Bump Stocks Reportedly Flying Off The Shelves. Everyone Now Wants A Machine Gu.

[TheMastersNemesis]

CBS news was reporting tonight that "bump stocks" are now in very high demand Gun shops are selling out of them.

What the F is wrong with this country?

[still_one]

1. everything

[Ms. Toad]

2. They are afraid they will be banned -

so they are buying them to protect their rights to own one.

Unfortunately, not a damn thing will be done.

[Orrex]

13. Yes. Fear is the unifying characteristic of all gun advocates.

It is painfully obvious in every word out of their mouths. They are TERRIFIED, and only their precious, precious guns can protect them.

Someone will break into their house to steal their precious, precious guns.

The jackbooted gubmint will kick down their door and seize their precious, precious guns.

Someone dangerous element of society wants to kill them, so they need more precious, precious guns.

The terror and the paranoia are on full display after every weekly mass shooting. It would be pathetic and predictable if it didn't result in thousands of deliberate deaths annually.

[treestar]

23. Even if they didn't need one

and nothing gets banned; so where is that fear coming from? Nothing was done over Sandy Hook so why don't they feel safe?

[GoCubsGo]

25. Why the hell would anyone need one of those things?

I get why someone might want one, but nobody needs them. Nobody.

[treestar]

28. I'm one of those ignorant and uninformed people

who does not understand the details! I do know they can kill a lot of people quickly and that frequently in this country someone "snaps" and has access to them and kills 59 or so people and injures hundreds, but I don't understand either why they could "need" one of these for any other purpose. One of them can explain with appropriate references to my ignorance.

I mean I just learned today that silencers are needed! To protect their hearing! And be considerate of the neighbors so they don't have to be bothered by the big bangs!

[GoCubsGo]

42. Just when you think they couldn't come up with even more idiotic excuses...

Their absurdities know no bounds.

This country is so fucked.

[dweller]

3. chaos is coming

thanks you orange dotard

invest in body armor
stay at home
fucking hide
making amerka fear again 😑

[Demtexan]

4. Hope we do not have a repeat.

This country has gone crazy.

Now hotels will want to check your bags when you check in.

[bdamomma]

65. privacy is gone

Big Brother is getting bigger, forget about our civil rights. How can people live like that? He wants Americans be miserable like Russians are in their country.

[roamer65]

5. Reinstatement of the assault weapons ban with a new twist.

You have 1 year to turn them all in and if you don't, you become a felon.

If we still had the AWB, good chance the LV massacre would not have happened.

[Adrahil]

12. No offense, but that last bit is BS.

The last Assault Weapons ban was close to useless. It mainly banned cosmetic fewtures. It did not touch the core functionality of the weapon itself. The oNe thing the old AWB did do was ban large capacity mags, though it grandfathered in old ones. So the killer would not have been able tomget the 100 round mags he used.... he would have had to settle for grandfathered 30 round mags which might have saved a couple lives as he would have to change the magazine more frequently, but that's it.

This is why it is essential that these laws be crafted by people who actually now what they are talking about.

The new California ban Is kore effective, though it's not impossible to mod one of those to function with a replaceable magazine.

[treestar]

24. the people who actually know what they are

talking about are generally going to be the ones who don't want anything banned. Are there people who know a lot about guns who are willing to come up with these regulations?

[Adrahil]

40. I know these weapons pretty well... so do others here.

I enjoy shooting including scary "assault weapons."

But I am a left-of-center liberal. I do not believe my right to have a good time at the range, or my desire to have a weapon for protection as a last resort trumps the need to regulate them for the public good. I know other liberal gun owners who feel the same way.

The first thing we have to realize is that there are two characteristics which make these weapons dangerous:

1. The ability to accept external box magazines

2. Semi-automatic action.

Not pistol grips... not adjustable stocks... not bayonet lugs.

Just those two. Any effort to make a difference must address one of those two. Anything else is useless.

