Bump stocks: Was there ever any **GOOD** use for a bump stock?
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
.Well then you did not read my statement very well and are putting words in my mouth. I said they banned bump stocks without ever releasing evidence they were used. That is fact, unless you have a public press release to the contrary.
The fact they singled out bump stocks for banning I think made it incumbent on the govt to share the relevant evidence. That is if they were responding to an actual danger. As far as I have seen they have not stated a full auto was absolutely not fired from that room. So it is pure conjecture to say the sound alone indicates bump stock, which you acknowledge could have been either. Also, rapid fire can be simulated by other simple means besides just a bump stock.
Thanks I had not seen that second report with the number of rounds fired by serial number. Interesting that only two rifles fired more than the 100rd mag he had in most of them. Shot it dry and switched to another rifle rather than switching mags, of which he had plenty.
I stand corrected then about banning without releasing the relevant data. The ban is still stupid, but at least they did release supporting evidence.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Isn't that interesting? He had more mags and ammo, but why bother reloading when you have more rifles? No need to reload until you run out of loaded rifles. Plus, that gives the rifles plenty of time to cool down.
What struck me as odd were all the rifles without sights or optics...that had been fired.
claydoctor
New member
What I found surprising was that despite a lifetime of going to gun shows and subscribing to every gun magazine on the planet, at the time of the Las Vegas incident, I had never heard of a bump stock. My feeling is if machine guns are regulated under the NFA, then anything that turns a gun into a machine gun, should also be regulated. Of course, whether or not a machine gun should be regulated, is another argument.
Double Naught Spy
New member
That is surprising. We have had dozens and dozens of threads here on TFL that mention the topic...
https://thefiringline.com/forums/search.php?searchid=10674347&pp=25
Bump stocks do not turn guns into machine guns.
Don Fischer
New member
I am absolutely against bump stocks. Their only good seem's to be to upset anti's! From what I have read about them, it's similar to putting a disconnect lever on your rifle turning it into full auto. They will only work on an auto loading rifle. I have no clue how they work other than to say they do from what I read. A full auto rifle has a disconnect that allows it to fire every time the bolt slams shut. Seem's the the bump stock accomplish's the same thing. Great fodder for the anti's as if they work as they say, they do turn a semi auto into a full auto and without a permit, full auto is illegal. I'd just as soon not give anti's ammunition like that to run us down with. Tell me this, if it were legal to own and use a full auto rifle, would you choose a bump stock or a full auto design? IMO bump stock's are BS!
Don Fischer said:
I would recommending identifying where you read that so you can be alert to the insufficiency of that source.
Semi-automatic rifles also have disconnectors. A bump stock requires a separate pull of the trigger for every shot fired; that's what semi-automatic means. It does not turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle.
Don Fischer said:
As does a semi-automatic rifle. A fully automatic rifle requires no additional pull of the trigger, whereas a semi-automatic with a bumpstock does require an additional pull of the trigger.
Don Fischer said:
It really doesn't seem that way unless someone has misdescribed the issue to you. I know a lot of people didn't initially understand how a bump stock could be legal because they thought it worked on the same principle as an Akins Accelerator stock.
PolarFBear
New member
DonFischer: I have no use for a "bump stock". I did try the "trigger gizmo", never could get it to work. But a "bump stock" works the same way your "finger" does: in that it fires a round every time it resets the trigger. You can accomplish the same thing holding a pencil through the trigger guard. Or, just stiffen your finger and use it in place of the pencil. Not very accurate but does add a "thrill" to my hobby. The way the anti's are going don't let them know about the "pencil" thing.
You've got it backwards. It's a common mistake, along with some others, such as, I've had a number of people who thought they were informed, but weren't, tell me that "all you have to do to semi to make it full auto is file the shear pin"
Semi autos, (and some designs of manually operated repeaters) have a "disconnector" a part, or parts (that full autos don't have) specifically designed to PREVENT full auto fire. They "disconnect" the trigger mechanism, such that it requires the trigger to be released (to a certain point) allowing the parts to reset, so that another pull of the trigger will fire the weapon, again.
This ALSO performs the function of not allowing the gun to fire until the action is fully closed (and locked, if that's part of the design), as the trigger group parts won't reset until the action is closed. They are "disconnected" while the action is unlocked (and open).
Specific to "bump firing", the ATF got it right, during the Obama administration, when they ruled bump fire stocks are not full auto, because, quite simply, the trigger is being "pulled" individually for each round fired.
The "pull" of the trigger with bump fire is actually a push, but the effect is the same. The rifle recoils back, away from your trigger finger, which is held in a stationary position, and something (you, or the stock) applies forward pressure on the rifle at the same time, and being held loosely enough, the rifle will "bounce" back forward, "bumping" the trigger against your stationary finger, firing the rifle.
