Another Mass Shooting in Virginia Beach

CharminTide · Jun 4, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
Yeah, I agree and hopefully the criteria would be structured in such a way that it would pick up on people with progressive mental illness and keep firearms out of their hands. The elephant in the room is all the guns that are already in our society.

Apparently there remain over 630,000 fully automatic guns in circulation within the U.S (link). These are registered with the ATF; its owners are photographed and fingerprinted. Yet even with so many of these weapons already in our society, I struggle to think of a mass shooter who used a fully automatic weapon, despite these guns likely being more effective at killing large groups of people.

I find that interesting.

Go Bama · Jun 4, 2019

CharminTide said:
Apparently there remain over 630,000 fully automatic guns in circulation within the U.S (link). These are registered with the ATF; its owners are photographed and fingerprinted. Yet even with so many of these weapons already in our society, I struggle to think of a mass shooter who used a fully automatic weapon, despite these guns likely being more effective at killing large groups of people.

I find that interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used

Scroll down to weapons used and there is a table. No fully automatic weapons have been used. A lot of semi-automatic weapons have been used.

Jon · Jun 4, 2019

Go Bama said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used

Scroll down to weapons used and there is a table. No fully automatic weapons have been used. A lot of semi-automatic weapons have been used.

I'd argue the bump stock on the very first one makes that weapon fully auto

Go Bama · Jun 4, 2019

Jon said:
I'd argue the bump stock on the very first one makes that weapon fully auto

Yeah, I agree. A bump stock converts a semi-automatic into a fully automatic capable of firing 400-500 rounds per minute.

Go Bama · Jun 4, 2019

From Wiki:

On March 23, 2018, the Department of Justice announced a plan to change the regulatory status of bump stocks. The proposed change would reclassify bump stocks as "machineguns" and effectively[SUP][Note 1][/SUP] ban the devices in the United States under existing federal law.[SUP][12][/SUP] A notice of proposed rulemaking was issued by the ATF on March 29, 2018, and opened for public comments.[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] Slightly more than 119,000 comments were submitted in support of the proposed rule, while slightly more than 66,000 comments expressed opposition to it.[SUP][15][/SUP] On December 18, 2018, the final regulationto ban bump stocks was issued by the Department of Justice and published in the Federal Register on December 26.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] The final rule states that "bump-stock-type devices" are covered by the Gun Control Act, as amended, which with limited exceptions, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine-gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to 1986. Since the bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to 1986, they would be prohibited when the rule becomes effective"[SUP][15][/SUP] The ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, by which owners of bump stocks were required to destroy them or surrender them to ATF, punishable by 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][27]

[/SUP]

crimsonaudio · Jun 4, 2019

Jon said:
I'd argue the bump stock on the very first one makes that weapon fully auto

So does a belt loop.

The definition of fully auto is that one pull of the trigger releases more than one successive round. Bump stocks do not do that - the rifle still operates fully in a semiautomatic manner. It just does so more rapidly.

So no, bump stock does not equal fully automatic.

Tidewater · Jun 4, 2019

CharminTide said:
But it doesn't matter. As always, nothing will happen, second graders will continue to fear for their lives in school, and we'll be back at this tired impasse a few months down the road when another mass shooting occurs. If insanity is repeating the same pattern over and over, expecting a different outcome, then this country is collectively insane on the topic of guns.

California could always leave the Union. Then it would only take a simple majority of the state legislature (or, given that we're talking about California, a majority of the voters in a state referendum) to outlaw any or all guns.
Or, because the people of California cannot drag the people of Alabama and Mississippi to resolve the issue, "we'll be back at the tired impasse a few months down the road."

Jon · Jun 4, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
So does a belt loop.

The definition of fully auto is that one pull of the trigger releases more than one successive round. Bump stocks do not do that - the rifle still operates fully in a semiautomatic manner. It just does so more rapidly.

So no, bump stock does not equal fully automatic.

If you can get 400 rounds a minute out of it, it is a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned

crimsonaudio · Jun 4, 2019

Jon said:
If you can get 400 rounds a minute out of it, it is a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned

That's fine, you can feel however you want, but we're talking about the law here and legal definitions are critical.

Just because you find something scary doesn't mean it should be restricted. Anyone with half a brain can fire a semi-auto rifle like that without a bump stock:

So yeah, definitions matter, unless you intend to ban all semi-auto rifles.

Jon · Jun 4, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
That's fine, you can feel however you want, but we're talking about the law here and legal definitions are critical.

Just because you find something scary doesn't mean it should be restricted. Anyone with half a brain can fire a semi-auto rifle like that without a bump stock:

So yeah, definitions matter, unless you intend to ban all semi-auto rifles.

I don't recall making making any statements about being scared or mentioning any sort of restriction. My point is that a bump stock makes a weapon effectively fully automatic. The device automates the trigger pull. It is bs pedantry to call a bump stocked weapon semi auto

crimsonaudio · Jun 4, 2019

Jon said:
I don't recall making making any statements about being scared or mentioning any sort of restriction. My point is that a bump stock makes a weapon effectively fully automatic. The device automates the trigger pull. It is bs pedantry to call a bump stocked weapon semi auto

So does your index finger, as shown in the embedded video.

