ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , gun control issues , gun control laws , stephen paddock , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 19th December 2018, 07:21 AM   #41
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,863
A machine gun, lol
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 07:52 AM   #42
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,348
I see it as both meaningless and meaningful -

Meaningless because bump stocks aren't needed to bump fire a semi-auto and are a gimmick. Nutbags like Paddock can achieve similar body counts without one. Banning them does very little.

Meaningful because Trump has now pissed off a good portion of the base. If the cold dead hands crowd turns on him it could make re-election difficult. This is why democrats should be praising him and shouting it from the rafters, if they can keep down their breakfast, that is.
__________________
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 08:10 AM   #43
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,075
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
He's need to have access to someone who could do the job or the skill to do it himself.

The firearms in question can not be modified into their full-auto cousins by simple part substitution. It takes machine work and knowledge of the original design.
Paddock could have simply bought machine guns. He had a clean record and he had the money and he had the time.

M-16's go for $20-30K.

And you can find instructions for anything if you really want to. Paddock could have modified certain rifles if he wanted to do so.

He seems to have been pretty secretive.

My guess is that he believed the bump-stock advertising hype.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 08:33 AM   #44
Random
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,989
Will bump stocks remain a thing after this? Or will the mechanism pass into obscurity? I am not a gun expert, but it seems to me that the only real market for this were people who wanted to have a full-auto machine-gun, but legally. People who were willing to break the law could just make modifications to the gun itself without the goofy stock.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 08:41 AM   #45
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Paddock could have simply bought machine guns. He had a clean record and he had the money and he had the time.

M-16's go for $20-30K.

And you can find instructions for anything if you really want to. Paddock could have modified certain rifles if he wanted to do so.

He seems to have been pretty secretive.

My guess is that he believed the bump-stock advertising hype.
Seems he had disposable income and no desire to live, so he really could have done much worse damage if he was so inclined.

A belt fed .30 cal machine gun would have been much, much more deadly. They are much steadier during periods of automatic fire and don't need to be reloaded as often. I see an M60 listed for 60k and M1919's for around 25k. Either of these would have been far superior to a bump stocked rifle.

Really, you wouldn't even need to be that wealthy for either of these options. If it's a suicide mission, just cash out whatever assets you have and buy as much on credit. The average homeowner could easily get this kind of cash on hand by taking out a 2nd mortgage or just selling the home.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 08:52 AM   #46
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Will bump stocks remain a thing after this? Or will the mechanism pass into obscurity? I am not a gun expert, but it seems to me that the only real market for this were people who wanted to have a full-auto machine-gun, but legally. People who were willing to break the law could just make modifications to the gun itself without the goofy stock.
I'm guessing not. They will join the other devices that have come out over the years that approximate automatic firing while eluding NFA classification. It's this decade's lightning link. I'd bet that binary triggers will soon join them in the temporary NFA workaround museum. Or "wrist brace" pistols, which are just flimsy shoulder stocks that allow for taxless short barrel rifles.

Real automatic trigger mechanisms are better, so people with the money to buy legally or people willing to break the law will just go for the real thing.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 08:54 AM   #47
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,436
Why spend $20K+ for a machine gun when a cheap bump stock will allow you to kill 58 people and injure more than 400 with the bullets?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 08:56 AM   #48
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Why spend $20K+ for a machine gun when a cheap bump stock will allow you to kill 58 people and injure more than 400 with the bullets?
Well, assuming your goal is to kill a bunch of strangers at a public gathering, buying a machine gun will better maximize your outcomes. Why kill 58 when you could have killed 100?
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 09:17 AM   #49
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,436
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Well, assuming your goal is to kill a bunch of strangers at a public gathering, buying a machine gun will better maximize your outcomes. Why kill 58 when you could have killed 100?
We can't assume that Paddock didn't accomplish his goal. We can't assume that he felt disappointment with his bump stocks while he was shooting.

