Bump Stock Ban

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Maybe they "rolled" on them because the ban was a direct response to an incident where someone injured 851 people and killed 58 people in 10 minutes with what you just described as a toy.

They rely on physics of the rifle kicking to create a reaction that causes the trigger to be pulled faster mechanically, with a significant cost to accuracy. So for a person who's life might depend on it as a field operator, rather than some crazy guy with dozens of rifles in a very elevated and barricaded position firing randomly into a crowd of literal thousands with suicide his planned exit, yeah... they are toys.

[BLZrizz]

Maybe they "rolled" on them because the ban was a direct response to an incident where someone injured 851 people and killed 58 people in 10 minutes with what you just described as a toy.

I can't say for sure, but I find that assessment unlikely. The NRA's charter requires them to be politically untenable to large swathes of the American electorate and they've stood firm on previous events with worse narratives.

What's likelier is that:

1) the NRA understood that a fairly low percentage of gun owners own bump stocks, likely less than 0.5% (true);
2) they understood that in a tactical scenario bump stocks present little value and are employed by no government agencies or militaries (true); and
3) based on the above they concluded that it would be a fine and mostly ineffectual "sacrificial lamb".

The above reasoning, however, failed to anticipate the long term consequences of the ban, its application, and its consequences, which is inconsistent with the NRA's stated mission.

[Stumplicker]

They rely on physics of the rifle kicking to create a reaction that causes the trigger to be pulled faster mechanically, with a significant cost to accuracy. So for a person who's life might depend on it as a field operator, rather than some crazy guy with dozens of rifles in a very elevated and barricaded position firing randomly into a crowd of literal thousands with suicide his planned exit, yeah... they are toys.

I know what they are. I also know there was no reason not to ban them before an insane person fired thousands of rounds out of a hotel room window using one. How long did it take to ban rocker triggers in paintball? Like 15 minutes? "Oh, that essentially makes it an automatic. Let's stop that.". Done.

Any nonzero amount of money spent fighting against bump stocks being banned is too much. If it's a useless "toy" for people who care, and a violent murder spree tool for people who don't, there's no argument against it.

[Taernath]

Bump stocks have always skated around the overly specific language in the law. They are dangerous because of their rate of fire, not their cycling and feeding mechanism.

[BLZrizz]

Bump stocks have always skated around the overly specific language in the law. They are dangerous because of their rate of fire, not their cycling and feeding mechanism.

Bottom line, hardly anyone in the firearms world cares about bump stocks specifically and as I stated above, a very tiny minority would be affected by a ban. From a legislative defense perspective, however, the NRA's supposed forte, the problem with bump stocks is that their mechanism as of action is so crude that it can be replicated with a relaxed thumb around one's belt loop or a rubber band. A ban of such a crude mechanism must necessarily be broad in language, but that language also sweeps up all sorts of other stuff, including a short leap to banning semiautomatic trigger operation entirely.

It's analogous to ending graffiti by banning spray paint, and then writing a ban that that states "all metal cylinders discharging a substance are banned." Meanwhile, this also in effect bans fountain pens, fire extinguishers, PAM cooking oil, hairspray, etc.

[Stumplicker]

Bottom line, hardly anyone in the firearms world cares about bump stocks specifically and as I stated above, a very tiny minority would be affected by a ban. From a legislative defense perspective, however, the NRA's supposed forte, the problem with bump stocks is that their mechanism as of action is so crude that it can be replicated with a relaxed thumb around one's belt loop or a rubber band. A ban of such a crude mechanism must necessarily be broad in language, but that language also sweeps up all sorts of other stuff, including a short leap to banning semiautomatic trigger operation entirely.

It's analogous to ending graffiti by banning spray paint, and then writing a ban that that states "all metal cylinders discharging a substance are banned." Meanwhile, this also in effect bans fountain pens, fire extinguishers, PAM cooking oil, hairspray, etc.

This is 100% bullshit.

Nobody is trying to ban triggers. Nobody is making that "short leap" to banning all semi-automatic weapons but you. Suck it up and accept that your murder spree "toy" is going away. There is no defense for keeping it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If it's a useless "toy" for people who care, and a violent murder spree tool for people who don't, there's no argument against it.

I think bump stocks should be banned, sure. I also think they are toys for people who like to shoot things fast without accuracy. Unrelated, I also like to see shit blown up. I can still buy a rocker trigger in paintball, btw. So, not really done.

You'll never be able to identify how things can be used by crazy people outside their intended purposes.

[Gelston]

You can create the exact same effect using your thumb and a belt loop. It us a technique, bump stocks make it easier and slightly more accurate.

[Methais]

You can create the exact same effect using your thumb and a belt loop. It us a technique, bump stocks make it easier and slightly more accurate.

Michael J. Fox doesn't even need a belt loop.

Ban Alex P. Keaton.

[Stumplicker]

You can create the exact same effect using your thumb and a belt loop. It us a technique, bump stocks make it easier and slightly more accurate.

We're talking about a product that has no practical use and one very impractical use that only interests mentally broken people. There's no reason to allow it, and 900 reasons not to.

You could if you were so inclined still commit suicide by asyphxiation, but when England stopped making coal gas ovens that people were using to commit suicide in, suicides on the whole dropped 30% and weren't replaced by other methods.

There is plenty of precedent for saying that getting rid of problematic products lowers overall problems, but in this case there's no need because it's a product with zero practical use in the first place. Just get rid of it. There is no downside.