Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill

*Would a law against bump-fire stocks be expected to have any effect on the frequency or casualty rate of future mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Since the question was asked I'll stake a stab at it . I know here at TFL you guys don't like speculation but the question can only be answered with an assumption so lets assume all injury's and deaths were a result of the gun man using the bump/slide fire stock for this exercise .

To the first part , I'd expect we'd all agree banning the bump stock would do nothing to stop or even slowing the frequency of any types of shootings .

When it comes to the second part , would banning the stock effect the casualty rate of future shootings ? Well I'd have to say yes . I don't like admitting that but I believe it to be true . How ever there are specific reasons for that I believe . 1) Now every nut job knows about them and just that alone is going to make it more likely then not they would be used again . 2) The ability to obtain and the ease of use along with #1 above again would make it more likely then not they will be used again in a similar way . 3 ) ( and this ones tricky ) the volume of projectiles that can be lunched in a very short amount of time into a crowd by the average nut job as we know them to date. Will more likely then not cause more casualty's then if that same average nut job did not use one .

How ever and I believe this was brought up earlier in this thread or I read it on another forum . Either way I agree fully with this thought . "If" a better trained or more practiced marksman was using a simple semi auto with a scope laying prone with a bipod . It's my opinion the casualty rate would/could have been at least double if not triple in that same 10min period from the same location . While at the same time the injury number would have likely been a 1/10 the amount maybe half when considering over penetration and one projectile actually hitting more then one person .

So logically speaking I'd say yes banning them or restricting them "now" would reduce casualty's in the future . Practically or reasonably speaking I'd say no banning them will not reduce the casualty rate in future events . It just seems the more these events happen and get reported on . The better the shooters get at racking up the casualty rate .

I hope I wrote that in a way that made sense . When I read it it sounds contradictory but in my head it's not .:o
 
Last edited:
To be completely accurate, I wasn't asking the question so much as pointing out that it was one of the facts that should be thoroughly investigated as part of a systematic approach to solving the problem.
When it comes to the second part , would banning the stock effect the casualty rate of future shootings ? Well I'd have to say yes . I don't like admitting that but I believe it to be true . How ever there are specific reasons for that I believe . 1) Now every nut job knows about them and just that alone is going to make it more likely then not they would be used again . 2) The ability to obtain and the ease of use along with #1 above again would make it more likely then not they will be used again in a similar way . 3 ) ( and this ones tricky ) the volume of projectiles that can be lunched in a very short amount of time into a crowd by the average nut job as we know them to date. Will more likely then not cause more casualty's then if that same average nut job did not use one .
Click to expand...
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. If, for example, it turns out that a large number of the casualties were from the panic and not from gunshot wounds, then the actual number of bullets launched could turn out to be a lot less important than it seems at first blush.

Also, one needs to look at what would be the likely substitute weapon(s) of choice if bump-fire stocks were heavily regulated. In this specific case, for example, the shooter would likely not have had any difficulty, financial or otherwise, purchasing true full-auto weapons. It's unlikely that would have resulted in a better outcome. I agree that's not a likely substitute weapon in the general case, but what about other options that might become more attractive for a person who can't buy bump-fire stocks. Would truck attacks, such as have happened in Europe become more popular? Would the casualties be fewer or greater in that case? If a person had attacked a 22,000 person concert with a large rented truck, what would the expected casualties be?

One good example of this is that some studies suggest that banning handguns might actually increase the firearms fatality rate. At first that seems like it's nonsense but once the topic is studied in detail things become clearer. If handguns become very difficult to obtain, many who choose firearms to commit violent crime will be driven to using long guns. Why does that matter? People shot with a long gun are four times more likely to die compared to those shot with handguns. So even if only half as many people use guns for violent crimes (due to the added difficulty of using a long gun in a violent crime) the actual fatality rate could still increase by a factor of two. So banning handguns to cut down on firearms fatalities could conceivably cause a large increase in the number of firearms fatalities--a completely counter-intuitive result.

I don't know the answers to the questions that I asked, but it would be important to have some reasonable answers before taking action to place restrictions on everyone in the country. Not only because we should be very cautious about restricting freedoms; but also because if we do something in a hurry it could be useless, or it might even make things worse.

There's a reason that gun control tends to make progress only after a mass shooting when emotions are high. It's because when the topic is studied with a fact-based approach, it turns out that what seems simple can actually be very complex and "intuitive reactions" may actually be useless or even counter-productive. What people FEEL needs to be done in the aftermath of a tragedy can actually be exactly the opposite of what the FACTS say should be done.
 
Scuba, They're not coming to your door, Both sides understand the mistake that would be.

