be shooting at a range as you wouldn't be using a bump stock when hunting for example, so is it just to emulate a full-auto rifle without the license(s) etc which come with them? That's the only reason I can think of where you'd use one. If that's their only use, sounds a pretty weak reason to keep them as unregulated as they are at the moment when their purpose seems to just be for laughing in the face of bureaucracy by effectively converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon without the regulations/need for additional licenses etc.[/QUOTE] The actual purpose of a bumpfire stock is to safely allow you to bumpfire a rifle. It does not effectively simulate full automatic fire, just allows you to pull the trigger faster than you could normally. Using one makes you wildly inaccurate, and 1000% more likely to jam your rifle. Bumpfire stocks are not a substitute or simulator for NFA devices. Whats the actual use for them? To have fun honestly. Theyre very ineffectual for just about everything. The way they work is the stock moves with the recoil movement and has you pull the trigger each time the rifle comes back forward, the recoil pushes it back, you push it forward, and pull the trigger again. Because of that, bumpfiring will constantly jam because if you push forward too much, the trigger will release the hammer before the bolt is seated and jam the rifle. The shooter in Vegas was able to cause as much damage as he did because he brought a dozen rifles with him so he could replace a jammed one very quickly. He also chose a high up position far from his target so he couldn't be easily taken down when one of his rifles inevitably jammed. The scenario for such an attack to work with a bumpfire stock is extremely specific and expensive, which is why they have never been an issue in the first place. An attack like this would be hard to duplicate. It would honestly be easier to drill the third hole and put in an FA trigger pack. Side note, Paddock checked into the hotel with a near dozen suitcases for just a few days stay. That should have set off some serious red flags. [editline]6th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;52753891]strawman but chicago has the unregulated gary right next to it and is surrounded by unregulated illinois, you don't have to go far to get around their gun laws[/QUOTE] Yea but NYC and its surroundings aren't exactly utopias for gun owners. Even then you could use that as proof that gun bans dont work for that reason. Dumb argument either way. Fact of the matter is gun violence isn't 100% related to the prevalence of guns. More has to do with poverty, social issues, and inner city issues for bigger places like NYC and Chicago.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.