WA Senate passes bump stock ban

[Ranb]

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.

Are you saying the USA doesn't allow "wide ownership" of machine guns? Last I heard more than 30 states allow civilians to own a machine gun without a license. Why is this not wide enough? Recall my links showing how to obtain a MG in the USA in one of my posts on page 1? Probably not as it would undermine your argument.

Let's for the moment take off the table criminals with malicious intent. ....
Curb access to guns....rhetoric about foreign terrorists so as to keep Americans safe....

I created this thread to discuss slide fire stocks. You're trying to make into something else. Instead of your strawman and begging the question arguments, perhaps you can stay on topic?

 

[Ranb]

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.

How does that import stuff for guns work in NZ? Is there a group of people or a single person who decides if something is suitable for sporting use? The sporting use criteria is used in the USA.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Are you saying the USA doesn't allow "wide ownership" of machine guns? Last I heard more than 30 states allow civilians to own a machine gun without a license. Why is this not wide enough? Recall my links showing how to obtain a MG in the USA in one of my posts on page 1? Probably not as it would undermine your argument.


I created this thread to discuss slide fire stocks. You're trying to make into something else. Instead of your strawman and begging the question, perhaps you can stay on topic?

isnt it the case that fully automatic weapons cost 10's of thousands of dollars to buy?

bump stocks are the poor mans way to easily achieve fully auto rates of fire for hundreds of dollars instead

why shouldn’t they be treated with similar regulations to fully automatic guns?

 

[Ranb]

isnt it the case that fully automatic weapons cost 10's of thousands of dollars to buy?

Yes. The Hughes amendment to the FOPA in 1986 prohibited the registration of new MG's for civilians. Here are some prices; http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/...display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines

bump stocks are the poor mans way to easily achieve fully auto rates of fire for hundreds of dollars instead

We shouldn't discriminate against the poor by banning bump stocks. It's better to control them under the NFA 1934 instead. Back when MG's were much cheaper (pre-1986) and the only additional cost was the $200 tax stamp, MG's were not a problem.

why shouldn’t they be treated with similar regulations to fully automatic guns?

Similar regulations would require a change to federal law. As far as I know, no one, not even the Democrats, are willing to do so. Maybe the NRA could propose a compromise. Put slide fire stocks in the NFA (with a $5 stamp) and remove silencers. That would piss of some people, but make more people happy.

 

[ginjawarrior]

We shouldn't discriminate against the poor by banning bump stocks. It's better to control them under the NFA 1934 instead. Back when MG's were much cheaper (pre-1986) and the only additional cost was the $200 tax stamp, MG's were not a problem.

Similar regulations would require a change to federal law. As far as I know, no one, not even the Democrats, are willing to do so. Maybe the NRA could propose a compromise. Put slide fire stocks in the NFA (with a $5 stamp) and remove silencers. That would piss of some people, but make more people happy.

theres already "discrimination against the poor" where you have to register before you can get fully automatic gun. the mechanism is different but the resulting rate of fire is comparable to bump stocks

im not asking why arent they being treated the same im asking why shouldnt they be treated the same?

changes to federal law is hard but as with cannabis one state at time works too

 

[Ranb]

theres already "discrimination against the poor" where you have to register before you can get fully automatic gun.

Registration is not what makes it discrimination against the poor. Every individual registers poor or rich. It is prohibiting new registration which drives up prices of the fixed supply of MG's that keeps the poor from owning them for the most part.

the mechanism is different but the resulting rate of fire is comparable to bump stocks

The rate of fire is the only thing that makes them comparable. A bump fire AR-15 really is crap compared to an M-16. If Paddock didn't have an 8 acre target to shoot at, he probably would have done little more than make lots of noise.

im not asking why arent they being treated the same im asking why shouldnt they be treated the same?

They could be; allow registration of both and eliminate the tax.

changes to federal law is hard but as with cannabis one state at time works too

I really doubt that the feds would treat gun owners with the same kind of kid gloves they're treating drug users in states that allow recreational pot now.

