The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Berzerker]

No, they weren't. If rate of fire was the issue, then the current definition according to US federal law would mention rate of fire. It does not. If I had a gun that only fired one round a minute but only required one squeeze of the trigger to fire multiple rounds, that would still be a machine gun according to US federal law.

Also, if rate of fire were the issue, then bump stocks would have been banned the first time the ATF looked at them in 2010.

Your point? There are speed shooters out there that can achieve machine gun-like rates of fire with semi-auto firearms with just their finger and no assistance from a bump stock or any other device. Should those people be classified as machine guns by the ATF and prohibited from owning firearms?

I'd like to see these speed shooters who can match a machine gun, but the reason politicians banned machine guns was gangsters and bank robbers were running around with them overpowering the cops. The ATF doesn't do anything without the blessing of the politicians and gun lobby.

The issue with automatic weapons was not with rate of fire, but rather with ease of fire.

So machine guns were banned because they're easy to fire and the rate of fire had nothing to do with it? I had a 22 that was really easy to fire. You've gone from claiming bump stocks aren't easy to use (like the guy in the video) to how easy they are.

 

[Estebonrober]

Of course they are. However, the wording of the law cited to justify the ban clearly defines a machine gun as a firearm or modification to a firearm that allows more than one shot to be fired with a single squeeze of the trigger. A bump stock does not do that, thus it is not a machine gun and the ban, as it is currently worded, has no legal justification.

You are being purposely obtuse and you are doing it because it serves your agenda. This is intensely ironic because of the legal leaps taken in the ACA case you support I'm sure (on whether say the Texas plaintiffs had any standing in the ACA case). The bump stock could be argued to become an extension of the trigger since its purpose is to increase the firing rate of the trigger, you could also argue that since you only depress and hold the trigger once with a bump stock that it fits the definition of an automatic weapon. Both are legit points. You just don't like them.

Slippery slope arguments on weapons start with nuclear bombs. The american public agrees automatic weapons should be banned. I know you know better than the public though so please go on telling the masses what is good for them.

I should point out I support gun rights I'm just against this crap and well semi automatic rifles, high velocity rounds, and clip sizes like the one used in your video. You know the items whose only purpose is fun on a range and mass death. Your hobby can take a back seat to public safety.

 

[Lexicus]

A bump stock does not do that, thus it is not a machine gun and the ban, as it is currently worded, has no legal justification.

Except that bump stocks do absolutely allow more than one round to be fired with one pull of the trigger. Now, you want to argue that because the bump stock relies on recoil to push the trigger repeatedly and each pull of the trigger is technically associated with only a single shot, it should not be banned.

As someone else already pointed out, this kind of argument is what is gradually making the rest of the country see you "gun rights advocates" as bloodthirsty lunatics. So by all means continue to argue against banning bump stocks, which have literally no practical purpose other than killing large numbers of people quickly! In fact I hope the NRA files a lawsuit. What a public relations event!

You are being purposely obtuse and you are doing it because it serves your agenda.

For the record Commodore has stated in the past that he believes any gun regulation of any kind is a Trojan Horse for a total ban and confiscation of existing guns. So that's his 'agenda.'

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm all in for the ban on bumpstocks, although I don't celebrate it as much of a victory. They're not what's causing the bulk of the problem. afaik, the massacre in Las Vegas is the only instance of a bumpstock being used. As Lexicus says, I wouldn't mind if the NRA makes a big deal out of it, but only because it would make them look ridiculous.

Off the top of my head, iirc, something like 23,000 Americans commit suicide every year with guns. Of those, approx. one-third are veterans. The number that's been circulating for several years now is "twenty per day", but I can't verify that. Anyway, this very morning, I read that, as of September, the Veterans Administration had spent 1% of its money that had been specifically allocated to suicide prevention. One-forking-percent. If just the veterans who are committing suicide with guns could be cut by one-third, we would save ten times the number of people killed in the Las Vegas shooting, every year.

If banning bumpstocks is some kind of "slippery slope", I'd say we need more grease, because we're not moving nearly fast enough.

