There's a very big difference between a pistol round and a high velocity rifle round. The rifle could easily penetrate a several typical suburban houses and still kill someone down the block in another house. A pistol (or shotgun or sub machine gun) isn't nearly as likely to do that and is just as effective for killing folks that need killing at close range.

I assume the officer is trained on it and knows that, but if folks start shooting, things tend to go wrong.

Bit of a spoiler for those of us only two lieutenants/sub-bosses into the game...
According to this, after we off his brothers and sister, Father survives and nukes it all anyway. Bit of a let down.

Bought FC5 on a Steam sale last week. The DLC makes it a bit easy. Starting out with free machine guns, free Barrett rifles and a free pseudo Augusta/Bell Jet Ranger gunship is a bit like cheating.

The tragedy of that "charge" in World War I wasn't that the Newfoundland soldiers died in epic combat, man-on-man, but that they got hung up on their own barbed wire and were simply machine-gunned to death by the Germans as they struggled to get through. Those that did manage to stagger into No Man's Land were picked off because they were the only soldiers crossing the open gap between the lines.

In a war marked by human wastage, the charge of the Newfoundland Regiment on the Somme was an appalling low point.

I think there are 3 real issues with 3D printed guns that are genuinely new dangers worth being concerned about.

1. They completely avoid background checks.

2. They're untraceable to a gun seller.

3. They could lead to relatively inexpensive and unregistered fully automatic weapons.

It does seem that plastic guns are not worth worrying about because they're so terrible. But, metal shaping CNC Mills aren't that expensive and can do a decent job of printing guns at home.

I can't really buy the argument that no one will be interested in printing out machine guns because of the existing criminal penalties. If someone is planning a murder or bank robbery or terrorist attack, they're already expecting a life sentence if they're caught. And, even if they plan to get away with it, a gun that can do the job really well, has no history to trace, and can be destroyed or disposed of right after could just make the crime easier to get away with.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Sorry, automatics, machine guns, are already illegal without a Federal Firearms License, so not available to the general public Pat. I think you know this and are playing dumb to sound reasonable. The recent school shooting was with a semi auto, as are most, nearly all, mass shootings.
That's not just semantics.
Saying bump stocks and other rapid fire devices aren't the same as full auto modifications (which the law does)...that's semantics.

Aahahahaha! This is hilarious. Not only does the guy not destroy his rifle, he commits a felony by creating a short-barreled rifle. They are regulated like machine guns and there is a lot of paperwork done to create and sell one. I'm glad this idiot has one less functional gun but he really shouldn't be giving anyone advice on guns, ever.

hell yeah bob!
best pres since REGAN.
totally! we need to FIX north korea - show them who's boss.
Do you like chuck Norris?
I do! I fuckin love chuck norris. he'd roundhouse kick kim Jong into next year - haha the chinese new year!
I fuckin love machine guns. are you cool with machine guns! long live the NRA.
Do you want to watch chuck norris movies with me?
I like him and arnold and stallone too. we could play CALL of DUTY on XBOX together.
I have a bunker that I built in my back yard. I need a buddy!
It has a bunkbed (in the bunker! arg arg!). let's hang out.
I have several machine guns and prescription drugs.

Does it bother any one else to hear politicians and news reporters incorrectly calling things "machine guns," "assault rifles" and "clips?" It makes them look ignorant, just like watching Fox News report on anything scientific.

Machine guns are primarily support weapons for sustained automatic fire. They usually have an active or passive cooling mechanism to prevent the barrel from overheating during sustained fire.

An assault rifle is a rifle which has a select fire mechanism that allows it to switch from semi-auto to burst or full automatic fire. An assault rifle can overheat if fired fully automatic (or even semi-automatic) without letting it cool, which can lead to failure of the weapon (if you can even hold on to it when it's that hot).

A magazine is simply something that holds bullets. Guns can have internal magazines or external detachable magazines. A clip is a mechanism used to load bullets into a magazine.

Corrections :

Lack of mechanical parts is not the reason a bump stock was deemed legal.
(Furthermore, they highlighted 'no automatically functional parts', while they said lack of mechanical parts.)

External attachment also does not disqualify an item from being considered part of a weapon.
For example, it's illegal to attach a foregrip to a pistol (because there are piles of insane gun laws already, making esoteric combinations of parts worth federal prison and 100'000 dollar fines.)

A machinegun is a gun that fires automatically.
Automatically is a mode where more than one shot comes out with 1 trigger pull.
Rate of fire does not define a machine gun.

A bump stock required the operator to trigger the weapon for every shot, which is why it was deemed not an automatic.

-scheherazade

Hmm. I disagree with your description text, @ChaosEngine.

I've never shot something fully-automatic. I have shot an AR-15 semi-automatic, and I know where you're coming from when you say that hitting a target on full auto would be difficult, especially for a relatively untrained person (recoil control).

However, I think Vox and others are basically correct when they say that this modification (bump stock) contributed to the Las Vegas shooting being so deadly. Specifically in that sort of scenario.

The dude wasn't picking targets and sniping, going for accuracy. He picked an ideal shooting location (elevation with clear LOS) and sprayed into a crowd. He'd have been more accurate by keeping the weapon on semi-auto and actually aiming carefully, and certainly would have gotten more hits per bullet fired, but on the other hand the rate of fire difference would have so different that people would have had more time between shots to scramble for cover, etc.

He had position, an abundance of bullets, and lots and lots of time. Given those givens, having a rate of fire approximately equal to fully-automatic means a much higher body count than if he'd have been limited to traditional semi-auto.