He did try for bigger destruction by shooting at the oil tanks. For that attempt he used incendiary bullets which he purchased illegally from "a guy".
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 09:34 AM   #50
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,075
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Why spend $20K+ for a machine gun when a cheap bump stock will allow you to kill 58 people and injure more than 400 with the bullets?
Why would a man on a suicide mission care about $20K?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:01 AM   #51
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
For those that are curious, this is what they do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k
Well, the guy in the video did a decent job of dumbing down his gun information to the viewers. He should have put someone in the video who was willing to bump fire without the bump stock to show how that is done.

Banning bump stocks does not prevent bump firing.

Here is a video of bump fire without the bump stock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64

Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
This is one of the very good things I have seen come out of this Administration. Unfortunately it is overwhelmed by everything else that's going on at the moment.
Knowing that bump firing does not require a bump stock, why is this good?

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Why spend $20K+ for a machine gun when a cheap bump stock will allow you to kill 58 people and injure more than 400 with the bullets?
Why waste more than $150 on a bump stock when a person can bump fire without it?

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 19th December 2018 at 10:03 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:08 AM   #52
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
He did try for bigger destruction by shooting at the oil tanks. For that attempt he used incendiary bullets which he purchased illegally from "a guy".
Maybe.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-who-s...dicted-by-feds
Quote:
According to a Justice Department statement, Haig operated an online business selling "high explosive armor piercing incendiary ammunition, armor piercing incendiary ammunition, and armor piercing ammunition."

Justice Department officials said Haig sold his ammunition to customers in Nevada, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming and South Carolina between July 2016 and mid-October 2017. The charge made no mention of his sales to Paddock.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:15 AM   #53
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Will bump stocks remain a thing after this? Or will the mechanism pass into obscurity? I am not a gun expert, but it seems to me that the only real market for this were people who wanted to have a full-auto machine-gun, but legally.
Machine guns are legal in all 50 states.

Bump fire is not full auto, it is merely semi-auto fired more rapidly by using supporting arm pressure on the hand guard to push the rifle forward to pull the trigger; the recoil brings the gun back to allow the trigger to reset. Continuing to hold pressure on the hand guard pulls the trigger again.

Bump fire can not be accomplished without the supporting hand on the rifle. It results in a poor hold on the rifle and very poor accuracy even compared to a real machinegun which can be held much more firmly or on a tripod/bipod.

Quote:
People who were willing to break the law could just make modifications to the gun itself without the goofy stock.
No modifications are required at all. Any semi-auto firearm (even handguns) with enough recoil to reset the trigger can be bump fired.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:17 AM   #54
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
.... Or "wrist brace" pistols, which are just flimsy shoulder stocks that allow for taxless short barrel rifles.
The ATF has already written an opinion on the use of the Sig arm brace as a shoulder stock. It is illegal to use as a stock unless the rifle is registered as an SBR.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:18 AM   #55
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post

Why waste more than $150 on a bump stock when a person can bump fire without it?

Ranb
Seems pretty clear to me that bump firing with a bump stock is much easier to control and more reliable to perform than bump firing without.

The video you linked showed that the shooter had to hold the rifle in a pretty awkward way, with the stock not in his shoulder and no gripping on the pistol grip. Even then, he had a couple of stoppages because it's not a super easy thing to do. Likelihood of actually acquiring or maintaining any kind of sight picture is pretty much zero. I wonder how many hits he could have got on a man sized target even at 50 yards doing that.

Bump stocks are much less awkward. The shooter can shoulder the rifle and grip it normally, just requiring the shooter to keep their trigger finger tight and pushing the rifle forward with the off hand. Still very much inferior to a true automatic rifle, but much better than manual bump firing a normal rifle.

I don't think Paddock would have been able to reliably bump fire the rifle while in a prone position without a bump stock. Bump firing is certainly imprecise with a bump stock, but it's much worse without.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 19th December 2018 at 10:19 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:21 AM   #56
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Seems....
I agree. But tell that to the people who think bump stocks turn a rifle into a real machinegun.

