• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

WA Senate passes bump stock ban

It's only a fringe of gun owners impacted and really, why do they matter? It's hard to generate sympathy for people who don't mind when entire classrooms of first grader get shot just so they can enjoy their hobby.

Well, hell, yeah! The Tree of Liberty needs to be periodically watered with the blood of kids going to class or C&W fans at a concert!

Get your priorities straight, ya spineless librul.
 
And gun control supporters wonder why gun owners don't support gun control proposals when any proposed statute is "another step in the right direction."

I'm generally of the "sure, let 'em have this one" mind when it comes to bump-fire stocks, but...that's a good point.

It's hard to argue that it's not a slippery slope when you have people out there pouring grease on the hill.
 
BStrong, what actions or laws do you believe would improve the dreadful record of the USA when it comes to gun deaths and injuries? Do you accept that there are some laws or actions that could be taken up that would improve the horrendous statistic of almost 1 mass shooting a day in the nation? This seems to be the problem for your country - on one side no action is strong enough and on the other any action is too strong.

Well said.

Here’s a tip for gun enthusiasts who see any of this kind of legislation as a gross infringement on their rights: Start being part of the solution. Do you think laws like this are pointless? Great. Propose better ones.

Start demonstrating that you actually want to do something meaningful to curb gun violence in this country, and maybe when you whine about your toys being made less fun, the rest of us will care.
 
I think one of the biggest differences is that many gun control advocates want laws that proactively prevent violence with guns, firearms rights advocates want laws that react to violence with guns.

One keeps criminals from having guns. The other punishes them severely for having guns, with the hope that will have a deterrent effect.

Much like the death penalty, that deterrent effect does not work well.
 
And gun rights advocates mostly seem to think that *no* control is a step in the right direction.
"Mostly", I'd like to see where you got this from. There are/were bills to make it easier to keep guns away from spouse abusers, require permission from any property owner prior to bringing a concealed weapon onto their property as well as other gun control bills. I saw hardly any activity online or at the capitol about them at all.

The counter argument ....
I think it's time to put the gun vs nukes argument to bed and never let it wake up again. It's worse than swimming pools vs guns.

And so it should be for other devices whole principal role is the rapid dispatch of souls to their maker.
If the purpose of slide fire stocks is to kill more rapidly, then why are 99.999% (I estimate) or more of their owners unwilling to use them in this manner?
How did you determine what the purpose of a slide fire stock was?

Ya gotta start *somewhere*, if the nation is to advance into the 20th century (let alone the 21st) along with all other developed--and many less developed--nations.
What other nations have banned slide fire stocks?
 
And gun control supporters wonder why gun owners don't support gun control proposals when any proposed statute is "another step in the right direction."

When doing absolutely nothing to stem the tide is the status quo, naturally any proposals, no matter how toothless, is going to be viewed by gun nuts as the beginning of a slippery slope.
 
"Mostly", I'd like to see where you got this from. There are/were bills to make it easier to keep guns away from spouse abusers, require permission from any property owner prior to bringing a concealed weapon onto their property as well as other gun control bills. I saw hardly any activity online or at the capitol about them at all.


I think it's time to put the gun vs nukes argument to bed and never let it wake up again. It's worse than swimming pools vs guns.


If the purpose of slide fire stocks is to kill more rapidly, then why are 99.999% (I estimate) or more of their owners unwilling to use them in this manner?
How did you determine what the purpose of a slide fire stock was?


What other nations have banned slide fire stocks?

I did write "mostly", not "all". And it would be nice to see measures more broadly restrictive, not limited to, e.g., spouse abusers already convicted. In other ways RDS, get proactive, not reactive.

While the guns 'n nukes comparison is admittedly extreme, it does nonetheless point out the line of thought which suggests itself to thoughtful people when dealing with explicit death-dealing devices. And the swimmng pools bit is not applicable because pools are not explicitly made to kill.

The purpose of a slide fire stock is to increase the rate of fire of a firearm--a device whose principal purpose is to kill. I'm overlooking that other purpose of which is the orgiastic release for those who derive power from the weilding of such a device.

Look. I know the *vast* majority of gun owners are responsible and lawful. But the numbers speak for themselves; too many of your citizens are killing each other with guns simply because guns are frightfully plentiful and so easy to obtain.

