Proposed bump stock ban

[SpiritDragon]

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Lets change the question. How strong is the evidence between porn use and divorce? From studies of surveys I have read, more than half of relationships and  marriages that end in separation or divorce were the direct result of pornograpgy addiction.

Now, we know that there is a direct link between broken homes/fatherless homes and violent crime.

So, connecting the dots, if we want to eliminate violent crimes perhaps we can do better to pass laws prohibiting pornography. 

I can see the logic in this thinking. Too bad legislation can't fix the family. It would be great if porn was much more difficult to access though.

 

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I can see the logic in this thinking. Too bad legislation can't fix the family. It would be great if porn was much more difficult to access though.

 

To add, only "one" single teenage mass shooter of all of the teenage mass shooters producing the greatest deaths came from a home with the father intact. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

A recent report found that 26 of the 27 deadliest mass shootings all had one thing in common- they were all raised besides someone other than their biological father.

Imagine- we could knock out 96% of mass shootings just by fixing the family!

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

A recent report found that 26 of the 27 deadliest mass shootings all had one thing in common- they were all raised besides someone other than their biological father.

Imagine- we could knock out 96% of mass shootings just by fixing the family!

What's your source for that stat. I'd love to share that.

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

What's your source for that stat. I'd love to share that.

 

 

I was reading an article with the link-

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/fatherless-shooters-liberals-push-fatherless-families

[Still_Small_Voice]

23 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I've heard this before and I'm prone to believe it (USA has sufficient gun regulations/laws in place). Aside from armed security everywhere you go, how would you go about improving enforcing. Does the so-called gun show loophole need to be changed at least? One thing I absolutely agree with is that a lot of people weigh in when they don't know the first thing they are talking about.

I don't think the government has any right to tell you that you need to put your children through a background check or your good neighbor you've known for years in order to give/sell them a private firearm.  It's your property.  The form 4473 you are required to fill out to purchase a gun are also being illegally gathered by Federal organizations and stored permanently into databases.  This is against current United States laws and it is immoral.  I know California has lists of all guns sold through Federal Firearm License Dealers.  They have been keeping records of this since around the year 1990.  These lists will very likely be used to try to confiscate private firearms in the next 75 years.  Many gun registrations have been used in the past to take firearms away from the general population.  Read through history and you will see it over and over again.

One thing States can do is start reporting the violent felonies people are convicted of to the national instant check system that bar them from possessing firearms.  Some States were not reporting up to 80 percent of the felonies that would have barred people from purchasing guns from Federal Firearm License Dealers.

[anatess2]

On 3/10/2018 at 11:11 PM, SpiritDragon said:

So true @lostinwater. For instance, I agree with the idea that wholesale gun restriction would take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens - the kind you'd hope are packing when the psychopath enters the building shooting it up. On the flip side, I suppose that to suggest that just because a law will still be broken doesn't generally seem like a great line of reasoning for implementing it.

The reasoning is very simple.  Gun restrictions do 1 of 2 things:  1.) Weaken the criminal, 2.) Weaken the protector.

Now, government will tell you that it will not weaken the protector because the Police (or the Military) will be the protectors and they are armed.  Parkland should prove that false.  There is nothing that can make anyone - including a cop - be forced to put his life on the line to save yours.  So, there's only one sure protector of your life - You.  It is your responsibility to protect yourself.

So, the question then becomes - which becomes weaker with this legislation?  The criminal or the protector?  That's why it's important to note that criminals who are intent on taking people's lives are not gonna bother how many laws they break to accomplish their goal.

If the legislation weakens the protector, then you better be sure the criminal is eliminated by such legislation.

[JohnsonJones]

With 3d printers, is it possible to make your own bump stock?

If so, all I see this legislation doing is creating a bigger market in one area than another.  If one really wants a bump stock, they'll simply buy a printer and print it out on their own.  In this instance, it would be easier than it was to get alcohol during the prohibition. 

It won't prevent bumpstocks, it will just make the market go underground and perhaps, even more prolific. (Due to ease of access...aka...ease of printing one out yourself and instant gratification rather than waiting for your order to come to you after you've ordered it or having to go off to the store to buy one).

Edited March 18, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

On 3/18/2018 at 7:19 AM, JohnsonJones said:

With 3d printers, is it possible to make your own bump stock?

If so, all I see this legislation doing is creating a bigger market in one area than another.  If one really wants a bump stock, they'll simply buy a printer and print it out on their own.  In this instance, it would be easier than it was to get alcohol during the prohibition. 

It won't prevent bumpstocks, it will just make the market go underground and perhaps, even more prolific. (Due to ease of access...aka...ease of printing one out yourself and instant gratification rather than waiting for your order to come to you after you've ordered it or having to go off to the store to buy one).

Yes, it is.  And it would be MUCH cheaper.  But you'd have to have some means of drawing one in correct format or downloading a file from the internet.  Basic software is REALLY difficult to use for non-euclidean and/or non-prismatic shapes.  As for printing, the further from a prismatic shape something is, the more difficult it will be to print. I'd imagine that a 3D printed bump stock may take multiple tries to get right.  All of them quite time consuming and a bit costly.  So, at least the instant gratification aspect is not really valid.

HOWEVER, there is a different kind of high-end 3D printer that utilizes a different method of printing.  That can print virtually any shape you want with equal ease.  You still have to draw it.  And these types of printers are much more costly -- usually only owned by professional/commercial entities.

[anatess2]

By the way, I didn't see this mentioned on this thread.  Bump stocks bypassed the full-auto restriction because bump stocks were presented to the government as a disability aid.