Someone probably just shot himself while I was typing this.

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm all in for the ban on bumpstocks, although I don't celebrate it as much of a victory. They're not what's causing the bulk of the problem. afaik, the massacre in Las Vegas is the only instance of a bumpstock being used. As Lexicus says, I wouldn't mind if the NRA makes a big deal out of it, but only because it would make them look ridiculous.

Off the top of my head, iirc, something like 23,000 Americans commit suicide every year with guns. Of those, approx. one-third are veterans. The number that's been circulating for several years now is "twenty per day", but I can't verify that. Anyway, this very morning, I read that, as of September, the Veterans Administration had spent 1% of its money that had been specifically allocated to suicide prevention. One-forking-percent. If just the veterans who are committing suicide with guns could be cut by one-third, we would save ten times the number of people killed in the Las Vegas shooting, every year.

If banning bumpstocks is some kind of "slippery slope", I'd say we need more grease, because we're not moving nearly fast enough.

Someone probably just shot himself while I was typing this.

Yea gun deaths passed up auto deaths last year iirc. The majority of those were suicides. My focus for now has to be on saving others before saving people from themselves. Moving to universal healthcare might help the suicide problem, although you still have the cultural problem, particularly in the military.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/guns-cars/460431/

Well 21 states.

 

[Lexicus]

My focus for now has to be on saving others before saving people from themselves.

The correlation between suicides and gun availability actually would suggest that the suicides might be some of the lowest-hanging fruit around...if we can take away the guns.

 

[Broken_Erika]

What about the Sputter Gun?

The Sputter Gun was a U.S. modification of the British Sten submachine gun, designed to circumvent then-existing U.S. laws defining a machine gun. The Sputter Gun, lacking a trigger, was designed to fire multiple rounds upon release of the bolt, until all ammunition was expended. The Sputter Gun was, however, reclassified as a machine gun by the ATF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_Gun

 

[Estebonrober]

What about the Sputter Gun?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_Gun

Now we have precedent, good job!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

All the bump stock does is allow a person to fire a semi-automatic weapon at a rate that is comparable to a fully automatic weapon.

Interesting use of the word "all" there. It seems you're obsessed with the letter of the law and completely ignoring the spirit. I get that you don't agree with the spirit in the first place, but surely you can acknowledge that it exists. And surely you can acknowledge that if the spirit of the law behind banning "machine guns" is because they can be used to swiftly and simply mass murder crowds of people, then banning devices and methods that allow you to achieve similar ease and speed with other weapons is not only the sensible thing to do, but in fact the only logical thing to do.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Interesting use of the word "all" there. It seems you're obsessed with the letter of the law and completely ignoring the spirit. I get that you don't agree with the spirit in the first place, but surely you can acknowledge that it exists. And surely you can acknowledge that if the spirit of the law behind banning "machine guns" is because they can be used to swiftly and simply mass murder crowds of people, then banning devices and methods that allow you to achieve similar ease and speed with other weapons is not only the sensible thing to do, but in fact the only logical thing to do.

The law actually does cover this: "The term ["machinegun"] shall also include[...] any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun". Commodore was arguing that the rate of fire of a machine gun isn't the defining feature, because the law doesn't specify that - evading the spirit of the law, as you say. Similarly, a proponent might argue that a bumpstock isn't a part of the gun, it's an accessory, like a belt isn't a part of your pants. Not just evading the spirit of the law, but also ducking the point of the debate, which I usually read as a disregard for the people being killed.

For reference: Appendix A, National Firearms Act, U.S.C. Chapter 53 opens a pdf from atf.gov.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean that's ultimately what this is about. I believe Commodore has been pretty explicit before in framing the victims of gun violence as the price of freedom. Ultimately there is little point in arguing with that view, because that is a values difference that cannot be resolved by getting agreement on any set of facts.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I mean that's ultimately what this is about. I believe Commodore has been pretty explicit before in framing the victims of gun violence as the price of freedom. Ultimately there is little point in arguing with that view, because that is a values difference that cannot be resolved by getting agreement on any set of facts.