IMHO, there is no way we can do anything about semi-automatic actions. Politically, I just think it's a bridge too far right now. I know some disagree and I wish them good luck. I think our best shot is magazines. That'll also be a tough get, but we can at least start with the elimination of the monster magazines this guy used (100 round box and drum mags). Maybe we can ban the production of new 30 round mags. Maybe. If we can, we might be able to get to possession later, but again, the NRA OWNS the GrOPers, so it'll be tough.

But if we can't deal with one of those issues, we're fucked. It's that simple.

[sarisataka]

45. Are there people who know a lot about guns who are willing to come up with these regulations?

there are such people.

You may notice, however, that anyone around here who expresses any knowledge of firearms is labeled a cowardly, gun humping, ammosexual. Also they are probably racists who are itching to kill brown people.

Myself and others have put forth proposals for gun control that are either ridiculed or simply labeled a "good start." Any proposal short of a complete ban is not enough.

I have seen at least two threads this week that have said Democratic gun owners who are not willing to turn in all their guns and support a ban are not needed and should leave the party. I was informed yesterday that since I do not support a ban on civilian ownership of firearms I am "obviously pro massacre".

What is the point of asking for someone who has knowledge on a subject for input only to ridicule and ignore what they say?

[treestar]

46. Haven't notice that

but that is not good.

I usually see sneering at those of us who know nothing about guns, due to proposing some restriction that "won't work."

But I think we all tend to see the opposition's meanness more than our own side's. That's why the right wing thinks the media is liberal and we think it is right wing.

If there are people who know about guns and are willing to discuss restrictions without sneering references to our ignorance, I for one would listen.

[sarisataka]

52. There are those on the "gun" side

Who are loud and will often express disdain for those who do not know the minituae. Most however are not so extreme and only ask for basic common knowledge.

If I ever see a proposal that I will say it "won't work", I will explain why it won't work and, if there is a way, explain how it could be changed to work. I find I have backed away from such critiques though after being repeatedly accused of spreading NRA propaganda and right-wing talking points.

The first thing that must be realized is gun control has been losing for decades. Those who try to deny that have their head in the sand. Simply look at the maps that show how concealed carry laws have spread across the country.

In order to reverse that trend is going to require baby steps. The lowest hanging fruit is background checks on all sales. They are supported by an overwhelming majority of gun owners. Rather than trying to challenge the NRA head-on, who will of course oppose it, appeal directly to gun owners that such checks will be in the best interest of Public Safety and the gun owners themselves.

As it stands the laws will have to go state by state. Require background checks to be mandatory on all firearms transactions. Do not make it prohibitively expensive. Cap it at something reasonable say maybe $20. That is a fairly insignificant amount compared to the price of a gun but sufficient that dealers will be willing to invest the time. Allow background checks between family members to be done by law enforcement for free.

To induce compliance, make the penalties enough that they will hurt. Say $1,000 fine and forfeiture of a firearm transferred without the background check. If a firearm was transferred without the check and is subsequently used in a crime the original owner will face charges as an accessory.

Also we must be able to account for short-term loans. Some of the laws have been written that a background check would be required before handing a gun to a friend on a range to allow him to try shooting it a few shots. Instead allow short transfers without background checks for a limited time, perhaps Thirty days, but the original owner will be still held as an accomplice to any crimes committed with the firearm during that period.


Get one law such as that in place, and let gun owners see it does not impact them to any measurable degree. The next law will become easier to pass. Eventually there will be reasonable gun control laws out there. It will take time but I believe that is the only way.

[Lee-Lee]

57. If you want UBC to pass open NICS so anyone can use it

It will pass much more easily than any situation where even a loan of a gun requires a trip to a dealer and a $20-75 fee and then a trip back and another $20-75 fee. Open NICS up on a website and app where people can do a check themselves.

[sarisataka]

66. That would be ideal

But requires change at the federal level. I believe that is simply a no-go in the current political situation

The State level is a work around. Blue, and some purple states may buy in over the next few years. If momentum can be built, and we get some Democratic control, we may be able to make the change to open NICS.

