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

Really makes you think what a finger is capable of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXOmyhE2Ouo

If you could say that then, then you can say that now. In fact, you can say that now.

Sure, you could. But there's no legal alternative. Right now, they're an acceptable risk level for people who use them. Give them a safer, legal alternative and you can justify the ban.

Add in mandatory, extensive, and moderately expensive licensing and registration and we've got ourselves a deal on that one.

That's kind of already the deal. To get ANY NFA weapon or item it requires a form 1 or form 4, two sets of finger prints, and a visa quality photo ontop of a $200 tax. That is submitted, and over the course of 5-10 months you get an FBI background check, finger prints entered (or re-entered) into both physical and computer records, and the item registered on a list to your name. This is required for every NFA item, for each NFA item, every time. Besides raising the tax there's not much more that can be done there, and raising the tax just serves to discriminate people even further than it already does.

That's on NFA weapons. I want that system, preferably an improved one, on every firearm in existence.

So you want licensing restrictions to exercise a constitutional right?

For what purpose, other than to discriminate against the poor and minorities? To make guns more accountable? Lets just hold up for a minute so I can explain how the whole system currently works: When you go to buy a firearm from an FFL dealer you need to fill out what's called a 4473. This is a permanent paper record, on top of the dealers own records, that must stay with the dealer until the day they close to which then it is transferred to the ATF. Once that is complete 1 of two things happen; a NICS check is ran, or if the state is Brady compliant and the individual has licensing that includes a NICS check when applied for and is checked annually the redundant background check is forgone. Assuming that the transfer is not delayed or denied, the firearm is then transferred to the individual. What happens when that gun is used in a crime? The ATF contacts the manufacturer, who then gives them the distributor, who then gives them the dealer, who gives the original purchaser of the firearm. So what does a registry for all firearms accomplish? Well now you know everyone who owns every gun and if a gun is used in a crime we'll know exactly who committed it right? Maybe if its a crime of passion or someone snaps, but our current system would already tell us that. In most gun crime the firearm is either stolen, or bought through a straw purchase. If the firearm is stolen you're at square 1 for either the current system or a registry. If it's a straw purchase it would lead you to the original buyer, something our current system would also already do. At most you would be cutting down on private person to person sales, something which already carries heavy penalties across most states if an individual sells a firearm to someone who is ineligible to own one. Of course we could just require all gun transactions to go through licensed dealers, if you like having to give money to private entities to sell your own property. So what we're left with is a system that is designed in large to make sure guns are overly complicated to get and only easily accessible for people with large amounts of money. If that doesn't reek of discrimination I don't know what else does.

I think your answer to this depends on whether or not you consider firearms to be worthy of being a Constitutional right or not. For now, it is, and thus your argument holds - but only if we assume that we should leave the 2nd amendment as is. Personally, I think that guns are (or rather, should be when speaking of the US) a privilege. If you cant afford to go through a thorough and proper licensing procedure and background check, and cant afford to safely secure your weapons, then imo you cant "afford" a gun in the first place. We don't complain about how expensive and "discriminatory" it is to require a thorough and demonstrative licensing process for the operation of vehicles, because we understand the danger they potentially pose to the general public and the responsibility that must be demonstrated in their operation - despite the fact that access to effective and consistent transportation is arguably a more important concept than the extent of self-defense firearms offer in our society. I say "extent" because self-defense is possible without firearms, it just makes the exercise more potent. I feel sensibly modifying or perhaps even abolishing the second amendment would allow us to make much more progress in effectively legislating on gun control, although I can understand not only that a massive amount of our country would be vehemently opposed to such a drastic measure - but can also understand why they would be opposed to it. As much as I stick up for the Dems, their track record on gun legislation isn't exactly a sensible one nor is it one that inspires much trust or confidence in their ability to conduct informed decisions in terms of gun legislation.

Yes.

But then you open the door to a number of other constitutionally protected rights being something that can just be taken away or locked behind a license.

That door was opened decades ago, my dude.

No thanks, the world already fucks people enough without purposely using finances as a barrier to safety and legality. The right to own a firearm is already taken away in situations where it makes sense to disallow it for safety. Giving a child a gun could probably fuck you for endangering said child, you can't own a firearm if you're a felon, etc.

Say hi to Kackzynski for me!

