A Sensible Approach to Reducing Gun Violence

[jpeyton]

They would have helped prevent Vtech and Arizona and maybe Aurora.

Sandy Hook is a good reason to limit the overall power available, period, in firearms.

There you go, contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next. Vtech was the deadliest shooting ever, and it used (by your logic) "low power" 9mm and .22LR cartridges.

Maybe Glock can design a karmy-approved low-lethality G17.

 

[xj0hnx]

You obviously can only read half sentences.

"bump-firing" is a great reason to implement magazine restrictions.

Bump fire stock with 100 rd drum and it is effectively a machine gun.

Bump fire with 30 rd mag is nearly as bad.

But bump fire with 7-10 rds and it's in-effective due to numerous reloads.

Morons, bump firing is nothing, it's a waste of ammo, it's a retard range activity nothing more. No one use bump firing in crimes, and if they did we'd all be better off because of how you have to do it would make attacks less effective. I swear, you should get a clue before speaking.

 

[jpeyton]

bump-firing. hello?

So when was the last time someone bump-fired their way through a classroom?

 

[spidey07]

This thread is a perfect illustration that the ones making these proposals have ZERO clue about what they are proposing. Now all they have left to go for is "bump firing", Laugh Out Loud.

Then again, the real goal of the antis is elimination and confiscation of ALL semi-automatic weapons. If you don't know that or believe it, then you haven't been paying attention to their proposals and goals. OP is a classic example, they know they can't come right out and say they want to ban all semi-automatics but if they can convince people that all these weapons are easily converted in to fully automatic weapons - there's their inroads to full semi-auto ban.

 

[Alex C]

Also, obviously, if you're trying to mow down a crowd of people, you don't really need a lot of accuracy anyway.

Yes, you do. You'll hit some people, sure, but you'd almost certainly kill more if you took the time to aim. If you look at the numbers on the military's shots fired to kills ratio, the full auto ratio is thousands to one. The ratio for snipers in Vietnam was 1.33 to one.

Machine guns can be deadly, but they're not "designed to kill people as rapidly as possible" or whatever nonsense they're saying about them on TV. Their role is more area denial and suppressive fire rather than Rambo style running around and mowing down hundreds of enemies.

Most tactics that utilize machine guns just don't apply to civilian life. It's easy to watch the Normandy Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan and imagine somebody with a machine gun causing that sort of carnage in a shopping mall, but to it's just not feasible. A fully automatic rifle will burn through ~700 rounds a minute. Even if you have 100 round drums, you're still going to be spending more time reloading than shooting, and good luck carrying all that. To use a machine gun to kill people effectively requires a support crew and a huge supply of ammunition. As far as I know, the majority of M16s in use by our military don't even have a full auto option because of how useless it is. A bump firing gun poses no more threat than a semi-automatic.

Banning something harmless for "consistency" is no less dumb.

 

[Genx87]

The demo in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBAyOAiUIM - shows that it is actually pretty controllable and reasonably accurate. Honestly I had never heard of bump fire systems until reading about them in this thread. Whatever one thinks of the very tight restrictions on full auto weapons, there's no question this device functionally does the same thing, albeit through a very different mechanism.

I dont know what that guy would shoot with a true auto. His video didnt show us the results. But that thing at 15 yards is all over the place imo. No tight groupings. It would had been nice to see what he could do with the same gun in semi-auto mode without that mechanism attached.

I am not a great shot with my AR, but competent. And I can get 20 rounds on target pretty quickly in a much tighter grouping than that. They would typically be sitting in the dead center on that target in a much small circle at a longer range than 15 yards. I am usually shooting in the 25-30 yard range in the sand pits up north.

Maybe nutnfancy on youtube can take a look at this and give a better break down using the same gun with this device attached and without. But an interesting video none the less.

 

[Genx87]

What's the body count on all those over a 10 year period? I think more people were killed last year by Captain Morgan.

Dont give the nanny state authoritarians any ideas. I rather like capt morgan on the boat in the summer!

 

[Tom]

doesn't a tight grouping with a machine gun not make a lot of sense ? whats the point of putting 30 rounds in the same hole ?

I would think the purpose of a machine gun is to hit multiple targets and/or create mayhem and confusion amongst the target/targets ?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I dont know what that guy would shoot with a true auto. His video didnt show us the results. But that thing at 15 yards is all over the place imo. No tight groupings. It would had been nice to see what he could do with the same gun in semi-auto mode without that mechanism attached.

I am not a great shot with my AR, but competent. And I can get 20 rounds on target pretty quickly in a much tighter grouping than that. They would typically be sitting in the dead center on that target in a much small circle at a longer range than 15 yards. I am usually shooting in the 25-30 yard range in the sand pits up north.