[Lee-Lee]

53. Because people who know what they are talking about know it's the wrong approach

It should set off a clue button in your head when you notice that the vast majority of people educated on a subject more than you disagree with you on how to deal with the issue.

[treestar]

54. Well then what is reasonable

regulation of guns? Is there anything that should or can be done?

Hell people never shut up when I'm the expert on a subject. But if you could explain it without sneering at the person, it might work.

[Lee-Lee]

55. Is your goal the regulation of guns or the reduction of gun violence?

First you need to define your desired end state.

Is what you place on a higher priority the reduce of the misuse of guns and violence done with them, or is the goal just regulation and reduction of ownership.

Because the two are not the same and it's not the same path. There are some ways the two go together but others where they diverge in what steps you take.

So, to answer you question do you want as a primary goal to reduce the number of people killed and injured by guns, or is your primary goal just to regulate guns and stop ownership?

[treestar]

56. Obviously reduce the killings and injuries

and the mass shootings.

[Lee-Lee]

71. Ok well here is my approach

First, look at the facts behind gun deaths in the USA.

The vast majority are suicides. Gun control will have at best minimal impact on this. It won't change the underlying cause of a persons suicide at all, at best it may make them try a less successful means and fail to complete the suicide. Japan's suicide rates in a country with virtually no access to guns show this. So the best reduce that you need to have greatly improved access to care, much better public education on how to spot signs of suicdal ideation, and all the other things needed to reduce suicide overall. This isn't a gun problem, it shouldn't be treated as a gun problem, you take the steps needed to reduce suicides overall and the rates of ones done with guns will fall correspondingly.

The second greatest source is 16-24 year old males, largely in urban environments and involved with or associated with gangs and/or illegal drugs. To reduce this number you reduce what drives them to violence. It's a complex mixture of poverty, culture, education, and so much more. Eliminating drug prohibition would probably go a long way, as would poverty reduction programs, jobs programs targeting that demographic, conflict resolution skills programs targeting that demographic etc. Do all that and improve their lives and the second biggest source of gun violence drops correspondingly.

The third greatest source is people attacking their spouse or domestic partner. Better enforcement of existing laws prohibiting possession by people with restraining order is a must here. A bigger impact will be better funding for domestic violence intervention programs and pushing prosecutors to aggressively prosecute these cases and make sure convictions get on records so these abusers get bared from gun ownership.

Those 3 right there will drop gun violence a HUGE degree.

Next up I would fund and mandate enforcement of laws for people who illegally try to buy guns. Every year you have around 30,000 people denied on a background check. Now some of that is errors, but is you even give a 10% error rate (and that would be unacceptably high) that is over 25,000 people. Befor ethe check is down they filled out the form and signed under penalty of perjury that they did not ag e any disqualifying things on their record. So if you get denied unless it's a mistake you just committed a federal felony. So every year we have 25,000 people who are legally barred from owning a gun and are actively seeking to obtain one and who just committed an easy to prosecute felony. The government takes no action at all on 99% of these cases, the person is just left alone to go try and obtain one illegally. This is insane. If there is any population you can target to reduce crime it's people who by law are too dangerous to own guns who are actively trying to get one and just committed a felony. At a minimum check up on every one of these and we should be prosecuting most of them.

You can get universal background checks passed easily by proposing it to allow a private individual to access NICS and do the check instead of having to revel to a gun dealer during business hours and pay them $25-75 to do it. All the UBC laws proposed would make something like loaning a hunting shotgun for a few weeks for hunting season require both people to go to a gun dealer and treat it like a sale paying a fee to loan and do a check and then go again and pay again when it it returned. Make it simple as an app and website and have strict penalties for anyone who fails to use it for a sale.

Crack down on people who do straw purchases and who buy for resale without licenses. Enforcement is very lax now.

Last for now, strict and stiff mandatory sentence enhancers for any crime where a gun is used or possessed. Add 10 years hard time to a crime if a gun is involved and you will see criminals less likely to use them. Most people caught for illegal possession in Chicago now for example serve under a year for it, so there isn't much downside.