The 6 minute long video of the guy discovering his 1st bump stock also featured some stopages; no telling how he edited the video to show him shooting as well as he did. Even then he was not aiming but pointing the rifle.

Last edited by Ranb; 19th December 2018 at 10:23 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:39 AM   #57
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,040
All told, I have a hard time getting animated about this ban. Bump stocks were stupid and I didn't want one when they were legal, and I still don't want one now.

From a purely legal standpoint, I am a bit split. One part of me sees it as the latest iteration of crappy accessories meant to tiptoe around the NFA while fully violating the spirit of that law. But another part of me is curious because a bump stock does require the shooter to pull the trigger each time with their finger. In a strictly technical sense, it is semi auto, but it does allow fire that approximates a true machine gun.

How bump stocks are illegal while binary triggers are still A-OK is a mystery to me. In addition to being dumb, those things are absurdly dangerous and are much more clearly a NFA violation in my mind.

In the end, I can't find it in myself to really care that much about such lousy products. File this ban under "meh".
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:40 AM   #58
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,620
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I agree. But tell that to the people who think bump stocks turn a rifle into a real machinegun.

The 6 minute long video of the guy discovering his 1st bump stock also featured some stopages; no telling how he edited the video to show him shooting as well as he did. Even then he was not aiming but pointing the rifle.
Then the honest question I have is why is a thing which is designed to pour rapid fire with horrible accuracy into a large area ever a desirable thing to legally own?

Should not such a device be more restricted than purpose-built automatic weapons?
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:44 AM   #59
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Then the honest question I have is why is a thing which is designed to pour rapid fire with horrible accuracy into a large area ever a desirable thing to legally own?
There's no accounting for taste. Some people just like turning money into noise as fast as humanly possible. I imagine that rednecks account for a large portion of this product's customer base.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:48 AM   #60
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Then the honest question I have is why is a thing which is designed to pour rapid fire with horrible accuracy into a large area ever a desirable thing to legally own?
I suppose the same reason most anything else is legal. In the USA (and most other countries) everything is legal unless there is a good reason (or sometimes none at all like bump stocks) to prohibit it.

Quote:
Should not such a device be more restricted than purpose-built automatic weapons?
Why should it? An real machinegun which can actually be held firmly to keep the muzzle somewhat still is much more effective at placing lots of bullets on target than anything that is bump fired.

As far as I know bump fire stocks never made someone commit a crime. I don't know why Paddock thought bump stocks were a good idea instead of aimed firing or machine guns.

Last edited by Ranb; 19th December 2018 at 11:53 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 10:57 AM   #61
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,516
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The ATF has already written an opinion on the use of the Sig arm brace as a shoulder stock. It is illegal to use as a stock unless the rifle is registered as an SBR.
So its legal to own one, but you can't use it as a stock? Genuinely confused.
lobosrul5 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 11:08 AM   #62
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
So its legal to own one, but you can't use it as a stock? Genuinely confused.
You can own one. It was designed and intended for use on the AR-15 pistol; invented by a man who was disabled I heard. But if you use the arm brace as a shoulder stock, then you've made a short barreled rifle which is only legal to possess with a license or tax stamp.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sig+...=1545242536199

The brace attaches to forearm of your trigger hand and stabilizes the handgun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alcRhUF90dI

I've also seen people who merely hold their at-15 pistol up to their shoulder to shoot like a rifle. As far as I know the ATF has not had any opinion on this.

Like a bump stock the arm brace is something I doubt I'll ever own. I registered one of my at-15's as a short barreled rifle, attached a pistol upper receiver to it and a standard collapsible should stock. An SBR is far superior to any AR-15 handgun.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 11:16 AM   #63
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
This is one of the very good things I have seen come out of this Administration. Unfortunately it is overwhelmed by everything else that's going on at the moment.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I don't agree or disagree with the authority to act and constitutionality of actions based merely upon whether I agree or disagree with them. Or at least I try not to.

