The deadliest mass shooting in US history

[caleb1633 1,418]

 

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Politics is the way we effect most changes.  Using such an incident to encourage a political response is not "sick".  Targeting the reduction of hate is a nice ideal but it's not a practical response. 

I should add that many stronger gun regulation proposals have a large majority of support in this country.  So it's a very valid question to ask why such majority-supported political responses to gun violence seem so difficult to enact. 

Understood, but it almost seems like people are glad this happened like, "See! I told you we needed to outlaw guns!" Or "See! A white dude killed a bunch of people! Not a Muslim!" Like who the hell cares what race or religious affiliation he is? And you can target hate by not feeding those who promote it with an abundance of news headlines. Condemn it, then ignore it unless other appropriate actions needs to take place. Focus on the unifying actions and good deeds that actually do take place in the country and give them the media coverage. I'm not saying ignore the issues, address them appropriately, but don't promote those people.

[autigeremt 6,605]

Evil will find a way.

[AUDub 11,147]

 

Expect to hear a directive from the ATF outlawing these with the quickness. 

[alexava 6,973]

16 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

 

Expect to hear a directive from the ATF outlawing these with the quickness. 

who defends the right to have, manufacture and sell these?

[homersapien 11,369]

7 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Can I steal this?

Please.

[homersapien 11,369]

7 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

 

Understood, but it almost seems like people are glad this happened like, "See! I told you we needed to outlaw guns!" Or "See! A white dude killed a bunch of people! Not a Muslim!" Like who the hell cares what race or religious affiliation he is? And you can target hate by not feeding those who promote it with an abundance of news headlines. Condemn it, then ignore it unless other appropriate actions needs to take place. Focus on the unifying actions and good deeds that actually do take place in the country and give them the media coverage. I'm not saying ignore the issues, address them appropriately, but don't promote those people.

 And that "almost seems"  like a defensive reaction.

[caleb1633 1,418]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 And that "almost seems"  like a defensive reaction.

Because I don't definitively know that's what they're doing, but it certainly seems like the vast majority of many people's concern has been in using this as an opportunity to point fingers.

[homersapien 11,369]

15 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

Because I don't definitively know that's what they're doing, but it certainly seems like the vast majority of many people's concern has been in using this as an opportunity to point fingers.

And you find that strange?  

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And you find that strange?  

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me, but it still doesn't mean I find it acceptable.

[Strychnine 1,802]

On 10/3/2017 at 10:36 PM, Bigbens42 said:

 

Expect to hear a directive from the ATF outlawing these with the quickness. 

 

Considering that a Hellfire was used in a mass shooting in the early 90's, I have remained surprised that bump or trigger mod devices were not already prohibited.  They are clearly designed as a means to circumvent the NFA requirements for automatic weapons, and they are usually even marketed as such.

The ATF could find time to quickly issue rulings that shouldering a stabilizing brace constituted making an illegal SBR, which they have since reversed, yet could not issue a ruling prohibiting accessories specifically designed to create an illegal automatic weapon?  They have had basically 30 years to ponder them in their various forms.

It is no secret that I am not the NFA's biggest fan, and that I am usually the gun nut in these threads, but even I agree that automatic weapons should not be easy to obtain.  I definitely should not be able to open a web browser and order cheap devices to make my own.

[homersapien 11,369]

After Las Vegas mass shooting, 'bump stock' is hot at gun stores

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/after-vegas-shooting-bump-stock-is-hot-at-gun-stores.html

[AUDub 11,147]

And here we go:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-shooting-youtube-hoax-conspiracy-theories?CMP=share_btn_tw

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

After Las Vegas mass shooting, 'bump stock' is hot at gun stores

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/after-vegas-shooting-bump-stock-is-hot-at-gun-stores.html

Buy ‘em while you can sales are so sleazy. 

[stoic-one 1,543]

4 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

Considering that a Hellfire was used in a mass shooting in the early 90's, I have remained surprised that bump or trigger mod devices were not already prohibited.  They are clearly designed as a means to circumvent the NFA requirements for automatic weapons, and they are usually even marketed as such.

The ATF could find time to quickly issue rulings that shouldering a stabilizing brace constituted making an illegal SBR, which they have since reversed, yet could not issue a ruling prohibiting accessories specifically designed to create an illegal automatic weapon?  They have had basically 30 years to ponder them in their various forms.

It is no secret that I am not the NFA's biggest fan, and that I am usually the gun nut in these threads, but even I agree that automatic weapons should not be easy to obtain.  I definitely should not be able to open a web browser and order cheap devices to make my own.

Well, on June 7th of 2010... ATF approval letter was issued.

Quote

“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hands and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”

Well, by definition, it doesn't really do that.  The definition of full auto in the law is essentially that more than one bullet is fired with a single pull of the trigger. A bump fire stock (and a dedicated bump fire stock isn't even needed to engage in bump firing) only makes it possible to pull the trigger very, very quickly. Nowhere in the law is rate of fire mentioned, and frankly that's a damn slippery slope were it to be. I still think they are stupid and perhaps only really useful, to me, as a way to waste ammo.