[Carborendum]

US Supreme Court rejects federal ban on gun 'bump stocks' | Reuters

So, bump stocks are legal again.

I still don't want to buy one.  But it is a win for the 2A.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I still don't want to buy one.  But it is a win for the 2A.

Not sure I agree. Maybe I do. There is a broad consensus, even among gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, that fully automatic weapons are inappropriate for private ownership. Bump stocks are a method of creating an effectively automatic weapon. (Set aside for a moment that the recoil from fully automatic weapons make them much less effective than semiautomatic weapons for any shooting beyond a short, perhaps two- or three-round burst. This will be at least equally true for bump stocks.)

The win that I see is that the Supreme Court insists on "textualism", that a law must be interpreted as written and not just as whatever meaning the individual judge wants to impose on the law. An "automatic weapon" is well-defined, and bump stocks simply do not meet the definition. So that's good. But I think most people agree that bump stocks are a societal danger and nuisance. The correct way to approach the problem is through legislation, not through activist justices pretending that words don't actually mean what they say, but instead mean something else that the judge wants them to mean.

[Vort]

By the way, I have never tried this, but I have been told that you can effectively create a "bump stock" simply by holding your semiautomatic rifle such that the recoil of your shot bounces the rifle off your shoulder and back into your (stiff) trigger finger, allowing you to pop off five or six shots per second. It is said that holding a short dowel in place of your finger on the trigger makes this even easier. Not sure how you really legislate against such a technique.

[NeuroTypical]

I just wanted to come here and brag, that I got to go shooting with our local small town police force one day.  They had full auto AR/M16s, and also an assortment of full auto Uzis they had obtained from a Colorado Springs drug bust. 

No matter how happy I get at remembering that fun day, I'm always sobered by thinking about how for every bust taking guns off the street, there are guns that don't get busted.  Like 5 uzis.  Fully functional.  Great condition, lots of spare magazines, and everything.  From quite an organized and well equipped drug operation.  And those 5 were just the ones my local small town force got - it apparently was a much larger bust.  I shudder to think about what's on the streets currently, and in whose hands.

Anyway, thinking about bump stocks, I'm rather ambivalent.  Like Carb, I'm happy for the 2nd amendment.  I'll never own one, but if good guys want to, I'm ok with them not being criminals by doing so.

Edited June 17, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

Between Heller, McDonalds vs Chicago and now this one, gun rights are being strongly protected in this century.

It’s beautiful to see. 

Edited June 17, 2024 by LDSGator

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

By the way, I have never tried this, but I have been told that you can effectively create a "bump stock" simply by holding your semiautomatic rifle such that the recoil of your shot bounces the rifle off your shoulder and back into your (stiff) trigger finger, allowing you to pop off five or six shots per second. It is said that holding a short dowel in place of your finger on the trigger makes this even easier. Not sure how you really legislate against such a technique.

Or you could simply become Jerry Miculek. Problem solved.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Not sure I agree. Maybe I do. There is a broad consensus, even among gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, that fully automatic weapons are inappropriate for private ownership.

Where did you get that from?  The word "inappropriate" is vague enough that I don't know how to argue that.

I recognize that a fully automatic weapon is an "area" weapon rather than a single target weapon.  That is a fact. But who's to say what is "appropriate" for private ownership?

1 hour ago, Vort said:

By the way, I have never tried this, but I have been told that you can effectively create a "bump stock" simply by holding your semiautomatic rifle such that the recoil of your shot bounces the rifle off your shoulder and back into your (stiff) trigger finger, allowing you to pop off five or six shots per second. It is said that holding a short dowel in place of your finger on the trigger makes this even easier. Not sure how you really legislate against such a technique.

I've never heard of this.  But I'd imagine that you'd need a shoulder pad to even execute this.  If you are willing to take the dynamic force of a rifle into your shoulder, you're likely to get bruised after several rounds.

But maybe it would work.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

By the way, I have never tried this, but I have been told that you can effectively create a "bump stock" simply by holding your semiautomatic rifle such that the recoil of your shot bounces the rifle off your shoulder and back into your (stiff) trigger finger, allowing you to pop off five or six shots per second. It is said that holding a short dowel in place of your finger on the trigger makes this even easier. Not sure how you really legislate against such a technique.

You can literally just pull the trigger 5 to 6 times a second without that.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You can literally just pull the trigger 5 to 6 times a second without that.

I can't.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Vort said:

I can't.

Maybe not continually. But in a 5 shot burst it's not even that fast. Count to five in a second. It's not that fast.

A Thompson Machine gun (ye olden days ganster machine gun) shoots 25 rounds per second. Just to be clear.

[mirkwood]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

There is a broad consensus, even among gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, that fully automatic weapons are inappropriate for private ownership.

 

Not really.  Nearly all the gun owners I know are cool with the idea of private ownership of automatics.

 

 

Bump stocks are dumb.  As mentioned above, you can fire singles very rapidly.  You can do this accurately with some practice.

 

This is a 2A win.

[Carborendum]

BIG NEWS!!!

Because of the dissenting opinion on the bump stock decision by SCOTUS, Sotamayor may have just enshrined AR rifles into civilian weaponry forever.  Referring to the October 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Sotamayor states

Quote

He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.

By admitting these are commonly available weapons, they cannot be banned lest we cross the "Common Use" or "Traditional" standard.  That is to say, weapons that are commonly used/owned/available are by default considered to be civilian weapons.  Therefore, they cannot be banned.

Looks like they walked right into that one, folks.