Trump and his administration says it will do, and sometimes does, things which exceed executive authority and/or are unconstitutional. This is an example. Like it or not, the definition of a machinegun under the relevant law clearly doesn't include bump stocks, meaning Congressional action - legislation - is required to ban them. Not DOJ rulemaking that defines it in a way that contradicts the statute even if it's called a mere clarification.

So him using legally problematic procedures to do something, even if I agree with it in a particular instance, perpetuates the problem of this sort of behaviour, and thus, big-picture, is still a big problem.
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 11:43 AM   #64
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
True.


Not true. Since the action is semi-auto, the trigger must be pulled for each shot. The bump fire stocks that slide freely on the buffer tube (for the ar-15) and are not equipped with a spring requires shooter action to pull the trigger each time.


The recoil of the gun pushes back the action and allows the trigger to reset so that it can fire again when the chamber is reloaded. The action of the person pushing the hand guard forward is what actually presses the trigger.


The shooter pulls the trigger by pushing the hand guard forward which presses the trigger against the trigger finger.
Is the shooter consciously pushing it forward for each shot? Or just maintaining pressure while it fires itself?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 11:57 AM   #65
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Maintaining pressure. Think of the muscles in the supporting arm as acting like a spring. The cartridge the gun fires merely needs to be powerful enough to recoil a short distance so the trigger resets and the hammer rests on the sear notch and is ready to fire again when the supporting arm pushes the rifle forward against the trigger.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:00 PM   #66
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Maintaining pressure. Think of the muscles in the supporting arm as acting like a spring. The cartridge the gun fires merely needs to be powerful enough to recoil a short distance so the trigger resets and the hammer rests on the sear notch and is ready to fire again when the supporting arm pushes the rifle forward against the trigger.
Right, so the user is not pulling the trigger once for each shot. They are simply holding it correctly so that the gun fires itself. Calling it semi automatic is dishonest.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:21 PM   #67
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,075
Board with a dowel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYTA1FtES8

Just a dowel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWuYr0cD4M
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 19th December 2018 at 12:24 PM.
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 01:02 PM   #68
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Right, so the user is not pulling the trigger once for each shot. They are simply holding it correctly so that the gun fires itself. Calling it semi automatic is dishonest.
Since semi-auto is defined as one shot for each pull of the trigger, it is not dishonest to call bump fire semi-auto.

The gun is not firing itself. The shooter has to hold their finger on the trigger and the supporting arm has to push the rifle forward. Without these two coordinating actions bump fire is not possible with or without the bump stock.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 01:22 PM   #69
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Since semi-auto is defined as one shot for each pull of the trigger, it is not dishonest to call bump fire semi-auto.

The gun is not firing itself. The shooter has to hold their finger on the trigger and the supporting arm has to push the rifle forward. Without these two coordinating actions bump fire is not possible with or without the bump stock.
To fire 10 rounds, do you pull the trigger 10 times, or do you hold it until you hear 10 shots then release it?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 02:26 PM   #70
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Pull the trigger ten times. It is pressure from the supporting arm that pulls the trigger.

If you look up the definition of a machine gun, you will see that bump fire is not the same.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 02:40 PM   #71
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Pull the trigger ten times. It is pressure from the supporting arm that pulls the trigger.

If you look up the definition of a machine gun, you will see that bump fire is not the same.
I didn't say it was the same.

And you didn't pull the trigger 10 times if you only moved your finger once. Nor did you make 10 motions of the supporting arm, the gun did that. You can argue all you want that it's not technically automatic. But it effectively is. You have no control over each individual shot, you pull the trigger once and the gun is spraying bullets on its own until you let go.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 03:03 PM   #72
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
....And you didn't pull the trigger 10 times if you only moved your finger once. Nor did you make 10 motions of the supporting arm, the gun did that. You can argue all you want that it's not technically automatic. But it effectively is. You have no control over each individual shot, you pull the trigger once and the gun is spraying bullets on its own until you let go.
Sounds like you've never bumped fired a rifle. The trigger finger is not really moved when firing is initiated. When using a bump stock it is held against the part along side the trigger guard. When used without a bump stock, the finger is held rigidly in front of the trigger. Then the supporting arm pushes the rifle forward to put pressure on the trigger causing the gun to fire.