The NRA is being more cunning than I figured they would, and has come out in favor of banning bump stocks. I agree with you that they see that mostly as a pointless concession, and a distraction from additional / better stuff that needs to happen.

But it isn't a pointless concession. If banning fully-automatic firearms in 1986 (minus the ones grandfathered in) was the right thing to do, extending that to include bump stocks is also the right thing to do. For the same reasons.

@newtboy is correct to note that technically, a rifle with a bump stock isn't a fully-automatic "machine gun". The user's finger still pulls the trigger once for every bullet that comes out -- semi-automatic.

However, I think that the "spirit" of the distinction is that with semi-automatic firing you have to think and consciously decide to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet, whereas with fully-automatic you consciously decide when you want to start and stop shooting. By the letter of the law, weapons with bump stocks are semi-automatic. But by that definition of the "spirit" of the law, they are fully-automatic. Pull the grip/barrel forward to start shooting, pull it back to stop.

It's a pretty frequent occurrence for technology to outpace the law. The definitions of semi vs fully automatic include the word "trigger" because they didn't anticipate this kind of conversion that makes the trigger sort of one step removed from the conscious decision to fire. The law would have similar hiccups if a weapon was developed that used a button or switch to fire, rather than a traditional trigger.

When those hiccups happen, the solution is to clarify the intent of the law and expand or clarify definitions as necessary. I'm pleasantly surprised that many legislators seem willing to do that with bump stocks, and that the NRA seems like it won't stand in the way. Mission accomplished, situation resolved? No. But a step in the right direction.

Ok, gotta point out that it is not illegal to own an automatic weapon in the US. Any owned before the ban are grandfathered. I also think certain types of firearm dealer/manufacturer license holders can buy, sell, and make them under certain circumstances. Plenty of people legally own full auto weapons in America, you can rent them at certain ranges (remember the little girl that shot the instructor in the head), and there was even a TV show about a guy who's business was making them that ended just recently.
I think it is illegal to sell them to non license holders in America...but that's a far cry from saying no one can legally have them.

They missed the NRA's contention (that the courts agreed with) about why bump stocks weren't machine guns too. The argument was that since only one bullet comes out of the gun for every trigger pull, it's technically not a machine gun, it's still a semi auto.

Thoughts:

1) There has been a ban on sales of new, fully-automatic firearms ("machine guns") since 1986. That leaves some loopholes (can still buy them if they were manufactured before then, but that demand plus scarcity makes them expensive, etc.) but in general, there isn't a whole lot of uproar over that 20-year-old ban.

2) These bump-fire stocks don't technically convert a firearm into fully-automatic; the trigger is still being pulled 1 time for each bullet that comes out (semi-automatic).

3) However, they easily allow for rates of fire (bullets per minute/second) comparable to fully-automatic weapons. So, I think an unbiased and reasonable person would say that while a firearm equipped with one of these does not violate the letter of the ban on fully-automatic firearms, it does quite reasonably violate the spirit of that ban.

4) Doing anything to correct that discrepancy will require updated laws. Updating the law requires a legislature that generally supports the update and a president that agrees, or a legislature that overwhelmingly supports the update and can override a presidential veto.

5) None of that exists at the moment in the US. So, it is (perhaps coldly) logical to say that these bump-fire stocks will not be banned as an extension to the 1986 ban on full-auto firearms, at least not in the short term.

6) However, before quietly accepting that, it is worth noting that political fallout amongst those individuals in the legislature that refuse to consider updating the law is a very real possibility. Plenty of people, even on the right, even plenty of gun nuts, say that they are in favor of some degree of "common sense" gun control. Pointing out that bump-fire stocks essentially circumvent the already in-place ban on fully-automatic firearms seems like a good way to test that professed adherence to common sense.

7) Get that word out there, and pretty importantly, try to do it in a way that is as respectful towards the average "gun nut" as possible. Their minds can be swayed. Hunters, sportsmen, and even people that have guns for self defense can be persuaded with reason -- they can still do their thing even without bump-fire stocks, just like they can do their thing without fully-automatic firearms. Congresscritters probably can't be convinced, because they've already been bribed"persuaded" with campaign donations, NRA lobbyists, etc.


So, don't preach to the choir. Try to convince the people that do actually own guns. The good news? You've got "common sense" on your side.

Sorry, but crawling out for help is not "brave".

Bravery is putting yourself at risk to help other people. Putting yourself through pain in order to survive is mere survival instinct. Most times, bravery is the opposite of survival instinct. People who run up to burning cars to help the occupants out are brave. Soldiers who storm machine gun nests are brave.

That word has been so watered down by the contemporary American need for "heroes" it's becoming meaningless.

The first third or so of Far Cry 3 was brilliant. Far Cry 4 was probably technically a better game, but it was nearly exactly the same game and I'd had enough of it by then.

Maybe if they change it up enough it will be good. What made the first part of Far Cry 3 so good was how novel and threatening the environment was. You'd be making your way carefully through the jungle, paranoid about tigers and stuff and then you'd hear a car coming and you'd scamper off into a ditch to hide until it passed. It was awesome. But after a bit, you figured it out and had lots of guns and bullets and you didn't have to care anymore. You just picked an icon on your map and walked directly towards it, machine-gunning anything that got in your way.

If they could somehow distill the essence of playing Far Cry 3 for the first two or three hours into the whole of Far Cry 5, they might have something. I don't think it's possible though.