But they very well are coming for your guns via shifts in the law.
It's not that they haven't tried in recent years.. they just haven't had the votes.
Don't you remember Obama whining after the failed sandy hook gun grab?

Unfortunately at the state level some states took a hit anyway.
Remember the NY S.A.F.E act.. ya 7 round capacity seems fair don't it?
I think the mag rule down from 10 eventually got overturned but still.

People say these shootings are happening more often.. well we hear about every single one of them and there are over 100ml more people in this country since I was born.. I bet there are more rapes and muggings too but they don't make the news.

More people = more (total) crime.. duh
Think of it as inflation for murder.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
I guess I just don't live my life in fear of the big bad government boogeyman coming to take my guns away, like some of you do.
Click to expand...


While I don't live in fear of a scary fantasy character, I'll subject myself to your metaphor and acknowledge that you've pointed out the difference between you and me --the compromisers vs. the "all-or-nothing" crowd...

A wise man once said,

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

"Suspect everyone who APPROACHES...". Well... I do! I guess some would call that paranoia, I know the liberal anti-gun politicians would.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if it has been beaten to death as did not carefully read every post.

I am not going to "die on the hill" in regards to bump stocks or cranks or things that are designed as range toys to attempt to bridge a gap between semi-auto and full auto. I have always passed those booths at the gun show with the feeling that the ATF would eventually come down on them or they would be otherwise banned. That and I have no desire to simply spit led out like that.

However the wording of this bill is vague and the author should not be considered to be operating in good faith in regards to "reasonable" regulation (whatever that is). Maybe its just a lack of knowledge on the subject that they are attempting to regulate (it would not be the first time).

Want to negotiate? I will trade bump fire stocks and cranks to the NFA list in return for silencers coming off it :) - one law gone for every new one type thing. However this has to be a carefully worded thing and not "anything designed to increase the rate of fire" Its conceivable any magazine past the capacity that came with the gun does this. It is conceivable low recoil ammunition does this. There are too many things that fall under the "anything" category.
 
SonofaScubadiver said:
It just means I don't think accessories that are designed to make it easy to skirt existing regulations should be allowed. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. And I don't think it would lead to a slippery slope scenario either.
Click to expand...

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urged Ryan to allow a vote on a Democratic bill to ban the devices. When asked whether the bill might represent a slippery slope toward other gun restrictions, Pelosi said, “So what? . . . I certainly hope so.”
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/05/pelosi-sure-hope-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-gun-control/

When legislative leaders take the current hysteria as an opportunity to exploit for greater restriction, perhaps it's time to take the idea of a slippery slope more seriously.

SonofaScubadiver said:
I guess I just don't live my life in fear of the big bad government boogeyman coming to take my guns away, like some of you do.
Click to expand...

Given that this has already happened in other english speaking countries, and that Chicago and DC have already shown how effective legal hostility to the right can be, the fear that government will abridge a constitutional right seems to have greater historical basis than a confidence that opponents of the right in congress won't abuse the hysteria, especially when they've already indicated they will.
 
Last edited:
Look at the west coast, guns a being taken away piece by piece.
I live in Washington State.... the most gun loving population I’ve ever encountered and they are facing attempts.
Also, in some cases around the country, it’s not the big scary government, it’s the voters. Once other states start putting guns on the ballots, gun rights will slowly disappear.
 
Look at the west coast, guns a being taken away piece by piece
Click to expand...

Gun rights, and other liberties, are actually being expanded in some states and eroded in others. Mississippi, the state where I reside, has expanded gun rights in the last several years with constitutional carry, and enhanced carry where the list is very short as to where you cannot carry.
Other southern and Midwestern states are doing the same. I work at a university and we had a big raffle at one of our big events giving away a Beretta shotgun, a sig pistol, a yeti cooler, and other stuff.
We also have state laws in our constitution that forbid state enforcement of Federal gun laws running contrary to the states.....kind of like the legal marijuana states.

It really seems we have two distinct America's rifting further apart as time goes by. Hard to speculate where this all ends, but my region has a track record of taking states rights very seriously.
 
It really seems we have two distinct America's rifting further apart as time goes by.
Click to expand...

Agree. Typically, the call for further regulations, bans, etc. comes from those in the west cost (i.e. Feinstien's bill) or from the northeast (Schumer, Cuomo). I have also noticed that anti message has spread beyond those regions. Here in VA, we have a very anti Sen Kaine (see his recent bill), Gov McAuliffe, and some delegates. Also, look what happened in CO.
 
Last edited:
jrinne0430:
Also, look what happened in CO.
Click to expand...