The supporting arm does rock back and forth for each shot; if it didn't, then bump fire would not occur. Easing pressure on the supporting arm stops the firing cycle.

If it was effectively automatic fire, then I could put the rifle on a bipod to hold it steady then pull the trigger for a mag dump. Or I could sling the rifle in my supporting arm and pull it more firmly against my shoulder. But because it is something completely different I have to use a sloppy hold that leads to degraded accuracy.

I've bump fired and used a machine gun. Calling bump fire effectively automatic fire is silly in my opinion.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 04:08 PM   #73
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,837
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Calling bump fire effectively automatic fire is silly in my opinion.
Definition of effectively
adverb
adverb: effectively

1. in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.

Bump fire
Quote:
...is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire shots in rapid succession, which simulates the rate of fire of a fully automatic firearm...

Bump fire stocks can be placed on a few common weapon platforms such as the AR or AK families. They can achieve rates of fire between 400 to 800 rounds per minute
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 04:42 PM   #74
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,588
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
I see it as both meaningless and meaningful -

Meaningless because bump stocks aren't needed to bump fire a semi-auto and are a gimmick. Nutbags like Paddock can achieve similar body counts without one. Banning them does very little.

Meaningful because Trump has now pissed off a good portion of the base. If the cold dead hands crowd turns on him it could make re-election difficult. This is why democrats should be praising him and shouting it from the rafters, if they can keep down their breakfast, that is.
I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who make such a fetish of bump stocks.

Also you seem to have some fantasy of a progressive option that would appeal to people who were unhappy with (some of) Trump's shenanigans.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 05:25 PM   #75
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,313
Looking at my own post in October:
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Trump is simply saying whatever he needs to say to try to look good.
I got that right. Now is probably a fairly good time for Trump to start TRYING to look presidential. So there's this fairly pointless feel-good distraction piece.
Quote:
There is likely no such legislation in the pipeline at all.
I got that wrong.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 05:33 PM   #76
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,313
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
No extra equipment at all - bump firing.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 05:35 PM   #77
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,040
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Looks like Agolf Twitler finally made a good move. Now let's see his 2nd amendmentards explain this away.

Let me guess, it'll be something like "only marxists buy bumpstocks anyways, lol he just owned the libs so hard!"
Sounds like a typical left wing feel-good policy that will actually accomplish nothing. It's no wonder many here are in approval, it will save approximately zero lives.

Most people had never even heard of a bump stock until this shooting. Why? Because nobody ever uses them. But hey, "something was done".
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 05:55 PM   #78
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,313
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Sounds like a typical left wing feel-good policy that will actually accomplish nothing. It's no wonder many here are in approval, it will save approximately zero lives.

Most people had never even heard of a bump stock until this shooting. Why? Because nobody ever uses them. But hey, "something was done".
It has absolutely zero to do with gun-safety or control or whatever. It is a "Hey lookit the good thing I did you wanted! Don't look at that Fake Russian Collusion stuff!" coming from Trump personally. If it wasn't this, he would have picked something else equally "feel-good-lefty".
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 06:37 PM   #79
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Definition of effectively
1. in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
So are you saying the desired result is only to increase rate of fire? Putting bullets on target is not required? This is a rifle we're talking about, not a mere noise maker.

You left out this part from your link.
Quote:
All these techniques greatly degrade the accuracy of the firearm. The techniques trade accurate, aimed fire for an increase in the firearm's rate of fire.
Bump fire is bump fire fire, not automatic fire.

Last edited by Ranb; 19th December 2018 at 06:42 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 06:44 PM   #80
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,508
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Looking at my own post in October:I got that right. Now is probably a fairly good time for Trump to start TRYING to look presidential. So there's this fairly pointless feel-good distraction piece.I got that wrong.
You did not get that wrong. No legislation was passed. A regulation was changed. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel...pgtype=Article

This is how civil rights are infringed without due process.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.