So what's your point? Bump stocks are clearly not fully automatic by definition - do you support banning them despite this fact? Should we also ban all semi-autos? (if so, good luck) Or just ban fingers?

If you aren't for banning them, then why even wade into this? The definitions are clearly defined.

Go Bama · Jun 4, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
So does your index finger, as shown in the embedded video.

So what's your point? Bump stocks are clearly not fully automatic by definition - do you support banning them despite this fact? Should we also ban all semi-autos? (if so, good luck) Or just ban fingers?

If you aren't for banning them, then why even wade into this? The definitions are clearly defined.

Bump stocks are banned. From my post above:

The ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, by which owners of bump stocks were required to destroy them or surrender them to ATF, punishable by 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][27]

[/SUP]

TIDE-HSV · Jun 4, 2019

Go Bama said:
Bump stocks are banned. From my post above:

[/SUP]

It's worth noting that the new regulation is under litigation...

Jon · Jun 5, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
So does your index finger, as shown in the embedded video.

So what's your point? Bump stocks are clearly not fully automatic by definition - do you support banning them despite this fact? Should we also ban all semi-autos? (if so, good luck) Or just ban fingers?

If you aren't for banning them, then why even wade into this? The definitions are clearly defined.

again with the Bans

why would I want to ban something that is already banned?

so my question to you is, the index finger thing that your "how to" video does not explain at all how to do, is that something that any schlub could pick up a semi auto and do with a couple minutes of practice or is that something that this particular youtube gun nut had to learn how to do and practice over an extended amount of time in order to do? My suspicion is that a bump stock that automates a trigger pull is a whole lot easier for most people to use. I get that legally an automatic weapon has an automated firing mechanism and a bump stocked rifle doesn't but it does automate the trigger pull. To me that makes it now, effectively an automatic weapon. So while the legal definitions may be clear the practical ones are not at all

TIDE-HSV · Jun 5, 2019

Jon said:
again with the Bans

why would I want to ban something that is already banned?

so my question to you is, the index finger thing that your "how to" video does not explain at all how to do, is that something that any schlub could pick up a semi auto and do with a couple minutes of practice or is that something that this particular youtube gun nut had to learn how to do and practice over an extended amount of time in order to do? My suspicion is that a bump stock that automates a trigger pull is a whole lot easier for most people to use. I get that legally an automatic weapon has an automated firing mechanism and a bump stocked rifle doesn't but it does automate the trigger pull. To me that makes it now, effectively an automatic weapon. So while the legal definitions may be clear the practical ones are not at all

I think the real issue is how broad the regulatory power should be and how arbitrarily its authority may be exercised. It all goes back to the 1984 Chevron case, which Gorsuch, for one has written about disparagingly. There's a 2nd circuit stay in force but in April, the SCOTUS refused a stay, so, at this point, it's very much up in the air...

crimsonaudio · Jun 5, 2019

Go Bama said:
Bump stocks are banned. From my post above:

I'm aware, I'm pointing out how ludicrous such a ban is when it doesn't materially modify the gun - you can do the same thing with your index finger.

crimsonaudio · Jun 5, 2019

Jon said:
so my question to you is, the index finger thing that your "how to" video does not explain at all how to do, is that something that any schlub could pick up a semi auto and do with a couple minutes of practice or is that something that this particular youtube gun nut had to learn how to do and practice over an extended amount of time in order to do?

I did it on my second try, and can do it any time I wish now. It's incredibly simple, you're simply pulling the gun forward while locking your finger in place. People have been doing this for decades, the bump stock is just the latest way to do it.

The point is a bump stock no more makes a semi-auto a machine gun than your index finger does. Definitions matter, whether you think a bump stock is similar to a machine gun or not.

92tide · Jun 5, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
I'm aware, I'm point out how ludicrous such a bad is when it doesn't materially modify the gun - you can do the same thing with your index finger.

the fact that these rifles can so easily be modified or handled so that they perform like this is one of the reasons that i don't think they should be made readily or easily available to civilians.

Go Bama · Jun 5, 2019

TIDE-HSV said:
I think the real issue is how broad the regulatory power should be and how arbitrarily its authority may be exercised. It all goes back to the 1984 Chevron case, which Gorsuch, for one has written about disparagingly. There's a 2nd circuit stay in force but in April, the SCOTUS refused a stay, so, at this point, it's very much up in the air...

I am possibly lost. If I understand you correctly you are saying there is a question of whether or not the DoJ has the right to ban the bump stocks in the first place. Correct?

I found and interesting link explaining Gorsuch's opinion:

The roots and limits of Gorsuch's views on Chevron deference

https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/roots-limits-gorsuchs-views-chevron-deference/

crimsonaudio · Jun 5, 2019

92tide said:
the fact that these rifles can so easily be modified or handled so that they perform like this is one of the reasons that i don't think they should be made readily or easily available to civilians.

Any semi-automatic rifle can do this, not just the ones that look similar to weapons of war.

Another Mass Shooting in Virginia Beach

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!