3 ms·

Okay, but why are these distinctions important to this situation? Are you saying that there's been no legislation proposed that could have reduced the number o

Okay, but why are these distinctions important to this situation? Are you saying that there's been no legislation proposed that could have reduced the number of rounds per second this shooter could fire?

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The distinctions aren't important for the Las Vegas shooting, but they are important for the national discussion around gun laws. I would much rather have laws created through processes that don't abuse language to create fear in the wake of tragedy.
- sidlls 9y ago
  I don't think the language is what's creating fear, here. It's the guns. More specifically the casual, easy availability of guns and the numerous mass murders that happen annually with them. It's not like calling them "just guns" or whatever diminishes the fear. Or maybe it would diminish the fear--and I think that's a bit insidious to be honest. We (collectively) should fear a tool having as its only purpose to seriously injure or kill things, including (especially) people.
Merad 9y ago
I suppose that depends on your POV. There are a variety of currently legal accessories that one can buy to make a semi-automatic rifle fire more rapidly. Primarily these are trigger cranks, bump fire stocks, and binary triggers. You can make these devices illegal, but out of the three trigger cranks are trivially easy to make, and bump firing is fairly easy to do with no accessories. And honestly, with hand tools and a basic amount of mechanical knowledge, it isn't very difficult to (illegally) modify most rifles to fully automatic fire.
unethical_ban 9y ago
Bump stocks or trigger cranks are legal, and perhaps could be made illegal. That would only deter some people, and as 3D printing becomes easier, these things will be producible at home. Banning semi-automatic rifles may help, but if you want chaos and civil strife, you'll get it. There are millions of those rifles in circulation and the people who have them (many, anyway) won't want to give them up. At the least, you'll make criminals of hundreds of thousands of people, and put lots in jail for previously legal and safe ownership of a weapon. But let's say you ban them. Now you'll have a black market with plenty of them anyway. In theory, if we could snap our fingers and have all semi-auto rifles gone, it could help with some of the known mass shootings. But it won't stop it. And here's my last point: It will still go on. Killings and horrors will continue, and those who don't like firearms will continue to demand their confiscation and restriction until they don't exist. And they (the anti-gun left) will do that with or without the repeal of the 2nd amendment.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  Already producible at home by people with fabrication skills. Heck, a wooden or plastic crank could be built with tools most people have in their houses already. Also, 'bump stocks' aren't strictly necessary. Applying forward pressure with your stabilizing hand on a rifle as you fire can cause it to bump.
- heedlessly2 9y ago
  you actually think the Vegas shooter cared about the legality of bump stocks when firing into crowd of over 20,000 people?

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

The distinctions aren't important for the Las Vegas shooting, but they are important for the national discussion around gun laws. I would much rather have laws created through processes that don't abuse language to create fear in the wake of tragedy.

sidlls 9y ago
I don't think the language is what's creating fear, here. It's the guns. More specifically the casual, easy availability of guns and the numerous mass murders that happen annually with them. It's not like calling them "just guns" or whatever diminishes the fear. Or maybe it would diminish the fear--and I think that's a bit insidious to be honest. We (collectively) should fear a tool having as its only purpose to seriously injure or kill things, including (especially) people.

Merad 9y ago

I suppose that depends on your POV. There are a variety of currently legal accessories that one can buy to make a semi-automatic rifle fire more rapidly. Primarily these are trigger cranks, bump fire stocks, and binary triggers. You can make these devices illegal, but out of the three trigger cranks are trivially easy to make, and bump firing is fairly easy to do with no accessories. And honestly, with hand tools and a basic amount of mechanical knowledge, it isn't very difficult to (illegally) modify most rifles to fully automatic fire.

unethical_ban 9y ago

Bump stocks or trigger cranks are legal, and perhaps could be made illegal. That would only deter some people, and as 3D printing becomes easier, these things will be producible at home. Banning semi-automatic rifles may help, but if you want chaos and civil strife, you'll get it. There are millions of those rifles in circulation and the people who have them (many, anyway) won't want to give them up. At the least, you'll make criminals of hundreds of thousands of people, and put lots in jail for previously legal and safe ownership of a weapon. But let's say you ban them. Now you'll have a black market with plenty of them anyway. In theory, if we could snap our fingers and have all semi-auto rifles gone, it could help with some of the known mass shootings. But it won't stop it. And here's my last point: It will still go on. Killings and horrors will continue, and those who don't like firearms will continue to demand their confiscation and restriction until they don't exist. And they (the anti-gun left) will do that with or without the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

cwkoss 9y ago
Already producible at home by people with fabrication skills. Heck, a wooden or plastic crank could be built with tools most people have in their houses already. Also, 'bump stocks' aren't strictly necessary. Applying forward pressure with your stabilizing hand on a rifle as you fire can cause it to bump.
heedlessly2 9y ago
you actually think the Vegas shooter cared about the legality of bump stocks when firing into crowd of over 20,000 people?