The bump stock used in NV

[John Connor]

You can also 3D print a bump stock...

 

[vi edit]

Tell you the truth, that is just insane to have something like that. I never even heard of such a thing. Hard to believe the ATF allowed it.

I never did either until this whole thing went down. But I'm not really at all interested or educated in the "tactical" fanatical aftermarket for firearms. My experience has always been guns as a tool for hunting or defending a home. This stuff is so far out the realm of practical I've not given it much of a look.

 

[Puffnstuff]

This is a mechanical problem that needs to be engineered out so that no external device of the trigger group can provide automatic fire. I've seen discussions where people file the sear to obtain full automatic fire. In the hands of a madman this can be super deadly, even more so than what just happened.

Just think of what might of happened if the shooting distance were reduced? I was trained by the army to use full auto in close quarters for psychological effect as little control is required when firing into a crowd of bad guys. I'm glad that I've never had to use a gun against anyone and I never really think about guns being used except for range fun. If guns were locked up at the ranges then thugs would target them stealing everything they could get their hands on.

 

[Jaskalas]

The bumpfie stock has a flange (for lack of a better term) that forces your finger away from the trigger as the rifle recoils. By continually pulling forward on the forestock, it makes your finger hit the trigger again immediately after the recoil. This happens fast enough to simulate automatic fire.

Thanks for the info. So there's a cheating way to simulate full auto with a semi auto. And that is what was used in Vegas.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

NRA agrees the use of these should be regulated

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nr...ar-AAsXoCT?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz

 

[OutHouse]

i have one on my S&W .22. very fun to shoot

same as this guy minus the high capacity magazine.

been thinking about adding a suppressor to it as well.

 

[WackyDan]

This is a mechanical problem that needs to be engineered out so that no external device of the trigger group can provide automatic fire. I've seen discussions where people file the sear to obtain full automatic fire.

Try again. It takes restricted parts and some skill. In order to buy the parts for the trigger assembly and so forth you need to be already a permitted full auto owner and have a NEED. Those parts can not be directly ordered by you and shipped to your door. They have to be ordered and processed/transferred via a licensed dealer. IN an AR the full auto equivalent part that would have to be installed into the AR actually has some extra bits to it... Filing down anything on the stock gun simply fucks up the firearm.

Even if you could get your hands on the parts... The semi auto receiver won’t accept those parts anyway. It doesn’t have the space for the full auto sear cut out of the lower receiver so you couldn’t convert it without a good bit of machine shop time. The average person isn’t going to do that, doesn’t have the tools, etc. It would be probably less hassle and similar cost with no risk to just legally require a full auto gun.

The claim that conversion to full auto is easy is widely a myth. Even though fully automatic firearms have not been used in a crime in decades people have this belief that there are a ton a people out there breaking federal law and converting them in mere moments on the cheap.

 

[UNCjigga]

Kellyanne Conjob and Breitbart are blaming Obama's ATF for approving these devices. ATF is saying they never had authority to regulate them in the first place.

Gotta love how every day Republicans are finding new ways to blame Obama and count the # of gun control tweets from Democrats before and after a tragedy. But we all remember who refused to bring a bill to the floor after Sandy Hook.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

How is full auto ban not unconstitutional? Like it or not (I don't particularly), the 2nd amendment is the law, so I don't see how banning certain weapons is allowed? I would think SCOTUS would strike that down quickly.

 

[mdram]

full autos are already regulated. refer to the NFA

 

[Zorba]

Yea that caught my ear as well, the slow cycling, a full auto m16/m4 would be almost twice as fast.. line of thought was that it was some different automatic weapon or maybe the supression slowed it down that much.. also the time between shots sounded a bit asymmetrical, not something id expect from a 556 device, but again with supression - maybe. I had to lookup bump stock firing on youtube when it popped up in the news, never heard of it before.

The NYT did a good analysis of the audio: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/vegas-guns.html

 

[Thebobo]

Tell you the truth, that is just insane to have something like that. I never even heard of such a thing. Hard to believe the ATF allowed it.

Well they're blaming Obama for it now.

 

[Thebobo]

full autos are already regulated. refer to the NFA

lol dude just stop

 

[OutHouse]

Well they're blaming Obama for it now.

as everybody should.

 

[OutHouse]

How is full auto ban not unconstitutional? Like it or not (I don't particularly), the 2nd amendment is the law, so I don't see how banning certain weapons is allowed? I would think SCOTUS would strike that down quickly.

because the mobsters in the 30s were fucking up shit with full auto BAR's and TommyGuns. it got to be a huge problem so congress acted and banned them

 

[obidamnkenobi]

because the mobsters in the 30s were fucking up shit with full auto BAR's and TommyGuns. it got to be a huge problem so congress acted and banned them

But why hasn't SCOTUS knocked that down? Reading the 2nd amd. it seems pretty clear it's an unconstitutional infringement

 

[OutHouse]

But why hasn't SCOTUS knocked that down? Reading the 2nd amd. it seems pretty clear it's an unconstitutional infringement

good question, write Chief Justice Roberts a letter and ask. and to be honest there is not a outright ban on machine guns, its VERY HIGHLY REGULATED. You can own one but it has to older than 1986 and you better have a boat load of cash to buy it and pay all the fees to get the all clear by ATF and your local Po Po. oh and if a part breaks on your pre 1986 machine gun. too bad so sad it is illegal to manufacture a new part.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

good question, write Chief Justice Roberts a letter and ask. and to be honest there is not a outright ban on machine guns. you can own one but it has to older than 1986 and you better have a boat load of cash to buy it and pay all the fees to get the all clear by ATF and your local Po Po.

You're real helpful, thanks..

Someone would have to bring a case. I'm sure there are plenty of NRA loons prepared to do so. Surprised they haven't. Maybe I should ask them..

 

[CountZero]

But why hasn't SCOTUS knocked that down? Reading the 2nd amd. it seems pretty clear it's an unconstitutional infringement

Same reason you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater or any of the other numerous ways in which your free speech is limited. There are reasonable limits that may need to be enforced, for 2nd the limit that has been agreed upon thus far (and I believe already tested at SCOTUS) is at least at full auto.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well they're blaming Obama for it now.

This isn't completely unfair, admittedly it's not the ATFs job regarding laws the question is did they bring it to anyone's attention? The "approval" did happen under Obamas watch. If something similar happens in the future under Trumps watch I'd say he was involved in it.

 

[mdram]

You're real helpful, thanks..

Someone would have to bring a case. I'm sure there are plenty of NRA loons prepared to do so. Surprised they haven't. Maybe I should ask them..

its been done, kinda interesting hte decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

basically ruled that a non military weapon is not protected in that case. interesting decision. military weapons ok for the general public

 

[Puffnstuff]

Hey if I mount a bump stock on my bread maker do you think that I can get that fresh loaf bake time reduced?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

its been done, kinda interesting hte decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

basically ruled that a non military weapon is not protected in that case. interesting decision. military weapons ok for the general public

I look forward to you challenging it

 

[mdram]

I look forward to you challenging it

what is there to challange?

 

[Jeeebus]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.