The fact of the matter is that the law isn't even ambiguous, like many are, but the determination of legality falls to the bureaucrats in governing agencies like the ATF. Slide Fire designed an AR "part" and asked the ATF for a letter of clarification regarding whether or not their proposed product was legal. The ATF returned an approval letter, as linked above, and to market went their product.

I guess my point is that while I am in general agreement with you regarding the acquisition of FA arms, it's pretty clear that whenever a law is written to limit something, pretty much anything, there are going to be individuals out there somewhere making things to skirt said laws. This thing falls directly in the multitude of products out there to do just that. Should it be illegal? I don't know. But you can be sure that it, and several other devices out there, stand a damn good chance of becoming another victim of this shooting in the long run.

Slide Fire as a company is now enjoying record sales, but it's going to be rough seas for them in the not too distant future.

[Strychnine 1,802]

6 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Well, on June 7th of 2010... ATF approval letter was issued.

Well, by definition, it doesn't really do that.  The definition of full auto in the law is essentially that more than one bullet is fired with a single pull of the trigger. A bump fire stock (and a dedicated bump fire stock isn't even needed to engage in bump firing) only makes it possible to pull the trigger very, very quickly. Nowhere in the law is rate of fire mentioned, and frankly that's a damn slippery slope were it to be. I still think they are stupid and perhaps only really useful, to me, as a way to waste ammo.

The fact of the matter is that the law isn't even ambiguous, like many are, but the determination of legality falls to the bureaucrats in governing agencies like the ATF. Slide Fire designed an AR "part" and asked the ATF for a letter of clarification regarding whether or not their proposed product was legal. The ATF returned an approval letter, as linked above, and to market went their product.

I guess my point is that while I am in general agreement with you regarding the acquisition of FA arms, it's pretty clear that whenever a law is is written to limit something, pretty much anything, there are going to be individuals out there somewhere making things to skirt said laws. This thing falls directly in the multitude of products out there to do just that. Should it be illegal? I don't know. But you can be sure that it, and several other devices out there, stand a damn good chance of becoming another victim of this shooting in the long run.

Slide Fire as a company is now enjoying record sales, but it's going to be rough seas for them in the not too distant future.

 

If they were more popular, it would have ended up being an issue much like the stabilizing brace.  The official purpose is the brace is attached to something like an AR pistol, and when wrapped around the forearm, it enables a person with one arm to aim and fire such a firearm.  ATF approved.  The stabilizing looks much like a stock, and is perfectly capable of functioning as one.  Of course, everyone saw the opportunity to put a "stock" on their AR and AK pistols.  Basically, ATF went back and forth on whether shouldering a stabilizing brace equipped pistol constituted making an illegal SBR.  A host of different stabilizing braces hit the market, including some that are clearly designed to be used solely as a stock, and they all requested clarification from ATF.  The whole saga would have been entertaining if it were not so ridiculous.

Bump stocks and trigger devices are obviously intended to allow someone to make something resembling an automatic weapon without the expense and process of a legal one.  While they are not technically breaking the letter of the law, they are (like the stabilizing brace) definitely intended to circumvent it.  Since it is not specifically prohibited or allowed, I think ATF making a statement 30 years ago that devices that manipulate or accelerate trigger pulls are unlawful would have been simple enough, and effective at eliminating them in the first place.

[stoic-one 1,543]

I'm fully familiar with the circular rulings on the pistol braces, as far as I'm concerned they are a stock, and make an AR pistol an SBR, but they can't make up their damn mind on the issue.

I guess "accelerating trigger pulls" could show up in some verbiage, but I have confidence that Congress will find new and unique ways to make a mostly straightforward issue an f'n mess...

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 hours ago, stoic-one said:

I'm fully familiar with the circular rulings on the pistol braces, as far as I'm concerned they are a stock, and make an AR pistol an SBR, but they can't make up their damn mind on the issue.

I guess "accelerating trigger pulls" could show up in some verbiage, but I have confidence that Congress will find new and unique ways to make a mostly straightforward issue an f'n mess...

 

At this point, I honestly think SBR could really be dropped from the NFA.  An underfolding AK with a 16" barrel does not end up being that much bigger (stock folded) than an AK pistol (a few inches).  At this point the law might as well just allow people to put stocks on an AR or AK pistol.

[stoic-one 1,543]

2 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

At this point, I honestly think SBR could really be dropped from the NFA.  An underfolding AK with a 16" barrel does not end up being that much bigger (stock folded) than an AK pistol (a few inches).  At this point the law might as well just allow people to put stocks on an AR or AK pistol.

I agree, it's always amazing to me how a couple of millimeters of OAL makes you subject to criminal prosecution even when your motives are nothing but pure...