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.

all of us?
no one?
mighty big on the presumption bubba.

let me guess,YOU run a business?
is your boss nickname captain whiny cunt?

because every owner/boss i run into that complains about having to pay this or this or that are whiny little bitches.i am not suggesting that some of their gripes are not valid,because they are,but when it comes to paying their employees?

yeah..whiny,little bitchy cunts.

they complain endlessly how they can't find good help.how the turnover is brutal and it costs them soooo much to train,gear and clothe etc etc.

and almost every single one of them pays under 10 bucks an hr.

my son owns his own business.pays 100 bucks a job to start and if you work out? raises it to 150 bucks a job,usually does three jobs a day.

he has only had to replace one helper in five years.

compare that to his cousin,who pays a whopping 9 bucks an hour,and he goes through helpers like a semi-automatic.

guess which one is the whiny little bitch?

to be fair,the cousin does own two houses,five cars and all the newest gadgets.while my son is working on his first home.

but he ain't no bitch,and his workers adore him.

which one you billybussey?

ahh../slaps back
no need to answer!
we already know.

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

I like that little extra shell-ring thingy he's got on the shotgun you can see him using to reload right before the slow motion bit. I've never seen one of those before and at first I thought he was pushing a mis-fired shell back into the chamber (or whatever you call it in a shotgun, the breach?), which asking about was the reason I started this comment until I watched it a third time.

I've never fired a semi-automatic shotgun (or any kind of shotgun since I was 15 or so) but I do recall a 12-gauge having a not insignificant amount of recoil, and I've heard from a SWAT guy that semi-automatic shotguns are frowned upon because people in panic-firefight-mode tend to pull the trigger too fast and end up shooting the ceiling. He seems to have no problem though.

All weapons can be used for assaulting another person. Do you mean semi-automatic rifles similar to AR15s? If so, the NZ example shows you don't need that. They are not the problem.

Many sports require high capacity magazines. In fact the overwhelming amount of bullets fired from firearms everyday is for sport. Why restrict these sports for security theatre? I write security theatre because a magazine change takes less than a second and you're shooting again. It's not going to change the outcome of an active (criminal) shooter who simply pockets multiple magazines. Plus once again the successful story of NZ who passed sensible laws - and didn't restrict semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, yet have crime statistics that are enviable even from an Australian perspective.

I have my doubts as to whether any new laws would change anything in the USA. I don't actually think it's a good solution for them. And constitutionally speaking, more laws are never a good solution (since they restrict liberty).

I think the USA needs a long term societal change, involving fixing many aspects of their society to gradually make things better.

I don't want to ban guns, but I would like to see the following:

1. License gun owners like Germany licenses drivers. Six months of classes, followed by multiple exams.

2. Mandatory psychological examination for any person wanting to purchase a gun.

3. Require that a minimum of $1,000,000 death or dismemberment insurance be carried at all times.

4. Automatic 25-year sentence for ANY crime involving a gun.

Limit guns to:

- Shotguns: Single-barrel breach-load.

- Pistols: 6-shot rotating cylinder; hammer-cocked firing mechanism. No semi-automatic pistols.

- Rifles: Single-shot, bolt-action.

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

You are correct, they do not break down suicide by method, so some portion of that 20k could be guns. There are also 34 mass shooting deaths this year and 726 people shot by police. Then again they didn't add together some of the other items, like all vehicular deaths.

In any case, I was not fudging numbers, I picked the most obvious option and listed it.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that the deaths from guns don't count, it is that the level of attention paid to them is far and above that paid to other forms of death. It's the same thing with people getting bit by sharks. The total number is incredibly low compared to other deaths or injuries from being in the ocean, but whenever it happens, you will see nothing but that in the headlines. That is what I was trying to say. It sucks that people have died from guns, but if we are going to sensationalize those deaths over others, it is nothing more than an agenda to demonize them.