Yes, I think so too. I actually appreciate Commodore's candor on that point. I've had these debates with a number of gun enthusiasts over the years, mostly in anonymous web forums where they could feel free to speak their minds, and to my memory he's the first to own that.

I'm also not sure if I've seen Commodore pretend that guns aren't a superior means for killing people (e.g. "you can kill someone with a hammer, a kitchen knife, or a bottle of bleach, but you're not trying to take those away"). It's always ironic when a gun proponent sounds like they don't understand the most basic fact about guns. It's hard to know whether they're that ignorant about guns, or they've run out of things to say and are just throwing a Hail Mary in the hope that I'm that ignorant about guns. I could imagine a gun enthusiast assuming that gun control advocates know nothing about guns, and that's probably true often enough.

 

[Lexicus]

and to my memory he's the first to own that.

He's not the first I've encountered to own that. If you press them hard enough you can get virtually every "gun rights advocate" to admit it. Many of them seem to genuinely believe that if you took the guns away we would have gulags or death camps instead.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Take away all the guns, and the Queen of England could walk in and start ordering you around!

 

[Commodore]

The law actually does cover this: "The term ["machinegun"] shall also include[...] any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun".

But again, the bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun.

I'm also not sure if I've seen Commodore pretend that guns aren't a superior means for killing people

You're right, I haven't done that. Taking such a position is something that I believe weakens the argument for keeping the 2nd Amendment since the reason the 2nd Amendment exists is to ensure the population has access to the same level of firepower the government has access to in order to either help defend the nation against a foreign power or to throw off the government itself should it go completely off the rails.

Many of them seem to genuinely believe that if you took the guns away we would have gulags or death camps instead.

Not that we absolutely would have those things, just that it would make it easier for a hypothetical tyrannical government to do those things. I mean, look at Israel as an example. Do you think they'd be able to do what they do to the Palestinians as easily as they are able to do it if the Palestinians were armed with rifles instead of rocks?

 

[cardgame]

But again, the bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun.

But again, only technically.

Not that we absolutely would have those things, just that it would make it easier for a hypothetical tyrannical government to do those things.

We already had concentration camps for American citizens with the 2A fully intact. It didn't matter at all.

I mean, look at Israel as an example. Do you think they'd be able to do what they do to the Palestinians as easily as they are able to do it if the Palestinians were armed with rifles instead of rocks?

also, [israel quarantine thread].

 

[Commodore]

But again, only technically.

No, not technically. A machine gun is not merely a gun that fires quickly, which is the mistake a lot of people are making. Hell a high rate of fire, while certainly a feature of many machine guns, is not even a requirement. A machine gun is a firearm that is capable of continuous fire with a single engagement of the trigger.

The use of the bump stock still requires the trigger to be engaged for each individual shot.

We already had concentration camps for American citizens with the 2A fully intact. It didn't matter at all.

It didn't matter because those Americans didn't exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Rights, much like guns, only help you if you actually use them.

 

[cardgame]

But we've already shown that we don't care. Arguing that we need this or else the government could feasibly set up gulags or whatever is a null point when they have already done so while the right was in place. I mean, Q.E.D.

 

[Commodore]

But we've already shown that we don't care.

So you're arguing that when people stop caring about a right, it's okay to take that right away?

Arguing that we need this or else the government could feasibly set up gulags or whatever is a null point when they have already done so while the right was in place.

But it's not really a null point when there are also plenty of examples of the right helping the people deter the government from what they believe is an overreach of their authority. As much as I don't like Bundy, him and his ilk were able to get the government to back down for a while over that whole land dispute thing. And the reason the government backed down for a bit was because they didn't want to get into a shootout with him and his little posse, something that wouldn't have been an issue for the government without the 2nd Amendment.

And that's just the most recent example. There are plenty of other examples throughout US history. The Coal Wars being another one. Also consider this: If an armed citizenry really is the insignificant threat to the government you are making it out to be, then why are they trying so hard to disarm the citizenry? And no, it isn't because they care about our well-being or public safety.

 

[Arwon]

then why are they trying so hard to disarm the citizenry

Hang on wait