[Marengo]

75. I would say regulate semi automatic firearms under the NFA, with the same process as obtaining...

A select fire or fully automatic firearm. Expensive and time consuming. Most wouldn't likely bother.

[uponit7771]

31. Then ban all of the WMD Firearms then, legislstion without the loopholes. "it was bad last time" is

... not a good reason to stall good legislation this time.

[Calista241]

59. Australia paid A$600 each for the rifles they collected in 1996

They bought back 661k rifles back for that amount, and had to have a 1.7% tax increase to pay for it. The total program cost A$400m.

The US has at least 20x (and probably more like 50x) that amount of AR type rifles in circulation. The $600 price is also over 20 years old, so were looking at a $1000-$1200 average price the government pays for each rifle.

You’re looking at close to $100b just to get semi auto rifles off the streets. And these rifles are statistically the most unlikely to be used in a crime firearms you could possibly pick.

And that doesn’t even begin to cover the cost of catching, convicting, and imprisoning the hundreds of thousands of people that ignore this law.

In 5 days, Trump will do fire someone or insult somebody new, and that will dominate the news cycle, and nobody outside of the families will remember the shooting in Vegas. And they certainly won’t have the political will to raise taxes, implement a buyback, and imprison people who have committed no other crime.

[madaboutharry]

6. This is what is wrong

We have a sick culture in this country.

I think roamer65 has a good idea. Make it a felony to own an assault weapon. Allow a one year amnesty period to turn it in or be subject to prosecution.

[misanthrope]

8. No, make gun owners buy liability insurance

Just like with automobiles. It will set two of the most powerful lobbies in America -- insurance and gun manufacturers -- against each other.

[Orrex]

14. Sorry to say that they dismiss that very reasonable suggestion outright

"Insurance doesn't cover deliberate crimes, so it wouldn't applly."

Of course, they reject all suggestions that might prevent them from owning hundreds of precious, precious guns.

They dismiss any attempts a sensible gun control as "feel-good legislation," an NRA catchphrase that they are happy to parrot.

They are consistent: following the mass shooting on any given week, the first priority must be to protect their precious, precious guns.

[ClarendonDem]

15. That's because

Insurance doesn't cover deliberate crimes, so it would be a pointless requirement. That said, it sounds like you want to impose an insurance requirement so that some people cannot exercise their constitutionally-protected right to own a firearm. Any such law would primarily have an adverse impact on folks with less money -- when did it become ok for Dems to favor laws that had an adverse impact on the poor?

[Orrex]

16. You joined yesterday and are already suggesting that I'm not a Democrat?

Tell you what: if you're still here in two weeks, I'll reply to your NRA-dictated talking point at that time.

[snowybirdie]

29. Do you

carry insurance on all your vehicles? And are they registered?

[Orrex]

30. Yes, obviously. I'm not an asshole.

[snowybirdie]

35. The comment

was meant for the previous poster

[Orrex]

37. Oh. Whoops.

Maybe I am an asshole.

Hmm....

[ClarendonDem]

58. Of course I do

But no insurance company is going to write a policy that covers criminal acts committed with a firearm.

[snowybirdie]

64. However

They will write insurance for each and every weapon that is OWNED! Which may prevent the poorer crazies from buying numerous weapons

[ClarendonDem]

63. I'm not suggesting that you are not a Democrat

And I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from my post. In fact, I assume that every individual on this website -- like me -- is a lifelong Democrat. I'm simply suggesting that a law that adversely impacts the poor is not something that we, as Democrats, should support.

Why is every rebuttal that is grounded in fact an "NRA-dictated talking point"? I've never been an NRA member, never read an NRA publication, and have only a general idea what NRA "talking points" might look like, and those are ones I gathered from reading the news.

[uponit7771]

33. People don't have a constitutional right to own WMDs

[ClarendonDem]

67. I've never considered whether that is the case

But I'm sure you are correct -- there is no constitutionally protected right to own chemical or nuclear weapons.

[uponit7771]

68. A wmd is any device designed to kill massive amount of people in a short time and that includes

... these firearms and their mods like Paddock used.

