• Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'
    330 replies, posted
[QUOTE=butre;53148295]well there goes the legal status of rubber bands[/QUOTE] A rubber band isn't a bump fire stock.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53148306]A rubber band isn't a bump fire stock.[/QUOTE] His point was they inevitably give the same result: An inaccurate spray that can be replicated a number of ways. The bump fire stock isn't even a fool-proof part (and neither are the others) because it largely depends on grip and finger position. You can mess up and only get a shot off, or a small burst. Hell some of the other options dump the entire magazine after the first shot regardless of finger position.
[QUOTE=frogy1289;53148323]His point was they inevitably give the same result: An inaccurate spray that can be replicated a number of ways. The bump fire stock isn't even a fool-proof part (and neither are the others) because it largely depends on grip and finger position. You can mess up and only get a shot off, or a small burst. Hell some of the other options dump the entire magazine after the first shot regardless of finger position.[/QUOTE] Sure, but a rubber band has a wide variety of uses, and you can use it for anything from sealing up bags to strangling kittens. A bump fire stock is made exactly for the purpose of aiding rapid firing.
[QUOTE=frogy1289;53148323]His point was they inevitably give the same result: An inaccurate spray that can be replicated a number of ways. The bump fire stock isn't even a fool-proof part (and neither are the others) because it largely depends on grip and finger position. You can mess up and only get a shot off, or a small burst. Hell some of the other options dump the entire magazine after the first shot regardless of finger position.[/QUOTE] Did this really just boil down to "but you can mess up while using it"? Come on man, you can mess up with almost anything.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;53148355]Did this really just boil down to "but you can mess up while using it"? Come on man, you can mess up with almost anything.[/QUOTE] I was pointing out that banning an item when others methods do the exact same, with an operation that isn't guaranteed to work, and sometimes the alternatives work in a more dangerous fashion, is just dumb, a tiny band-aid on a supposed problem.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147967]If anything SH is an echo chamber of pro gun control posters so I dont know what youre getting at[/QUOTE] Pretty much. When it comes to the extremes, I see a lot more "ban all guns, no compromises" on facepunch than the other end of "let everyone purchase a minigun, fuck yeah murrica 2nd amendment"
[QUOTE=Orkel;53148501]Pretty much. When it comes to the extremes, I see a lot more "ban all guns, no compromises" on facepunch than the other end of "let everyone purchase a minigun, fuck yeah murrica 2nd amendment"[/QUOTE] The explanation for that is pretty simple - the forum has a larger contingent of Europeans than it does Americans, which are countries where gun control has worked. It's like some of our US Conservatives posters complaining that the forum sometimes feels like a leftist echo chamber, even though by European standards it is pretty much across the political spectrum, it just so happens that the US Right is pretty far-right by EU (and generally how the rest of the world perceives the political spectrum) standards.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;53148507]The explanation for that is pretty simple - the forum has a larger contingent of Europeans than it does Americans, which are countries where gun control has worked. It's like some of our US Conservatives posters complaining that the forum sometimes feels like a leftist echo chamber, even though by European standards it is pretty much across the political spectrum, it just so happens that the US Right is pretty far-right by EU (and generally how the rest of the world perceives the political spectrum) standards.[/QUOTE] It's a difference of perspective. For pretty much anyone outside of America guns are viewed as a tool used to either kill people, hunt for game or used in sport shooting. There is no emotional connection to firearms so people often don't understand the logic behind fighting so hard to keep them around.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53148534]Its not a leftist echo chamber, and more people are willing to listen to valid points being made on both sides, were we having this debate back in like.. 2010 or so, then instead of 1 or 2 posters ignoring everything and screeching, it'd be everyone in the thread.[/QUOTE] Oh, I agree, but I have seen some of our more right posters claim the above before, mostly around the 2016 US Election and its immediate aftermath.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;53148544]Oh, I agree, but I have seen some of our more right posters claim the above before, mostly around the 2016 US Election and its immediate aftermath.[/QUOTE] The only reason it seems like a leftist echo chamber is most of the openly right wing members got themselves perma banned during the election for being racist/homophobic/just generally awful.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;53148539]It's a difference of perspective. For pretty much anyone outside of America guns are viewed as a tool used to either kill people, hunt for game or used in sport shooting. There is no emotional connection to firearms so people often don't understand the logic behind fighting so hard to keep them around.[/QUOTE] I'm aware, but I think that once your argument comes based on an emotional rather than rational response, you've pretty much lost. But it also means that they will never be convinced by a rational argument.