Something like the equivalent of fifteen 9/11s worth of American lives are taken by guns every year. Forget international terrorism, war and criminal illegals; you guys are exacting a toll on your own citizens by your own hands that eclipse those other causes of death put together.

It's topsy-turvy, upside-down crazy. You lot fret and wring your hands over the prospect of even just a handful of deaths by foreign terrorists, and spend untold millions of dollars (billions, more likely) in the effort to thwart such. But you blithely shrug off the likes of Sandy Hook as the price of your collective gun fetish.
 
I did write "mostly", not "all". And it would be nice to see measures more broadly restrictive, not limited to, e.g., spouse abusers already convicted. In other ways RDS, get proactive, not reactive.
So where is "mostly" coming from? Is it coming from the polls that allegedly show most NRA members want more gun control?

While the guns 'n nukes comparison is admittedly extreme, it does nonetheless ....
Until I'm allowed to own a nuke, it will be stupid, Period.

The purpose of a slide fire stock is to increase the rate of fire of a firearm--a device whose principal purpose is to kill.
Actually it seems the principle purpose is to send bullets downrange for recreational activities.
 
Yes, it’s a shame we don’t just put into action all of the comprehensive plans from the NRA set to curb the threat of gun violence. Those people have got it all figured out.
 
Well, hell, yeah! The Tree of Liberty needs to be periodically watered with the blood of kids going to class or C&W fans at a concert!

Get your priorities straight, ya spineless librul.

And yet if someone said "the blood of kids at an Arianna grande concert requires that we ban muslims ", suddenly you'd care about civil rights.
 
Knowing a person can bump fire rapidly without a bump fire stock, how is banning them going to reduce their ability to fire faster and kill large amounts of people?

You make a good point. We should ban semi-automatic weapons as well.
 
If the principal purpose of a bump stock is to send bullets downrange at a higher rate during recreational shooting, then why don't we permit the wide ownership of full-auto machine guns to send bullets more rapidly toward the target at the range? It's only about target practice, right? After all, guns don't kill; people do.

Let's for the moment take off the table criminals with malicious intent. If we look only to crimes of passion, where in the heat of the moment an otherwise good person snaps into a murderous rage, a gun ready to hand makes killing so easy. The up close and personal, effort-requiring, messy and potentially dangerous to self knife attack will give more folks pause than will the less intimate, stand-off, near zero effort of pulling a trigger.

Curb access to guns and the homicide rate will fall precipitously. Most of the rest of the world has already figured this out. It's utterly senseless for there to be all kinds of rhetoric about foreign terrorists so as to keep Americans safe--God forbid that a single citizen be slain by a 'Muzzie'--while there is such apathy regarding the annual harvest of many thousands (including children) by your own hands. That's a double standard of ludicrous proportion. "Only Americans reserve the right to kill Americans, and we'll die defending that right!"
 
If the principal purpose of a bump stock is to send bullets downrange at a higher rate during recreational shooting, then why don't we permit the wide ownership of full-auto machine guns to send bullets more rapidly toward the target at the range? It's only about target practice, right? After all, guns don't kill; people do.

Let's for the moment take off the table criminals with malicious intent. If we look only to crimes of passion, where in the heat of the moment an otherwise good person snaps into a murderous rage, a gun ready to hand makes killing so easy. The up close and personal, effort-requiring, messy and potentially dangerous to self knife attack will give more folks pause than will the less intimate, stand-off, near zero effort of pulling a trigger.

Curb access to guns and the homicide rate will fall precipitously. Most of the rest of the world has already figured this out. It's utterly senseless for there to be all kinds of rhetoric about foreign terrorists so as to keep Americans safe--God forbid that a single citizen be slain by a 'Muzzie'--while there is such apathy regarding the annual harvest of many thousands (including children) by your own hands. That's a double standard of ludicrous proportion. "Only Americans reserve the right to kill Americans, and we'll die defending that right!"

It is an affront to the rights of human beings that we can't freely own automatic weapons.
 
What other nations have banned slide fire stocks?

Well while not technically illegal, in NZ you would need to have an E-Class licence to own one and police permission to import them.

So far 2 import licence have been requested and both have been denied.

So, yeah, in the way that counts, they are banned.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom