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.

The thing about bump stocks that people are not realizing is that they are simply a mod that allows you to do the same thing you could already do with many semi-automatic weapons, emulate automatic fire.

There is a slightly more dangerous method which can be done simply by not bracing the stock and using the pistol grip. Many semi-auto weapons also can easily be 'broken' to cause slamfires, where the rounds are auto-fired as soon as they are loaded due to a stuck firing pin.

I highly believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But this latest tragedy has finally done it. There is simply no need to have that many semi-automatic rifles in one's possession. We need to re-enact the AWB from 1994, we need to set a cap limit on how many semi-automatic rifles a person can own, and we need to clearly state that ANY modification that can simulate automatic fire is illegal.

We have fostered a state where the mentally ill are no longer being treated or taken care of, except by drugs. Since it is clear that we have multitudes of people separated from becoming the next mass murderer simply based on whether to not they took their meds (or were diagnosed correctly to begin with), we need to make a stricter environment that prevents these people from getting the weapons to make it easier.

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.

Hmmmm...but it's pretty exclusively a right wing position that ANY regulation on firearms is inconceivable, and Republicans exclusively are responsible for those modifications, like bump stocks, something he used to make at least one gun rapid fire, being legal. They also allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, allowing him to legally purchase up to 40 easily converted military style rifles. In fact, they were about to make silencers much easier to get, which would have increased the mayhem by giving him longer to shoot before people realized what was happening, but held back because of the massacre.

....soooooo...you do have to defend the availability of automatic guns, because you vote for and support the people that keep them easily available and want to make it easier....assuming you aren't really Dimitri from Moscow.

Not much known about him yet, not political, not religious, just a rich retired gambler according to his family.

I would guess Nevada law. I don't think they know yet what guns he had (legal or illegal) and any modification or add ons he used to fire so rapidly.

I found this interesting (terrifying) in how easily a semi auto gun can be made basically into an auto. https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/

I certainly see the artistic sensibility there. It's cool and unique, but in the end it left me feeling disturbed. Modifications to public infrastructure should be strictly discouraged.

Yes, I understand that a handful of 3" lag bolts to hold up your shelf and table are unlikely to affect the structural integrity of the bridge, but bridges and supports span the gamut from earthquake-ready to collapsing under their own poor construction.

This guy's modifications are unlikely to cause a serious problem, but what about the next guy who decides to make more serious alterations? The potential risk for serious cost and injury aren't worth the coolness factor.

I guess I'm lucky enough to live in a country where less than one-fifth of the electricity is generated by coal. So I don't much think of coal vs. nuclear in terms of the cancer risks as such. I'll never be close enough to the fuel of a nuclear reactor. And I'll likely be exposed to more toxicity from traffic than coal plants.

Also, our CANDU reactors can be powered by decommissioned bombs.

"CANDU reactors are unique in that they use natural, unenriched uranium as a fuel; with some modification, they can also use enriched uranium, mixed fuels, and even thorium. Thus, CANDU reactors are ideally suited for using material from decommissioned nuclear weapons as fuel, helping to reduce global arsenals."

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

There is still spent fuel to be managed, which isn't trivial, but I'm okay with at taking a few bombs out of circulation in the mean time.

According to the JH website, it's not only wrong, the study could not show what you claim by it's design.
Excuse me...let me use their exact words....

Food Hypersensitivities and Their Link to RA

In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals.

Diet elimination therapy is a method of determining food hypersensitivities with patients. Elimination diets avoid a specific food or group of foods such as milk, meat or processed foods that are known to be prime allergy suspects. These foods are eliminated from the diet for a specific period of time. Foods are then gradually reintroduced one at a time, to determine whether any of them causes a reaction.

Panush and colleagues, demonstrated temporary improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA with diet elimination and modification in a controlled study where the symptoms associated with food sensitivities were studied.(ref 5) During this study when the patient was fasting or on a severely restricted diet, the patients symptoms improved significantly. However, when the patient had milk reintroduced into the diet, episodes of pain, swollen and tender joints and stiffness were experienced. Similarly, Kjeldsen-Kragh and colleagues(ref 6) noted that fasting may be effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, however most patients relapsed as new foods were reintroduced into the diet. Pain and discomfort frequently returned once a patient reverted to a normal diet. These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.

So, no vegan has arthritis, but the entire medical community just missed that fact? Not true.
One more total misrepresentation of the science by your guru....the ACTUAL science, from Hopkins, says....
"In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals."
So only in hyper sensitive patients that have allergies to dairy, meats, or processed foods has this appeared to be somewhat effective temporarily, not long term, not for everyone....and it seems only anecdotally at this point (they imply that there have not been double blind, placebo controlled studies yet).
Fish oils are FAR more effective, but, you know, that's an animal product, so McDougal (as he is want to do at every turn) dismisses it in favor of false claims about miraculous veganism and misrepresentation of the science.

I downvoted your comment for using misrepresentational propaganda and unverified anecdote masquerading as scientific data from a known liar with undeniable bias to support your unsupportable position(s), that veganism cures everything including cancer.

**EDIT**
I'm finding other sources that say that sterile "terminator seeds" are a patented technique, but that Monsanto has promised not to use it. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

So it appears that my info below is wrong. I will try to talk with my family and get the full story. That being said, I'll leave my original comment and the followup below unaltered.
*********


My firsthand knowledge of this stuff was from more than 10 years ago, and also when I was pretty young (early 20's). So I did some web searching to try to get updated since your question is a very interesting one:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

According to that, Monsanto is the company behind "Roundup Ready", and their corn (and other crops in the line) do use sterile "terminator seeds". It also mentions that farmers "must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto" each year.