I mean you can make a semi-auto firearm bump fire really easily on your own without any aftermarket product. They are useless toys though.

Bumpfiring without a bump stock is even less accurate and has a greater skill barrier to entry.

Except it's not, nor was it ever. The ATF has released multiple letters on them, with the most recent saying it's ok to touch it to your shoulder sometimes. Ever wonder why no one ever got charged with doing that when it was "illegal"? Because it would have never stood up in court. For a time the ATF was claiming that by touching it to your shoulder you were remanufacturing the firearm, which is nonsense. What constitutes an SBR is defined exactly within the law.

Or, you know, you could treat your own guns with respect and care and not attach useless unsafe toys to them.

Binary triggers are absolutely insane unsafe pieces of crap that any sane person should want banned, not for the sake of safety to the masses in preventing crime, but for general basic gun safety since once the trigger is pulled and not released, there's really no simple way to not fire the second shot which quickly can be super dangerous. They're absolutely worthless, useless and retarded and serve even less of a purpose than bumpfire-stocks where you at least can reliably stop the shooting by not pulling forwards with your off-hand.

As the wise Russians say, rifle is fine.

Every Binary Trigger on the market allows you to pull the trigger, put it on regular or safe, and release without a second shot going off. It's literally as simple as a flick of the thumb.

For AR systems, yes. How about for an AK? You have to pull your off-hand off the front and probably tilt the rifle to reach, all while making damn sure you don't move a muscle in the hand that's now holding the entire weight of the weapon. Not to mention, having to engage the safety for a shot to not go off is still insanely unsafe and absurd.

Considering that there's only 1 company that is in the process of making a binary trigger for the AK, the same company that designed the original, I'm not too considered. Of course that's an issue people will be concerned about, and they're going to address it. Is it that hard for you to believe that people could somehow make a product that takes into consideration your exact concern? Have you never seen an ambi safety on an AK? Every company out there knows that it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen if they were to do what you're implying they've done, when they have clearly already taken that into account.

It doesn't matter how ergonomic your safety is, having to engage the safety in order to expressly prevent a round from firing is absurd and has high potential for accidental discharge.

I mean, I'd be ever-so-slightly less worried if they could somehow make it absolutely require a firing-hand-thumb operated safety. And then I'd go back to saying binary triggers are bullshit, useless, dangerous and having to flick on safety as the only way to prevent a shot going off is still way too fucking unsafe, especially considering it's something that serves absolutely no purpose and by all means should be considered restricted, given both the spirit and the word of the law.

No one is talking full auto. Full auto is both safer and much more useful than any of the ridiculous workarounds we're seeing.

If they were as unsafe as you claimed I think we would have seen a lot more lawsuits by now. Considering I've used mine just fine without having a negligent discharge I would think that if they were as dangerous as you say I would have been in the hospital a few times by now. The practical application of a binary trigger has plenty of purposes. In competition they allow for quicker follow up shots, which means more shots on target in less time for better scores. For hunting they allow for a double tap, which once again means more shots on target and more likely to get a humane kill. For self defense the firepower that they offer you gives you an overwhelming advantage, something that you want when someone is trying to kill you. There are plenty of applicable purposes for them, and quite frankly mine suits me just fine.

A proper full-auto gun is very different from a gun with an attachment (say, bump stock) to make it full-auto.

I agree completely, because all evidence I've seen points to you being a knowledgeable, smart and responsible gun owner. However, there are a ton of absolute idiots out there, and since we don't have proper training or licensing programs, we have to consider the lowest common denominator when considering firearm safety. I wish we could design gun laws around people like you but we really can't. At least, that's the way I'm seeing things.

Having to take action to not fire a round off is absolutely absurd. That's what binary triggers force you to do. And it doesn't have to be a negligent discharge per se. There can be a ton of reasons why you'd like to not be shooting while you are shooting. Off the top of my head, in situations I've been in on shooting ranges, I can think of people being absolute idiots and walking onto the range while firing is going on, and a case some fuckwit loading up and proceeding to muzzle-sweep 10 people who were on the firing-line. Both resulted in a very sudden, very quick full-stop to all activity, and I'd sure as fuck hate to have to hold down the trigger of the G3A3 in case 2 or WASR in case 1 while awkwardly trying to fiddle the safety on.