I am all for implementing more restrictions on guns or other weapons, especially in ways that will make it more difficult for mentally ill people to get their hands on them and also methods that will help police identify guns that have been used in crimes. In many cases, the problem is not totally with the restrictions, but with how lax the enforcement is of the ones that are in place. We need to look at this as well. But the video is not about that, it is about making guns the villain. It is the same thing with semi automatic rifles, people with an agenda will call them things like "Military weaponry", "Assault Rifles", and "Automatic Machine Guns". They use buzz words to make them seem more than they are and yet you have clueless people like Joe Biden who says things like "get a shotgun", not realizing that a shotgun can easily wound and kill people faster than a semi auto rifle.

As far as the 'helpful' gun statistics, I would consider them to be subjective based on the situation. I found this site: http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/, which might or might not be accurate. I wouldn't rely on it, because I don't know what they use for verification.

In any case, as I stated before, I don't mind regulations. I would mind bans and it is clear that many of the more hardcore anti gun people want that to be the end game.

You have heard of constitutional amendments, haven't you? In fact, one of the quotes I produced from former Mayor, Ed Koch, even discussed that fact.

Please explain which FACTS that I have repeated are incorrect. So far all you have been able to do is curse me, accuse me of being retarded, and literally ignored anything I have said so that you can continue with your vitriol. I don't even know you and you seem to have a major issue with me.

The reason why I put up the list of deaths is because you don't see knee jerk actions in the news over those methods of dying, typically. You do see it over gun deaths because they are sensationalized far beyond the level of anything else, part of which is the reason I think we are having more mass shootings. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, get your 15 minutes of fame, then shooting people is a guaranteed method.

I do believe we need additional controls on weapons; one that I think would help greatly is ACS (http://www.ammocoding.com/). I am also not an NRA member and don't agree with a lot of the methods they use. I DO believe wholeheartedly in my right to own semi automatic handguns and rifles. If you still have a problem with me over that, I can't help it. But if you continue to be confrontational, then I don't think we have anything further to talk about.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

Only quibble I have is that newscasters simply do not understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.

Yes, I did know that.

We have those same equal restrictions here in Australia.

The differences I am talking about is the availability in NZ of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, whilst Australia effectively banned them (only an incredibly small subset of the population can get them for work reasons).

The "fit and proper person" clause is in each Australian states' legislation as well. Except it is much stricter here. They can also deem you not fit and proper for having the wrong friends, being related to a criminal, or for just about any reason they want really.

@jimnms - so what? Sexual assault has increased? What's your point? Why would restricting access to weapons stop sexual assault? How often are they committed with guns?

If all the stats you have lifted from one site actually related to guns, you'd be advancing the discussion. Sadly, they don't.

You might expect the rate of mass shootings to decline once semi-automatics became more restricted. Maybe for suicides with guns and homicides with guns. This is what has happened. No one expected rape to go away.

I think you're just being silly, you silly.

Yes, but they restricted the types of firearms for all of those groups in nonsensical ways.

Example: IPSC shooters can only own up to a .38 caliber handgun. Anything larger is not allowed - even though larger calibers are what most IPSC shooters world-wide use (it has to do its scoring system). But if you do Steel Target Shooting or Western Re-enactments you can have up to a .45 caliber.

If you buy a .22 rimfire rifle it is classed as a Category A rifle, but if you buy a .17 rimfire it jumps into the more dangerous Category B category (because they forgot to specify other rimfire calibers in the legislation).

They made .22lr semi-automatic rifles Category C and D firearms (very restricted dangerous firearms), effectively banning them - even though a .22lr high velocity round only has as much energy as a fast ball in cricket.

You can have a .308 pump action rifle with a 30 round magazine, but you can't own over a 10 round magazine for your much, much less powerful handgun.

Interestingly, firearm owners in Australia are the most law abiding group of people in the nation. Everyone with a serious criminal offence is automatically barred from owning firearms and other criminal offences are considered on a case by case basis (e.g. you did have an assault charge from when you were 18 years old - you'll be waiting 5 to 10 years before they let you own a firearm - if ever). If you commit a serious offence while owning a firearm, expect a knock on the door to take them away.