This meets the legal definition, of "pulling" the trigger for each individual shot. Therefore, NOT a full automatic, as defined in law.
When the ATF "re-examined" their ruling, the ADDED language to the regulatory definition (they couldn't change the language used in the actual law) and THEN determined bump stocks could be regulated, because they "initiated a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger".
This is a problem on two levels, one being that EVERY firing, both semi and full auto is initiated with a single pull of the trigger, and second, it completely ignores the earlier finding (and reality) that the trigger is still being "pulled" once, per shot. Smoke and mirrors, my friends...
Double Naught Spy
New member
Well DonFischer, as 44 Amp described, for a bump stock to shoot, the trigger must be pulled and you get one shot per trigger pull. That fits the definition of NOT being fully automatic.
Since you don't know how they work except for what you have read, here is a guy explaining how they work back in 2017...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kryIJIrD5eQ
the closest ive came to being cut in half from a rifle was by the guy next to me who could not handle full auto in a BAR 06. thanks to my God that his clip ran out just as he was pointing it at me. man did a lot of guys scatter when he lost control of that rifle. the gunny was mad as a wet hen. that dude never touched a gun of any kind again. dont know what happened to him, never saw him again. i didnt know where to run to, he was shooting every wheres.
Don Fischer
New member
I see I think. You pull the trigger one time and after that the movement of the stock release's the trigger then fire's it gain. Sorry pal, but we can do without that. May not be full auto according to what's written but I think it should qualify as full auto! We have no need for something like that, it's simply a cute way to get around the law. You want something like that, get the law changed to allow full auto. Just like a full auto, you pull the trigger one time and it start's firing as long as you hold the trigger back? Something like that make us our own worst enemy!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
To borrow a well-used phrase, "It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs." You may not see a need for bump stocks, and I might not see a need for bump stocks, but that (IMHO) is not a valid basis for making them illegal. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Laws are written using words, and words are supposed to have meaning. In a rational world, someone should be able to read a law and figure out from the law whether a certain thing or act is legal.Don Fischer said:
You wrote, "...it's simply a cute way to get around the law." How is complying with the law "getting around the law"? Over many years of driving, I have arrived at "a cute way of getting around the law" on speeding -- I drive at or below the posted speed limit. By your logic, I am "getting around the law" by not violating it. As others might express it, I am "exploiting a loophole" to avoid speeding tickets.
Facts are facts. The fact is that the law currently establishes that a semi-automatic firearm is one that fires one round for each time the trigger is pulled. That's it. There are no time-motion criteria that further limit semi-auto to a maximum number of trigger pulls per unit of time. Once you get started down the path of "how fast can you pull the trigger" it turns into a very slippery slope rather quickly.
A bump fire stock does not alter the trigger mechanism. That's the crux of the issue. One pull of the trigger still fires only one shot. All a bump fire stock does is to facilitate pulling the trigger faster. Even though I have no use for or interest in bump stocks, I respectfully submit that ALL gun owners should be opposed to banning them (at least, the way it has been done) for the simple reason that there is no rational basis for the ban. So now bump fire stocks are banned. But you can still go to a range with an AR-15, hook the thumb of your shooting hand around the belt loop of your Dockers, and achieve the exact same result. So what's the next step? Should the BATFE declare that Dockers are henceforth Destructive devices? Or will it come down to "constructive possession," where it will be okay for people who don't own AR-15s to possess Dockers, but it won't be legal for AR-15 owners to possess Dockers because they "might" be used to simulate an illegal, fully automatic firearm?
What follows next? Will the trousers ban be a blanket ban on any trousers that have belt loops, or will there be a specific list of what trousers are off-limits for AR-15 owners and everything else will be allowed?
IMHO, what we need a lot LESS than we need bump stocks is definitions that change according to the political whims of the day. We need to always remain firmly committed to the principle that words have meanings, and that ordinary people should (I would say "must") be able to read a law and know from the law what is legal and what is not legal.
I respectfully submit that your view of "May not be full auto according to what's written but I think it should qualify as full auto!" has no place in a nation of laws.
No, that's not how it works. Apparently you still don't understand how bump fire stocks function.Don Fischer said:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Cute way to get around the law? You mean by being fully in compliance with the law as per the ATF at the time of manufacture?
PolarFBear
New member
Aguila Blanca. Cogent response! I propose another "situation" for the ATF to ponder. Just make all trigger pulls greater than 15 pounds. Ten pulls would pretty well wear out a "trigger" finger. And, the "authorities" are watching "protect" your Dockers.