[NEWS] South Carolina is attempting to ban Bump-Stocks

[plad101]

You can also use a saw to make a shotgun more concealable. Doesn't make it legal because it's easy.

I'm all for gun rights and private ownership but bump stocks aren't practical and are quite unwieldy. Restricting or banning them only makes sense.

My issue is less with South Carolina and more the fact this is making the ATF rethink their stance.

The Bump-stock should be held under the same regulations automatic weapons are under (the ones allowed in the 1986 ban) and should be subjected to tax stamps, waiting periods due to background checks, then they are accessible to law abiding citizens.

Also sawn off shotguns are SBS (Short Barrels Shotguns) and can be considered AOWs and legally owned. The Serbu Shotgun and the Mossberg Shockwave are such items.

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

The Bump-stock should be held under the same regulations automatic weapons are under (the ones allowed in the 1986 ban) and should be subjected to tax stamps, waiting periods due to background checks, then they are accessible to law abiding citizens.

I'd be completely fine with either or, I'm just weary about bump fire stocks being as openly available considering how unwieldy they are.

Also sawn off shotguns can be considered AOWs and legally owned. The Serbu Shotgun and the Mossberg Shockwave are such items.

They can be, but I'm saying that the easiness of a modification to a firearm shouldn't play in the equation of whether or not the modification should be legal.

[plad101]

I'd be completely fine with either or, I'm just weary about bump fire stocks being as openly available considering how unwieldy they are.


They can be, but I'm saying that the easiness of a modification to a firearm shouldn't play in the equation of whether or not the modification should be legal.

It's less so the Easy = Legal than the argument is this is an item out of civilian hands, that criminals or people who don't loving care can make out of a tube sock and vaseline.

Also, I am more weary of them less so due to being widely available and that somebody killed some dudes with it, and more that they are pretty dangerous cause full auto fire is loving unsafe for people who aren't trained for it.

[SeventhSandwich]

well so I guess what I learned from this thread is that the opposition to gun regulation is so staunch that concessions won't be made to even regulate the gun-equivalent of a dumb novelty toy

looks like we're pretty much screwed when it comes to addressing gun violence by any kind of regulatory fraemwork

[beachbum111111]

well so I guess what I learned from this thread is that the opposition to gun regulation is so staunch that concessions won't be made to even regulate the gun-equivalent of a dumb novelty toy

looks like we're pretty much screwed when it comes to addressing gun violence by any kind of regulatory fraemwork

I mean you are simply delusional if you think banning bump stocks will stop casualties from shooters since they can just make a bump stock themselves easily. The real argument for banning them is that it's a safety hazard to citizens who don't have training.

[Tactical Nuke]

haha yes we're so stubborn in our view that banning $700 doodads will just push people to make 50 cent functioning versions that can't be regulated

[SeventhSandwich]

I mean you are simply delusional if you think banning bump stocks will stop casualties from shooters since they can just make a bump stock themselves easily.

I don't think it would make a particularly large dent, but any marginal benefit you get from regulating them will come at the cost of absolutely nothing to legal gun owners. My original thought was that these things were dumb and useless enough that gun enthusiasts wouldn't feel the need to reflexively defend them at all costs. I was wrong.

Keep in mind that laws can still be effective even if there are loopholes. Prohibition did drop alcohol consumption, and gun registration laws do curb ownership levels, even though we live in a world where you can literally 3D print a single-fire pistol.

I'm not particularly gung-ho when it comes to addressing gun violence through regulation. I think that the root problem here has more to do with poverty and mental illness, which could be better addressed by social programs and expanding healthcare. But the bump stock thing seems like a solved issue - they serve no practical purpose for anyone besides someone looking to fire rapidly into a crowd of people.

[McZealot]

I mean, it's also not particularly difficult for people to cook meth... that doesn't mean it should be legal because "we can't completely stop it".

[Tactical Nuke]

they serve no practical purpose for anyone besides someone looking to fire rapidly into a crowd of people.

and a scope serves no practical purpose for anyone besides someone looking to stalk thots and then kill them

[SeventhSandwich]

and a scope serves no practical purpose for anyone besides someone looking to stalk thots and then kill them

Or just shooting an animal that's far away? I think there are plenty of good uses for scopes outside of crime.

For what it's worth, you make a good point that there are loopholes that will make it so that a dedicated terrorist wouldn't be impacted by this law. But I think that there are plenty of idiot street criminals who have no experience with shop-tools who would be rendered slightly less lethal by a sweeping ban on bump stocks.

Is that not worthwhile considering the fact that this kind of law won't hurt legal gun owners in any meaningful way?

[Tactical Nuke]

idiot street criminals that can't put a pipe through a plank of wood or put a rubber band around the magazine port?

we are talking full-on autismo criminals here, and I'm sorry but I think they're a little smarter than that

[SeventhSandwich]

idiot street criminals that can't put a pipe through a plank of wood or put a rubber band around the magazine port

Does a kludge bumpstock like that work as well as the one used by Stephen Paddock? Genuinely curious.

[Nonnel]

i know i'm a few pages late but this post is hilarious

why make laws against something if it's not against the law?

[Tactical Nuke]

Does a kludge bumpstock like that work as well as the one used by Stephen Paddock? Genuinely curious.

if it fires at the same rate, it works
accuracy doesn't matter because professionally-made bump stocks are just as inaccurate, and even then they're $700, no "idiot criminal" is going to shill out that amount of money to rob the kwik-e-mart

[Ragequit]

you can already bump fire without putting anything on a semiauto gun. you just have to hold it loosely (usually around the hip) and push forward so the recoil works your finger to pull faster than normally firing. if you can perfect this it works just as well as a bump stock would