6 ms·

While you are technically correct, NEARLY automatic weapons (binary triggers) are legal in most states, here's a random video for the curious: https://youtu.be/

While you are technically correct, NEARLY automatic weapons (binary triggers) are legal in most states, here's a random video for the curious: https://youtu.be/rOkAZkk__5g https://youtu.be/rOkAZkk__5g And fully automatic (but illegal) weapons are easily available in the form of Glock auto sears https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkp8p8/glock-switches-auto-sears https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkp8p8/glock-switches-auto-s... my buddy in Baltimore heard on of these being shot in his Baltimore neighborhood a few weeks back.

robertlagrant 4y ago
I think this is a stretch. Binary triggers are tricky to use, and aren't nearly automatic. They're slightly more automatic than semi-automatic, but much, much less usable. In terms of illegal weapons, yes. There are illegal fully automatic weapons in the US without taking your example into account. I'm talking about what's legal.
- dahart 4y ago
  This sub-thread started on the Vegas massacre, where the shooter used a bump stock. It was legal at the time and pretty damn close to automatic.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    That's fair, although I still don't think it's that close. An actually automatic weapon is the sort of thing militaries use, and witout minimising the horror that a bump stock can cause, I think they do far more. Back to my original point, it's still wrong to say this will happen while we have automatic weapons. Why perpetuate a lie?
    - dahart 4y ago
      Several states and the Federal government found bump stock close enough to automatic that they are no longer legal. I’d guess the quote from the article is referring to the same point of view, a thin line from the perspective of the non gun-owning layman.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        It's a thin line because of terrible reporting. This is destructive because until we get basic facts clear the pro-gun people are just not going to take people who say such things seriously. No more "assault-style" weapons or "fully semi-automatic" guns. Just tell the truth and break down the semantic defenses.
        dahart 4y ago
        Naw, it’s a thin line because the whole point of bump stocks is to make a semi-automatic fire like an automatic. Even the NRA says so, this has nothing to do with the quality of reporting. ‘In the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, twelve bump stocks were found at the scene.[7] The National Rifle Association stated on October 5, 2017, "Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations"’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > the whole point of bump stocks is to make a semi-automatic fire like an automatic Then the lawyer should say "we should ban bump stocks" instead of perpetuating the lie that automatic weapons are prevalent in the US.
        dahart 4y ago
        They did say that, and now we have fewer automatic-like weapons in the US. Hey I have no problem with your suggestion, I like the alternative wording you offered! I’m just pointing out that the quote was mostly reasonable at the time, I agree it’s slightly inaccurate as a shortcut summary of the situation, but I don’t think it’s as egregious as you claim. I’ll add that one quote out of context from one article does not establish a pattern. You jumped to complaining about the pattern without evidence of a pattern.
        4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago

I think this is a stretch. Binary triggers are tricky to use, and aren't nearly automatic. They're slightly more automatic than semi-automatic, but much, much less usable. In terms of illegal weapons, yes. There are illegal fully automatic weapons in the US without taking your example into account. I'm talking about what's legal.

dahart 4y ago
This sub-thread started on the Vegas massacre, where the shooter used a bump stock. It was legal at the time and pretty damn close to automatic.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  That's fair, although I still don't think it's that close. An actually automatic weapon is the sort of thing militaries use, and witout minimising the horror that a bump stock can cause, I think they do far more. Back to my original point, it's still wrong to say this will happen while we have automatic weapons. Why perpetuate a lie?
  - dahart 4y ago
    Several states and the Federal government found bump stock close enough to automatic that they are no longer legal. I’d guess the quote from the article is referring to the same point of view, a thin line from the perspective of the non gun-owning layman.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      It's a thin line because of terrible reporting. This is destructive because until we get basic facts clear the pro-gun people are just not going to take people who say such things seriously. No more "assault-style" weapons or "fully semi-automatic" guns. Just tell the truth and break down the semantic defenses.
      - dahart 4y ago
        Naw, it’s a thin line because the whole point of bump stocks is to make a semi-automatic fire like an automatic. Even the NRA says so, this has nothing to do with the quality of reporting. ‘In the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, twelve bump stocks were found at the scene.[7] The National Rifle Association stated on October 5, 2017, "Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations"’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        > the whole point of bump stocks is to make a semi-automatic fire like an automatic Then the lawyer should say "we should ban bump stocks" instead of perpetuating the lie that automatic weapons are prevalent in the US.
        dahart 4y ago
        They did say that, and now we have fewer automatic-like weapons in the US. Hey I have no problem with your suggestion, I like the alternative wording you offered! I’m just pointing out that the quote was mostly reasonable at the time, I agree it’s slightly inaccurate as a shortcut summary of the situation, but I don’t think it’s as egregious as you claim. I’ll add that one quote out of context from one article does not establish a pattern. You jumped to complaining about the pattern without evidence of a pattern.
        4y ago