cphite wrote: Tyndmyr wrote: ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?
The video I saw of a demo of bump stocks shows me that it is pretty effective at turning a semi-auto into [what I imagine to be] a fully automatic machine gun. On philosophical grounds, if
fully automatic machine guns are possession-banned, then
it makes sense that bump stocks should be also.
Not particularly. The internals of the gun are not modified in the slightest. The principle is that the gun bounces, requiring somewhat less finger effort in order to pull the trigger again. The gun itself doesn't achieve a higher rate of fire or anything. Given that all guns have recoil, bump stock or no, you can get the same effect by holding the gun loosely enough that it bounces, or I suppose one could have a springy pad on the part of their clothes that stock presses against.
Ehh... not really. You might be able to reach the same rate of fire without one for a very short period of time, but you'll never sustain it. And you can pretty much forget about accuracy.
Speaking as someone who is very much pro-gun rights, I frankly cannot see any reason for anyone to own a bump stock. It allows you to shoot a whole lot of rounds really fast with horrible accuracy; and while I can see the novelty of doing that (in a very controlled setting while at some safe location) there really aren't any practical uses for it that aren't awful.
Oh, yeah, accuracy is garbage if shooting that way. Bump stock or just letting it bounce, either is wildly inaccurate. Sustaining rate of fire, eh, end of mag is pretty much a hard stop either way.
They're like 99% silly entertainment. You have to stretch pretty far for practical utility. The only thing I found was the arthritis thing, but even that seems to be pretty niche, and still mostly limited to making range fun more accessible.
I don't personally object to bump stocks being banned, because again, there is really no practical use for them that doesn't involve committing a crime; but at the same time, I don't see it having any meaningful effect on gun violence. It's like banning the Gatling gun; yeah, you probably don't want people using them, but they really aren't in the first place.
We're on the same page as far as the assessment goes of actual effect.
Thesh wrote:The shooting in Nevada was a case where the legality of the bump stock itself led to more deaths. There are situations where fully automatic weapons are more effective, It's just that they tend to be only situations where you are shooting at a group of people.
How do you know this?
Fewer than half the firearms he had with him had bump stocks, and none of the AR-10s were bump stock equipped. His overall rate of fire into the crowd was 1,100 rounds over 10 minutes. Basically, that's mag dumping one of his 100 round mags every minute. As he had more firearms with loaded mags than bullets he actually expended, he had no need to reload. That rate of fire is easily achievable using strictly semi-auto fire. If you listen to the audio, you hear variations in the rate of fire*.
IE, it sounds like it's mostly semi-auto fire.
If you're using a bump stock to simulate automatic fire, you get a steady, rapid rate. It sounds like he's shooting bursts(which you can do with or without a bump stock, and is a great deal more accurate than fully automatic fire). We could get a better idea of how relevant each weapon type was if they released the amount of empties found, but to the best of my knowledge, police have not done so(all bump-stock equipped weapons were .223, so any other kind of empty was not fired using a bump stock)
We know that the bump stocks were definitely there, and were probably used for at least some of it, but nobody has bothered to identify how many of the rounds were bump stock-fired, or correlate that with casualties, despite it being fairly easy for the police to do so.
CorruptUser wrote:We also need to re-evaluate the culture that everyone grows up in. Showing a murder is ok for a PG-13 movie, maybe even a PG movie, but showing a nipple for more than a few seconds? What if a baby saw that female breast? Don't you know that almost all mass murderers in human history were exposed to female breasts as infants?!
Movie ratings and other forms of media puritanism such as the comics code have always been stupid.
That said, there doesn't seem to be a particular correlation with consumption of violent media and real world violence. Lots of folks have tried to blame say, violent video games for it, but the actual data connecting them is pretty sketchy. Watching a lot of action movies doesn't seem to inspire one to shoot up a school.
I mean, sure, movies are often not showing ideal morals, but if you're missing causation, feh.
This is the sort of culture that, while not being a cause of the school shootings in and of itself, is the source of the pig-headed honchos that end up buying Guns'n'Ammo magazine, that make up the roughage in the elongated turd that is the NRA.
It isn't NRA members shooting up schools.
Tyndymr wrote:We have age restrictions on buying guns, just as we do on buying booze and cigs
The regulations around cigarettes and booze are much more restrictive than firearms. It is illegal to buy cigarettes or booze for a child. In most states it is legal to buy one a gun.
This is incorrect. Parents can generally legally give children alcohol. This is legal in 45 states. It is generally not the policy of restaurants/bars to allow this, but it is legal.
For comparison, in 30 states, it is legal for a child to own a rifle or shotgun(not pistols) with the same sort of parental assistance.
Cigarettes, it is generally illegal to sell them to anyone under eighteen. However, it is weirdly not illegal for someone under eighteen to buy them or consume them in most states. The selling laws do make buying more difficult, but a child buying cigarettes and smoking them, with or without parental approval, is generally not breaking any laws. So, if the adult is purchasing them, and the kid is smoking them, I'm not really sure that any law is being violated(barring more restrictive states/localities).
That's kinda odd, actually. I hadn't really thought about how little sense cigarette laws make.
I think the idea that gun advocates would compromise on anything at this point is so far-fetched it isn't even worth considering. If people want gun control, they're just going to need to work around the NRA and their ilk. If the hundreds of dead bodies from shootings (this year) isn't enough to shame them into action, nothing is going to work.
I mean...the bump stocks thing is a compromise? Us gun advocates don't see bump stock banning as a particularly important thing to fight for, but neither is it desirable. It's a compromise, allowing gun advocates to do comparatively little damage in their banning quest.
I don't know why the bodies would be shameful for the NRA. The NRA didn't kill them.