Maybe nutnfancy on youtube can take a look at this and give a better break down using the same gun with this device attached and without. But an interesting video none the less.

n/m

 

[micrometers]

There you go, contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next. Vtech was the deadliest shooting ever, and it used (by your logic) "low power" 9mm and .22LR cartridges.

Maybe Glock can design a karmy-approved low-lethality G17.

Under my proposal, James Holmes and Cho Seung could only buy bolt-action rifles, not handguns. They would have had to wait like 3-4 years before buying a semi-auto handgun. Can you read at all?

 

[spidey07]

doesn't a tight grouping with a machine gun not make a lot of sense ? whats the point of putting 30 rounds in the same hole ?

I would think the purpose of a machine gun is to hit multiple targets and/or create mayhem and confusion amongst the target/targets ?

Machine gun is used to hold the enemy in position so somebody else can get them. Suppressive fire.

Not that it matters, there have only been a handful of crimes committed with machine guns in 50 years.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This thread is a perfect illustration that the ones making these proposals have ZERO clue about what they are proposing. Now all they have left to go for is "bump firing", Laugh Out Loud.

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to make a positive contribution to the discussion. I listed 24 items in doing so.

You focused on only one of them, and even there, didn't provide any sort of rational argument, just sneering and name-calling.

What this thread really perfectly illustrates is the need for a place where serious discussions can take place without noise from non-thinkers.

OP is a classic example, they know they can't come right out and say they want to ban all semi-automatics but if they can convince people that all these weapons are easily converted in to fully automatic weapons - there's their inroads to full semi-auto ban.

As I already explained, this is an argument for *my* position, not yours.

Like a lot of people, I never knew about this particular issue until a few weeks ago. Do you know why I know about it now? Because it was offered as a counter-argument when I was arguing against an assault rifle ban.

If semis can be made to work like full autos, you play right into the hands of those who try to blur the differences between them, and make a ban of semi-autos more likely.

 

[Genx87]

doesn't a tight grouping with a machine gun not make a lot of sense ? whats the point of putting 30 rounds in the same hole ?

I would think the purpose of a machine gun is to hit multiple targets and/or create mayhem and confusion amongst the target/targets ?

I dont think there is a point. A shooter will waste a lot of ammo shooting fully auto. And it may jam the gun as well.

My point was the accuracy of the gun suffers from the device. The video showed it was all over the place at what I consider an avg distance. How much less accurate is hard to determine without a comparison of the same weapon, same shooter, without the mechanism.

There is a reason why the United States military changed to 3 round burst from fully auto select. They found a lot of ammo wasted due to less accuracy of the avg trained grunt.

 

[xj0hnx]

Just to make clear, I appreciate all the responses, but please understand that I can't reply point by point to every response. The original already took a lot of time.

Since there seems to be a lot of objection to the provision regarding bump firing, I'll address that.



You're not actually pulling the trigger for each shot, the stock is pulling it for you. That's called a loophole.

One pull of the trigger equals one round, doesn't make a difference if it's the recoil pushing it against your finger, or you finger, the function of the rifle is unchanged.

The basis for my recommendation is simple consistency in the law. Either something acts like a machine gun, or it doesn't. Semi-autos with those stocks act like machine guns.

Except it isn't consistent because the mechanism hasn't changed.

It's rare that I watch a video over 10 minutes long as part of a discussion.. just don't have the patience for it. But again, this issue is an interesting one, so I watched that.

Frankly, it supports my position a lot better than those of you who want to keep these items legal. The guy shows it is easy to use, and describes the item as "amazing" and "very controllable". He then suggests it as a less expensive alternative to an NFA gun.

Is that supposed to somehow argue against my position? 🙂

Also, obviously, if you're trying to mow down a crowd of people, you don't really need a lot of accuracy anyway.

Then you simply still do not understand how it works. On top it off, the first time a shooter unshoulders the rifle to reload, and tips it just a little too much the stock falls off, and everyone lol's at them, banning bump firing it as stupid as ...bump firing.

 

[jpeyton]

Under my proposal, James Holmes and Cho Seung could only buy bolt-action rifles, not handguns. They would have had to wait like 3-4 years before buying a semi-auto handgun. Can you read at all?

Under proposals by the OP and Obama concerning mental health data, reporting by mental health care providers and background checks, Holmes and Cho wouldn't have been able to buy any firearm, not even a bolt-action rifle. And yet you're admitting that under your proposal, they would have still been armed.

Seems obvious your proposals suck if killers are still getting armed, no?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One pull of the trigger equals one round, doesn't make a difference if it's the recoil pushing it against your finger, or you finger, the function of the rifle is unchanged.

Yes, I understand that. That's why it's technically legal.

I am saying that it effectively makes the semi-auto into a full auto. The human being takes one action, and dozens of bullets spray out.

It's a loophole.