You know, I'd probably be a lot less cynical about this and Trump's tweet on how the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed if this didn't come from the same fuckwit who decided that having a mental illness should in fact not impede your ability to buy a gun. Seriously, fuck you and your disingenuous concerns, you walking cockroach.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53147967]If anything SH is an echo chamber of pro gun control posters so I dont know what youre getting at[/QUOTE] I think you gotta balance ideals vs pragmatism too. Someone might be against guns and want a total ban but since that's probably never gonna happen in the US they gotta settle for the next best option(s). I also think lots of the "pro gun freedom" types adopt such a hardline stance because they're afraid of giving an inch only to have taken from them, a mile. (imo this is an imagined fear brought about from, amongst other things, paranoia spread by the NRA - fear of losing guns help to boost sales)
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147584]It's kind of hard to research that subject accurately if you tailor your research methodology to fit a predetermined conclusion.[/QUOTE] As opposed to not being able to perform [I]any[/I] research using [I]any[/I] methodologies. [QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147396]Good. I understand why people think banning them is dumb, because theyre not doing anything that a belt loop cant, but at the end of the day they not good for anything except putting a lot of bullets down range without discrimination... IE its not good for anything other than firing into a crowd.[/QUOTE] Or wasting hundreds of dollars of ammunition. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147594]Were there a legal method of creating a machine gun (such as having the registry open), then yea, I'd agree, along with all the other bullshit "full auto" simulators (like binary triggers, etc etc)[/QUOTE] Why on earth do you need a working machine gun? Why do you [I]want[/I] a working machine gun? Why do you seem to insis it should be your birth-given right to [I]own[/I] a [I]working machine gun[/I]? [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53147619]I keep seeing this quasi-shitpost to the effect of, "it sure is a shame that America BANNED RESEARCH ON GUN CRIME." However, people conveniently seem to forget that the Obama Administration payrolled [URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/nih-quietly-shelves-gun-research-program"]a historically unprecedented[/URL] gun-violence research program. It was controversial, and the subject of much scrutiny, given it's direct challenge of the "no funding for gun research" policy. Then, for only one apparent reason, [B]they quietly disbanded the program and shelved it. Because it's most consistent and major preliminary conclusion was that gun ownership could not be linked directly to violent crime.[/B] I find it hard not to imagine that, had the conclusion been otherwise, the program wouldn't have been very abruptly and quietly cancelled. (Source: second result in Google for "obama gun research." You are invited to source your own research.)[/QUOTE] Uh, I figured the point into researching guns used in violent crime was to determine the effect of a guns force-multiplication system vs. other means, ie knives, vehicles? Or to determine what fire-arms are REALLY the most popular in these headline-breaking shootings vs. gun violence in gangs? Whether or not certain grips, scopes, rounds, triggers, etc., do anything to increase lethality in a mass-shooter scenario? I mean I'm no professionally paid researcher, but that's the kind of shit I'd be digging for.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53148604]I think you gotta balance ideals vs pragmatism too. Someone might be against guns and want a total ban but since that's probably never gonna happen in the US they gotta settle for the next best option(s). I also think lots of the "pro gun freedom" types adopt such a hardline stance because they're afraid of giving an inch only to have taken from them, a mile. [B](imo this is an imagined fear brought about from, amongst other things, paranoia spread by the NRA - fear of losing guns help to boost sales)[/B][/QUOTE] You are dead wrong on that last part. Take a look at California, Illinois and New York for example. These are states where concessions were made and miles upon miles were taken and will [I]never be given back.