Not just chemical or nuke weapons

[ClarendonDem]

70. So two thoughts

First, I'm all for banning the bump stock that Paddock used. Second, according to the US Code, US criminal law, and the FBI, semi-automatic weapons like Paddock used, even if modified, are not WMDs.

[uponit7771]

72. The can call a cat a car all they want, but it took 10 mins for him to wound or kill 600 people ...

... that's a WMD.

[ClarendonDem]

78. Well, no its not

At least not legally speaking. If that's the case the the truck used in the France attacks is also a WMD.

[uponit7771]

79. The truck in France was never designed to kill massive amounts of people the device Paddock used was

... and should be classified as a WMD because of such

[treestar]

62. Can a poor person afford a gun?

Like they can't afford a car, and the insurance.

[treestar]

61. Could an insurance company make money

(of course they must) on policies that did cover deliberate crimes such as mass shootings? With all those guns, the odds of one being used in a mass shooting would be low as to any one gun.

[hack89]

17. No. It will make the NRA a fortune though

Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2017, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

they will do an AARP and go into the insurance business. Then they will offer huge discounts to members and watch their membership skyrocket.

The insurance companies not are not stupid - they will know how to write policies to ensure they don't have to pay out for criminal acts and mass killings. They will also be fighting to get the NRA's endorsement for their policies.

[uponit7771]

34. Sounds like a win win ... harder to get WMDs and they make more money. Sounds like a good idea

[hack89]

39. But it won't make much of a difference

the risk pool will be huge - premiums will very small and affordable for those willing to pay. I have liability insurance for my guns and the cost is a pittance - I am definitely in a low risk demographic.

And many people will not get insurance - criminals for example. And since the government has no idea who owns guns, there is no way to identify who has not bought insurance. Civil disobedience will high with many refusing to pay out of principle or if they think the cost is too high.

It would be a disaster for the Democratic party - can you imagine the NRA with even more money to buy politicians?

[GoCubsGo]

41. They will make a fortune--until they have to start paying out.

That could quite easily bankrupt them, especially if they were required to pay substantial amounts of money to the victims.

[hack89]

43. They will write their policies so they don't have to pay out for criminal acts

especially mass killings. And if you try to mandate that they do, they simply won't get into the market. You can't force any company to risk losing huge amounts of money.

Look at flood insurance - many companies got out of the market once they couldn't make money. That is why there is a government flood insurance program. Same will happen with gun insurance - it will eventually be a government program.

[treestar]

26. They should have to at least do as much as

auto drivers do. Tests to get the license - make sure they know all those details the rest of us don't. License renewals every so many years. Photo ID on the licenses. Insurance. Tickets for improper use or failing to follow rules.

Also maybe publicize who has so many of them, too. We should know who might be able to kill a lot of people if they "snap."

[sarisataka]

47. It is a catch-22

A person who does not have insurance is irresponsible.

But when it was found out earlier this year there is such Insurance available, available through the NRA (surprise), it was labeled "murder insurance" and anyone who bought it was looking to kill someone.

[NutmegYankee]

7. It's a human trait - people rush to buy something that will soon go off market.

Recently it was Coke Zero, which was replaced by a new mix called Coke Zero Sugar. People were buying Zero like crazy, even though the new mix really tastes a lot better.

[Purveyor]

9. Gun maker stock prices are also surging according to this:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/gun-manufacturers-stock-prices-surged-in-days-after-mass-shooting/

[Initech]

74. Fuck, I hate this country some times.

Mass shootings have become advertisements for the gun industry. And they don't care how many people they kill, they just want that sweet profit. News like this just makes things worse.

[Snackshack]

10. To answer your question...

A lack of common sense.

For example this idea routinely given that the right to own firearms is needed in order to keep the government from becoming a tyranny...

Good luck with that AR and all the mods available against the Predator at 20k feet with the IR missile. There are lots of videos on YouTube showing how that works out...

[workinclasszero]

11. The people buying them are future mass murderers

You can thank the NRA and it's republican Congress for the LV slaughter and the ones coming in the future because of this.