The issue will be one of demographics. Areas with large population and low recreational shooting opportunities will drift toward more and more control. 20 years ago, the bans we saw in Colorado would never have passed. Add a dollop of blue state population to Denver and the front range and suddenly Colorado wants to disarm itself.

It happened quickly here b/c of the population shift. Every other state will go this way eventually as the city populations overtake the rural populations in political power. Example 1: Illinois. Why do policies led by Chicago politics dictate what happens in Springfield?

The only chance for a reversal of this tide would be if some absolutely average citizen (not off-duty LEO, not ex-mil) uses an AR with a 30 round magazine to save a busload of kittens and humpback whales from a gang of terrorists wearing "I love ISIS" Tshirts and evil clown masks. And as ha-ha surreal as that sounds, it might just take something that startling.
 
People, for the most part, vote for their own self-interest or more accurately what they perceive to be their own self interest.

Those who do not personally care about owning a firearm will often support, or at least not oppose, a candidate based on his or her support for the 2nd amendment.

Those who do not personally care about owning an assault rifle (or whatever term you want to use) will normally not oppose a candidate solely because he or she supports regulation.

While you on these boards may know candidate X's stance on gun control its because it is an area you are concerned with that impacts you directly. Think about some other issue that you are not personally invested in (emotionally or financially). Do you know candidates X's stance on this issue? Does it impact your voting?
 
As a resident of Colorado, it would be interesting to know how many residents consider themselves harmed by gun laws passed in 2013, eg universal background checks and magazine capacity limits. Approximately 5.5 million people live in the state. Any estimates?

The point (should be obvious) has ramifications. If 5500 Colorado residents have been negatively affected, that amounts to 0.1% of the population. 55,000 gun owners negatively affected= 1% of the population. As well, exactly what has been negatively affected? When viewed from this perspective, how much political sway do gun rights advocates really carry?

Many members of TFL are staunchly opposed to any erosion of freedoms and/or second ammendment rights, percieved or valid. I fully respect those opinions. As more mass shootings involving semiauto military based weapons happen, is it reasonable for people to fear for their safety and want to see laws protecting their safety? I respect those people too.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
semiauto military based weapons happen, is it reasonable for people to fear for their safety and want to see laws protecting their safety? I respect those people too.
Click to expand...

While I do have great respect for the majority of people I do not need to respect proposed solutions that are "feel-good" solutions that do not actually address the issue of increasing safety.

Think about recent "assault" weapon bans. Many of them excluded, for instance, the mini-14 and mini-30. Had the bad actor been "forced" to use one of these weapons rather than an AR-15 (or whatever) based rifle would it have made any difference? What about one of the bolt action rifles?
 
This is what I'm saying. So much focus on bump stocks is silly. It is just an excuse. It's being used just like the Benghazi video. Chasing that is foolish and actually accomplishes nothing.

He would have used something else.
 
Moving out of a state is an interesting issue. I think the legislators that push such laws in the state are fine with that. The number of jobs isn't that much in the overall job portfolio for the state in most cases.

Second, they don't want the industry. Let's say that your state or city was a center of producing -sexually explicit media - (or some other product) you don't find acceptable. You ban and/or put in tight controls of that product. The evil producer says they will move - Success for you.

NYS banned Foie Gras production, IIRC - who cared?

The end state is not any reasonable gun laws but the removal of everything except a few limiting sporting long arms. There is no acknowledgment of usage for SD or defense against tyranny. The latter is mocked.

I'm not against trading if the trade gets rid of something stupid (bump stocks) if you get something better for a net gain (HPA, eliminating sporting purpose restrictions).
 
Response to Lohman446

The Colorado magazine ban was no doubt a total waste, from the standpoint of any positive influence on crime. But the political benefits may have won legislators more support. Universal background checks evidently have interfered with gun purchases by prohibited persons.
 
Don't let this happen!

Sounds like Feinstein isn't the only one proposing bills. Please read the bill being proposed by Carlos Curbelo (FL) and watch the video to explain it better. In summary, this bill has the potential to outlaw any semi-automatic gun.
I read the forums here after the tragedy at Las Vegas and the community seems split (at least the vocal ones) on bump stocks legality. Please put that aside. This isn't about just bump stocks. The bills says "...any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle...". There is nothing specifically defined at all! I'm sure their intention is bump stocks/echo triggers/etc, but this could easily be interpreted down the road to semi-automatics in general since the standard "rate of fire" is never defined. The video lists out all the representatives who are backing it up. Call/email them all, whether they're in your state or not, asap!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCLoIorYguU
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalbumpstockban.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top