[/I] You cannot own a rifle or a shotgun with a pistol grip, have a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds (or in New Yorks case last I checked 8 rounds [B]in a piece of legislation that was so badly rushed they forgot to omit law enforcement from it[/B]), bullet-button magazine releases, massive waiting lists, arbitrary denial of applications for firearms etc etc etc. Pro-gun people are so hardline because they see what happened there and know full well that conceding on anything will lead to a snowball effect and you end up with a California style nightmare.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53147767]Part of the problem with chicago is illinois is bordered by states with pretty lax gun laws so it's not too difficult to buy guns there if you really want to. Same for DC, which is near Virginia, another state with lax gun laws.[/QUOTE] Which isn't relevant, because buying a long arm out of state is illegal if it wouldn't be legal in your home state, and buying a handgun out of state is illegal full stop. The failure of gun control efforts in restrictive states can't be discounted simply because their neighbors are more lax. There are laws in place which make that irrelevant. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53148637]Why on earth do you need a working machine gun? Why do you [I]want[/I] a working machine gun? Why do you seem to insis it should be your birth-given right to [I]own[/I] a [I]working machine gun[/I]?[/QUOTE] Legally-registered machine guns have been used to commit crimes exactly twice in almost a hundred years. One of those was a crooked cop, and the other was eventually ruled self-defense. Grenades are legal when registered. Cannons are legal when registered. Neither of these have ever been used to commit a crime. There is no logical reason for machine guns [I]not[/I] to be legal when there is no evidence suggesting that an item that requires 6-12 months of fingerprinting and FBI background investigation is a public health risk. It's not up to a historical collector or whoever to justify their desire to own one, it's up to you to explain why an item that historically has virtually never been used for ill purpose should be illegal- especially when that illegality is driving a workaround market that allows criminals to get their hands on machine-gun-like devices. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53148637]Or to determine what fire-arms are REALLY the most popular in these headline-breaking shootings vs. gun violence in gangs?[/QUOTE] We already know that. The FBI collects stats on that every year. The answer is 97% handguns in predominantly urban crime, while rifles of all kinds account for a lower number of homicides than blunt instruments. We know exactly which weapons are used in which proportion, we don't need special research to establish that. It's just that white middle-class America doesn't give a shit about black people in big cities killing each other with handguns in connection to the failed drug war. Until, that is, they can use that statistic as a rhetorical tool to try to ban weapons used in the tiny minority of gun crimes that personally threaten them.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53148332]Sure, but a rubber band has a wide variety of uses, and you can use it for anything from sealing up bags to strangling kittens. A bump fire stock is made exactly for the purpose of aiding rapid firing.[/QUOTE] I honestly find banning bump stocks meaningless. If someone owns a rifle and wants to convert it to firing full auto, then he or she most likely already has the knowledge to do it without a bump stock. Banning them isn't going to prevent rifles from being converted, nor is it making it harder for someone to do so. It's literally a "feel good" law against something that was used only once in a mass shooting and IIRC despite the large casualty rate, it actually showed a decrease in accuracy compared to what could have been a far worse shooting.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53148761]I honestly find banning bump stocks meaningless. If someone owns a rifle and wants to convert it to firing full auto, then he or she most likely already has the knowledge to do it without a bump stock. Banning them isn't going to prevent rifles from being converted, nor is it making it harder for someone to do so. It's literally a "feel good" law against something that was used only once in a mass shooting and IIRC despite the large casualty rate, it actually showed a decrease in accuracy compared to what could have been a far worse shooting.[/QUOTE] This is pretty tinfoil but that could be why bump stocks were targeted. Get credit for doing something without doing much.