[dalton99a]

18. But there is a need for sportsmen and hunters to harvest animals en masse, in milliseconds

[workinclasszero]

21. Right

Can't go deer hunting without a full auto military style assault weapon.

That's the thing, these weapons and things like bump stocks are expressly made to mass kill PEOPLE!

Has nothing to do with hunting animals, its about hunting and killing PEOPLE!

[dalton99a]

22. Yep, a great Christmas gift for the whole family:

[treestar]

27. the head phone might damage his hearing

he needs a silencer!

[workinclasszero]

48. Ho ho ho m*******ckers!

[treestar]

19. This is sick

It's like they saw a new toy and that's what they got out of this.

[Paladin]

51. Sick, but oh-so-predictable. (nt)

[Man_Bear_Pig]

20. They are making a mistake.

The rush to buy semi-auto rifles is different, because the chances of another AWB being passed is zero, and even if one did, it would have to grandfather people's existing expensive property. These bump-fire stocks are different, because banning them doesn't require congressional approval or the President's signature. The BATFE could, and I think will from mounting pressure, reverse their decision on their legality. Once that happen, the owners will be allowed to register them as normal under the National Firearms Act. If they refuse, and are caught, the mandatory minimum for being caught with an unregistered machine gun is 10 years in federal prison.

[Adrahil]

50. The BATF is in a tough spot....

Their ruling is supposed to be based SOLELY on the technical characteristics of any modification or accessories. They have consistently ruled for a while that a modification is NOT a machine gun if:

1) The shooters finger pulls the trigger for each shot; and

2) There is no "automatic" mechanical action that assists in the process. In other words, springs which assist the actio would be a no-go.

To make bump stocks meet the definition of an accessory that converts the rifle to a machine gun, BATF's technical division would have to change those guidelines and make the argument that their original technical judgement was in error.

That action is not completely without precedent. The Atkins accelerator stock was similar to the bump fire stocks the killer used. But it included a spring in the stock that made the process require basically no input from the shooter.

Initially the Atkins stock was determined to be legal, but the BATF eventually determined that the spring in the stock was a problem after seeing how effective it was, and devised the policy above.

The BATF could do the same again, but it would likely spawn lawsuits arguing that the BATF's decision was not based on technical characteristics, but rather a desired political outcome. I personally think that argument is weak, but I think courts would see it the other way.

The real answer, IMO, is change the definition of what a machine gun is from a gun that fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, to something based on rate of fire. something like, "A machine gun is any firearm in a configuration capable of firing more than 200 rounds/minute when held and fired as designed by a typical shooter, or any device designed to facilitate that capability." Just off the top of my head, so I ma sure there are big holes in that. The "typical shooter" clause is intended to account for people like Jerry Miculek who can fire a 6-shooter as fast as a machine gun.

[janterry]

32. This is so sad

I am at a loss for words.

[Iliyah]

36. For me and my family and my personal opinion "I do not feel safe"

here in the good ole USA and the feeling is getting more intense.

[muntrv]

38. Why? Because they want to outdo Paddock?

[muntrv]

44. Doncha know? If everyone at the Route 91 Festival had bump stocks, they coulda

taken out Paddock!

[doodsaq]

49. They wanna be just like Paddock nt

[bdamomma]

60. Americans killing Americans

NRA must be in their glory.

[democratisphere]

69. Mentally ill.

[Initech]

73. This is why we can't have nice things!!!!

These things should be banned. But the NRA doesn't care. Fuck gun nuts.

[Turbineguy]

76. Cuz you just never know when

you might get the urge to murder a large number of people you've never met.

[Hoyt]

77. Same way after Sandy Hook. White wing gunners were ordering the same weapon used in that

massacre.

Gunners are sick and devious people. We need to accept it and act accordingly.

[dembotoz]

80. to be expected nra has their cadre trained to think obama is after your _____ (fill in the blank)

first guns in general
then this type of gun
than that type of gun
then ammo
now bump stocks and then rifles to fit the bump stocks

nra exists to sell firearms and they do it very well