I was never in the decision-making structure of my family farm, but I did remember that we couldn't just buy the Roundup Ready seed *once* and then hold a small amount back as seed for the next year and continue to get the benefits.

I'm not 100% sure exactly how the modification for sterility works -- I don't know if the plant will sprout if you plant the sterile seeds and just fail to produce any ears / fruit, or if it just won't germinate at all. I do remember that we had to be quite careful to fully clean out the corn grown from the GM seeds from our storage bins, and better yet to store our non-GM corn to be used for future seed in entirely different bins. That was done to make sure that we didn't end up planting any of the sterile stuff.

I'm sure that the seed dealers that sell the GM stuff really push farmers to buy and plant it every year, as hinted to in that link. But you certainly don't *have* to. On the other hand, if you go back to non-GM seed for a year or two or more, you can't use a strong herbicide like Roundup if you have an unexpected outbreak of weeds or other pest plants -- the Roundup would kill the non-GM crop along with everything else.

Basically, I don't specifically begrudge companies like Monsanto for their practices concerning these GM crops. The "terminator seeds" are controversial, but don't seem like a big deal to me. If you could buy GM seeds once and then just hold back some of your harvest for next season's seed, they'd only get your money once AND we'd probably lose the original strains. So I see that as kinda win-win, especially if you don't 100% buy into their sales department urging you to use GM seed every single year.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Monsanto -- some of their other practices are pretty shady, particularly political lobbying. But from the perspective of my family farm, the GM corn that we use was/is a real beneficial thing. Significantly less pesticide/herbicide use over time, and it allows for expanded low/no till farming. Before herbicides, tilling was one of the only ways to kill off pest plants. But, it also makes the fields lose some moisture and nutrients. Expanded farming and ubiquitous tilling was largely the cause of the "dust bowl" dirty 30's. Anyway, I'd say that a lot of good has come out of modernized techniques and technology like GM crops.

*ban
citi Loss Mitigation Loan Modification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az9Es50m2Hw

I like the setup. A lot of people would place the jets at the rear, like in a Lear Jet or A10 Warthog, or on the wings like most commerical liners. Where the jets would push the plane. Obviously this airframe was initally designed to be pulled through the air, so having everything up front probably balances thrust and makes the plane mostly react like the prop version. Definitely simplifies the engineering required for the modification.

"Genetically engineered" in the same way he was genetically engineered to be an idiot.... by selective breeding, which is not artificial genetic modification as he intends to imply.
Having just come home from visiting Iceland, and after visiting farms there, and also farms in New Zealand, I can say unequivocally that most farms in those countries are what you think of, peaceful sheep in large bucolic fields enjoying their lives and not being injured during once a year sheering of wool that's otherwise a problem for them to shed naturally. I won't speak to Australia, since I've never been there...maybe all sheerers are dicks there.
No farmer would accept the behavior shown, you can't sell wool from a dead or bloody sheep. He needs to get his theory straight...are they only interested in maximum profit, or do they abuse their animals without concern, because it can't be both.
If he really wants to do good for the animals of the world, he should refrain from breeding himself. His kids will probably wear nothing but fur when they leave home just to spite him.

Absolutely....but you asked ME what I thought, not them. ;-)
I gave my opinion, which is often not the normal or accepted opinion.
There is a single, original text for each religion, the sects offer different interpretations and translations, but use the same originals. If you read the original bible in Latin (or whatever language the testaments etc. were first written in), you can interpret for yourself the exact 'words of god', not someone else's interpretation/translation.

As I see it, those you describe were/are religious, but if they stray from the text in any way, they are not (insert a specific sect of Christianity here). It's like the difference between a pick up basketball game and a professional one, they're both technically players of basketball, but only one is a "basketball player"
I have at least met many who SAID they thought that....but none that had the nerve to try it....but if your text says that's the prescribed treatment for an 'infidel' and you ignore it, you aren't following your religion, so aren't an (insert sect of any religion here).

I disagree that it's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, (EDIT: It's a "very few true Scotsman" argument) it's a strict reading of the rules of religions and allowing no personal interpretation or modification, as they all REQUIRE. Just because very few people (but not zero) actually practice religion as their texts prescribe doesn't change the rules for religion, it just makes them non devout...and I say, to me, that makes them not part of their chosen religion, but fans of it, since they don't actually practice it.
I do agree, that opinion is based on a far more strict interpretation of religious rules than most people's, but I can't understand how you can ignore a single letter of the "word of god" if you believe, so I can only believe that most people don't actually fully believe, so aren't devout, so (IMO) aren't "Christians" (or "Muslims", or "Jewish", etc).

EDIT: I certainly hope my environment as a child was the exception, I would hate to think that everyone went through that as a kid. It was a daily struggle living as a vocal atheist in Texas in the 70's.

Dropping caltrops is crazy. Doesn't look like it slowed the police car down any, though...

About the smoke I agree that it was probably just the engine dying in some way but it could have been some sort of modification to the exhaust system that would introduce oil or water into it in order to have it create the cloud. I mean, they did have caltrops on hand...

A big part of why this went on for so long though was that the cops clearly don't have training like they do in North America to deal with this kind of thing. A big empty country road would make this person fodder for any of the cars they have here and cops would immediately run a PIT maneuver and end the chase instantly.