I think this is a great first step in the right direction, and this is coming from a hardcore gun nut. Bumpstocks and the like are fucking stupid. They are designed to waste bullets. All I see when those things are being used is dollar signs going down range. Another thing they are thinking of doing is raising the purchasing age for handguns to 21 and rifles to 18. I also think this is a good step but to be fair you can be 18 and in the military using actual fully automatic rifles.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53148761]I honestly find banning bump stocks meaningless. If someone owns a rifle and wants to convert it to firing full auto, then he or she most likely already has the knowledge to do it without a bump stock. Banning them isn't going to prevent rifles from being converted, nor is it making it harder for someone to do so. It's literally a "feel good" law against something that was used only once in a mass shooting and IIRC despite the large casualty rate, it actually showed a decrease in accuracy compared to what could have been a far worse shooting.[/QUOTE] Oh sure. I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other about this. But making this stuff an illegal modification rather than allowing the use of sort of understandable, seeing as all in all it's a method of circumventing law against automatic fire in the first place. Though, obviously, this will only stop the people who plan on following the laws anyways.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53148770]This is pretty tinfoil but that could be why bump stocks were targeted. Get credit for doing something without doing much.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's tinfoil, when it's almost certainly exactly why Trump is going for it. As pointless as it is, it allows Trump and the Republicans to go 'see, we're addressing the problem and enacting common-sense reform' and make themselves look a little more reasonable. It allows them to control the narrative, and undercut the Democrat argument that Republicans are pro-gun nutjobs who will always put guns ahead of children. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how bump stocks work knows that it's irrelevant for practical purposes. Without bump stocks you can still do the same thing with literally just a rubber band or a shoelace. It's all about posturing and precedent.
If anything banning bumpstocks would be a safety measure for the user, since bump stocks are fucking horrible lmao
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53148577]if this didn't come from the same fuckwit who decided that having a mental illness should in fact not impede your ability to buy a gun.[/QUOTE] Well sometimes having a mental illness shouldn't impede your ability to get a gun. Sorry. The issue with that is how those restrictions were implemented. That proposed rule was damn awful because it disallowed anyone receiving social security benefits due to "mental impairments" from exercising their rights. This included just plain old old people, people who had depressive episodes more than a decade ago, and was written very vaguely. Even the ACLU was against these restrictions because is plainly infringes on many Americans by restricting their rights without due process or justification. The reason I don't like that it was written vaguely is because, shit, I have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, depression, and ADD. Those are mental illnesses, does that mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy a hobby or defend myself? Does having those conditions mean that I don't get to peruse my passion? Does that make me a second class citizen? It doesn't seem right to me (or the ACLU) to take away my rights just because I have some (relatively benign) mental illnesses. And besides, people who have been committed to mental institutions or have been deemed by a court to be mentally deficient [U]are already barred from purchasing firearms from an FFL.[/U]
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53148577]You know, I'd probably be a lot less cynical about this and Trump's tweet on how the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed if this didn't come from the same fuckwit who decided that having a mental illness should in fact not impede your ability to buy a gun. Seriously, fuck you and your disingenuous concerns, you walking cockroach.[/QUOTE] You mean the law that even the ACLU ruled was far too broad, infringed on other’s rights, and wasn’t driven on any “common-sense” data? And then the media completely mischaracterized it. [url]https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair[/url]
[QUOTE=frogy1289;53148385]I was pointing out that banning an item when others methods do the exact same, with an operation that isn't guaranteed to work, and sometimes the alternatives work in a more dangerous fashion, is just dumb, a tiny band-aid on a supposed problem.[/QUOTE] There may not be much of a point to banning then but there is also literally 0 reason to legitimately own one because they are used for the sole purpose of having less control over a weapon in exchange for a higher firing rate.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53147830]If we allow cars with top speeds of 150mph+, [B]which have no purpose other than to break the law when no one is looking[/B], I don't see why we need to ban this. I always drift to sports cars when I read about gun bans. Banning this doesn't solve society's view on mental health. Doesn't stop the media from turning shooters into celebrities. Doesn't fix America's shit mental healthcare access. It doesn't change a single thing. Its a bandaid on a society and mental health issue.[/QUOTE] I mean ya, they're dumb too sports cars are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands and imo are a waste of money and resources anyway, I don't think they should be around either
[QUOTE=phygon;53149047]There may not be much of a point to banning then [B]but there is also literally 0 reason to legitimately own one[/B] because they are used for the sole purpose of having less control over a weapon in exchange for a higher firing rate.[/QUOTE] They're fun to use recreationally. If you're going to say that that's not a legitimate reason to own something, I'm going to need a justification consistent with the fact that we already tolerate plenty of things that cause considerably greater societal harm than bump fire stocks but have, according to that metric, no legitimate reason for ownership. Do I have 0 reason to legitimately own the bottle of Glenfiddich in my cupboard because it is used for the sole purpose of inhibiting my mental faculties?
