We've been talking about bump firing for a number of years

[Kaleva]

"Tue May 1, 2012, 09:40 AM
Bump firing a modern semi-auto w/high capacity magazines"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117236419

[samir.g]

1. This just shows that it is time to get rid of these weapons altogether.

[yagotme]

2. What do you refer to?

The stocks, or the weapons themselves?

[samir.g]

5. The weapons

The stocks are fairly meaningless if one can bump-fire without them.

[yagotme]

6. Interesting observation.

While many people are calling for banning the "bump stock", you have realized the truth. Banning the accessory will have little to no effect upon misuse of them. Another way will be found, legally or illegally. Now, to the original idea: Semi auto weapons have been around since the 1890's, and MILLIONS and MILLIONS have been made, here, and overseas, some of those ending up here in the US. Banning them in their entirety, with such a small percentage of them being used in crime, will be a very, very steep uphill battle. The NRA and other pro-gun organizations will call out the troops, and a lot of fence sitters will fall to their side if we call for an outright "Ban 'em all, round them up." approach. Even banning other "accessories", external designs and modifications were difficult to ban, and the heart of the system, the semi-auto machinery, wasn't changed in the '94 Act. Just how the rifle "looked". Now, I realize that most here will say "Something must be done," and I agree, but as of right now, nothing that has been proposed would have made much, if any difference in LV. This was a guy that was "off the radar", and was able to pass current background checks. I have heard that it's been proposed to notify the Gov't when X amount of semi-auto's have been purchased, but until someone comes up with a "too many" number, and the perp actually does something illegal with them, it's just another paper chase, and an excuse to expand the Gov't's reach. What exactly is the Gov't supposed to do when a person reaches "X"? Ban further sales to that individual? And if said person has already passed "X", what then, confiscation? Just wondering.

[tortoise1956]

3. My personal opinion

is that bump stocks should be illegal. The purpose of the 1986 law was to prevent new automatic weapons from being brought into private ownership. Bump stocks circumvent that law, and should therefore be declared illegal.

I would also put high-capacity magazines on the chopping block. There is no earthly reason that requires the use of a 90-round (or larger) capacity magazine, and banning their use would not infringe on the second amendment. As a matter of fact, I would go even farther and base the magazine size on the original design, which would put it at either 20 or 30 rounds max. That seems like a good rule of thumb for most weapons, as a matter of fact.

[gejohnston]

4. Two worthwhile uses for 90+ round mags

they keep those C-notes from burning holes in pockets and provides jam clearing practice. There is a reason why cops and the military don't use them. As for bump stocks, I always associated them with the type of guy that puts racing stripes and a spoiler on a Toyota Yaris.
Should they be illegal? Only if the ban is narrowly written and we get, say, SHARE.

[yagotme]

7. If they're going to ban the stocks,

it does indeed need to be narrowly and concisely written. They pass too many laws with meandering language you could drive a semi through. Comes from non-gun people writing legislation about firearms without consulting with someone that has said knowledge.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. A semi? Seriously? Only a semi??

I've read some that could pass major examples of architecture through. There some ideas here on DU that a small item like say A380 or the QE II could navigate through.

Without a concisely written law, how can the courts use it?
Writing a criteria is not as simple as most people think.

[yagotme]

9. Thinking of an item most people could readily identify with.