Except it isn't consistent because the mechanism hasn't changed.

Machine guns weren't restricted because of a specific "mechanism". They were restricted because they allow a shooter to take one action and spray out a bunch of bullets at high speed.

So do these stocks. The mechanisms are different, which is why they are currently legal. That is why the law should be changed.

 

[micrometers]

Under proposals by the OP and Obama concerning mental health data, reporting by mental health care providers and background checks, Holmes and Cho wouldn't have been able to buy any firearm, not even a bolt-action rifle. And yet you're admitting that under your proposal, they would have still been armed.

Seems obvious your proposals suck if killers are still getting armed, no?

Both would work. Mental health obviously, but also slowing the rate of firearm acquisition.

I do think everyone should learn a bolt-action rifle first with firearms.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, I understand that. That's why it's technically legal.

I am saying that it effectively makes the semi-auto into a full auto. The human being takes one action, and dozens of bullets spray out.

It's a loophole.



Machine guns weren't restricted because of a specific "mechanism". They were restricted because they allow a shooter to take one action and spray out a bunch of bullets at high speed.

So do these stocks. The mechanisms are different, which is why they are currently legal. That is why the law should be changed.

Actually machine guns WERE restricted based on a specific mechanism. That the firearm would chamber a round, the firing of this round would chamber another, cock the firing pin and allow the firing pin to strike the bullet provided the trigger is still depressed. AKA, fully automatic action/mechanism or machine gun.

This proves yet again, you have ZERO idea of what you are talking about. A piece of metal would turn my semi-auto ARs into fully automatic weapons of death that "spray boolits".

Can you cite where fully automatic weapons have been used in a crime or do you just wish to control law abiding citizens some more because you read about "bump firing"?

 

[jpeyton]

Both would work.

One obviously works better, while not making law-abiding gun owners jump through hoops. That's how you build support on both sides of the aisle for a proposal. Your tiered licensing program is DOA, even in New York or California.

but also slowing the rate of firearm acquisition.

Now we have another arbitrary number added to the mix. First it was magazine capacity limits, now it's acquisition rates.

The ultimate number for gun control activists is: 0

 

[micrometers]

One obviously works better.


Now we have another arbitrary number added to the mix. First it was magazine capacity limits, now it's acquisition rates.

The ultimate number for gun control activists is: 0

Both implemented at once, yes.

I do think that the AR15 requires responsibility. My proposal does that.

WOuld you give a newbie an AR15 as his first gun?

 

[jpeyton]

WOuld you give a newbie an AR15 as his first gun?

Of course I would. I was a newbie once, as were all my law-abiding, gun-owning friends. When my newbie hands first held an "assault rifle", I'm happy to report that homicidal schemes didn't enter my mind.

We might need to discuss why you're projecting your own potential flaws on other people. If you were given an AR-15 as your first firearm, would you have been on the 10'o'clock news?

 

[Genx87]

Both implemented at once, yes.

I do think that the AR15 requires responsibility. My proposal does that.

WOuld you give a newbie an AR15 as his first gun?

Why wouldnt you?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually machine guns WERE restricted based on a specific mechanism.

The goal was to restrict machine guns. They then had to define what was a machine gun, and they used the trigger mechanism as the basis, because that is what made the most sense at the time.

It is now obvious that one can make a pretty close functional equivalent of a machine gun while still obeying the letter of the NFA law. So the law should be updated so that arms that are effectively machine guns are treated as such.

This proves yet again, you have ZERO idea of what you are talking about.

Actually, all you have proven, yet again, is your inability to use logical reasoning in a discussion.

ETA: These sorts of devices have been ruled illegal by the ATF in the past, using exactly the reasoning that I am.

 

[micrometers]

Why wouldnt you?

One of the first guns bought by James Holmes was a...AR15

the first guns bought by Cho were semi-auto handguns.

In my system, the first gun they could buy would be a bolt-action rifle.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes, I understand that. That's why it's technically legal.

I am saying that it effectively makes the semi-auto into a full auto. The human being takes one action, and dozens of bullets spray out.

It's a loophole.

No, it doesn't effectively make anything. This is where the separation of the gun culture, and those that don't like guns becomes apparent. Those that understand firearms, how they work, and how they are best used know that bump firing is retard, it's a novelty, it is ineffective for anything other than wasting ammo, people that don't understand look at it and go "ZOMG tha AutoMaticz!!1!"

Machine guns weren't restricted because of a specific "mechanism". They were restricted because they allow a shooter to take one action and spray out a bunch of bullets at high speed.

Holy self-contradictions. Actually, that's EXACTLY why machine guns were restricted ...exactly why.

So do these stocks. The mechanisms are different, which is why they are currently legal. That is why the law should be changed.

Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree, the stupidity of this is just becoming too much.