[QUOTE=catbarf;53149066]They're fun to use recreationally. If you're going to say that that's not a legitimate reason to own something, I'm going to need a justification consistent with the fact that we already tolerate plenty of things that cause considerably greater societal harm than bump fire stocks but have, according to that metric, no legitimate reason for ownership. Do I have 0 reason to legitimately own the bottle of Glenfiddich in my cupboard because it is used for the sole purpose of inhibiting my mental faculties?[/QUOTE] Alcohol can't also be used in rare cases to kill a lot of people. In the overwhelming majority of cases, harm from alcohol is largely inflicted on the user. The whole "responsible, safe use" narrative evaporates when it comes to bump stocks because they are literally designed to do nothing more than make you reliably shoot faster and less accurately.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53149103]I dunno, i've seen plenty of alcohol related incidents that severely injured plenty of people. If we're going to argue about "legitimate use" then there isn't really a legitimate use for etoh, that isn't "its fun to get fucked up".[/QUOTE] Yeah, and an anecdote is still an anecdote. I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of incidents involving bumpfire stocks involve inflicting injury on someone other than the user, since they're designed for rifles and wouldn't function any longer should the weapon somehow fall out of your grip (unless you were so comically under prepared to handle it that you somehow dropped it flat on the stock with the tip aimed at your face). Alcohol is not a tool that can be used to inflict injury on other people in a normal use case.
[QUOTE=phygon;53149097]Alcohol can't also be used in rare cases to kill a lot of people.[/QUOTE] So, there you go, that's an argument for banning bump fire stocks that isn't 'there's no functional reason to own one', which is clearly not an argument consistent with how the rest of our society works. Now that the argument has shifted from 'there's no functional reason' to 'bump fire stocks can be used in rare cases to kill a lot of people', I'm still going to have to disagree on the basis that extremely rare misuse is insufficient grounds for a ban. The Vegas shooting is literally the only documented crime [i]ever[/i] committed with the use of a bump-fire stock, and there are what I think are credible arguments claiming that it may have reduced the lethality of the attack due to the inherent inaccuracy of such a platform. You yourself just said 'There may not be much of a point to banning them'. So why do it if there's not much point? If society can tolerate thousands upon thousands of deaths per year [i]not[/i] of the person using alcohol, but of innocent bystanders (including children)- to say nothing of the pain inflicted on friends and family from addiction, divorce, and those self-inflicted deaths- banning a recreational device that [i]may[/i] have contributed to deaths [i]once[/i] seems overboard. [QUOTE=phygon;53149097]The whole "responsible, safe use" narrative evaporates when it comes to bump stocks because they are literally designed to do nothing more than make you reliably shoot faster and less accurately.[/QUOTE] The whole "responsible, safe use" narrative evaporates when it comes to alcohols because they are literally designed to do nothing more than make you less rational and less inhibited. I'm not seeing the distinction there? It's a recreational use with no practical purpose, on a potentially harmful product which is nonetheless harmless when used responsibly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.