 

[sadhatter]

makes mass murder a hell of a lot quicker.

Compared to. ...

I'd rather have a reliable weapon than a scary toy if I wanted to harm folks.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Registration is not what makes it discrimination against the poor. Every individual registers poor or rich. It is prohibiting new registration which drives up prices of the fixed supply of MG's that keeps the poor from owning them for the most part.

We shouldn't discriminate against the poor by banning bump stocks. It's better to control them under the NFA 1934 instead. Back when MG's were much cheaper (pre-1986) and the only additional cost was the $200 tax stamp, MG's were not a problem.

OK WA are saying its ok to have bump stocks but you need to register same as machine guns right?

are you complaining about the poor not having automatic firearm rate of rife or not?

The rate of fire is the only thing that makes them comparable. A bump fire AR-15 really is crap compared to an M-16. If Paddock didn't have an 8 acre target to shoot at, he probably would have done little more than make lots of noise.

fully auto m16 isnt supposed to be that accurate. a bump stock is less accurate but im guessing more accurate than just holding the gun loosely

people can already bump fire for free as you said

bump stocks makes it easier and more accurate

paddock did have an 8 acre target and i can imagine many other situations where you have large similar targets even some where you dont have to shoot from long range

They could be; allow registration of both and eliminate the tax.

ahh we shouldnt be banning bump stocks but we should be letting fully automatic guns be manufactured and registered again?

I really doubt that the feds would treat gun owners with the same kind of kid gloves they're treating drug users in states that allow recreational pot now.

im talking the opposite way around. if democrats arent in a position to change federal laws classing bumpstocks under NFA at the moment they might be in a much better position in a few years once a good amount of states have banned them

 

[ginjawarrior]

Compared to. ...

I'd rather have a reliable weapon than a scary toy if I wanted to harm folks.

its all a matter of taste i guess as you wouldnt use them

yet paddock had a dozen of them..

 

[Ranb]

OK WA are saying its ok to have bump stocks but you need to register same as machine guns right?

The bill is not law yet. The bill would add bump stocks to those guns controlled by RCW 9.41.190. That law currently allows SBR's that are registered including new ones. It also allows MG's registered with the feds which only includes those owned by the police military and FFL's in addition to those registered prior to 1986. Since the fed do not register bump stocks, they would be contraband for the little people in WA if the bill becomes law.

are you complaining about the poor not having automatic firearm rate of rife or not?

I'm suggesting that limiting the availability of guns based on price is not a good idea.

fully auto m16 isnt supposed to be that accurate. a bump stock is less accurate but im guessing more accurate than just holding the gun loosely

people can already bump fire for free as you said

While a bump stock rifle can be held firmly to the shoulder, the forend is still held with pressure forward instead of pulling it back. A recipe for poor accuracy in my opinion.

bump stocks makes it easier and more accurate

Yes, but I've yet to see anyone say it is accurate at all. It would be better to say that a bump stock makes a rifle less terribly inaccurate than bump firing without one.

ahh we shouldnt be banning bump stocks but we should be letting fully automatic guns be manufactured and registered again?

A suitable compromise might be to register both, so yes.

 

[ginjawarrior]

The bill is not law yet. The bill would add bump stocks to those guns controlled by RCW 9.41.190. That law currently allows SBR's that are registered including new ones. It also allows MG's registered with the feds which only includes those owned by the police military and FFL's in addition to those registered prior to 1986. Since the fed do not register bump stocks, they would be contraband for the little people in WA if the bill becomes law.

bump stocks arent able to be registered federally then they cant be registered in WA?

so it doesnt matter if your rich or poor in WA you cant register them? it affects both equally?

While a bump stock rifle can be held firmly to the shoulder, the forend is still held with pressure forward instead of pulling it back. A recipe for poor accuracy in my opinion.


Yes, but I've yet to see anyone say it is accurate at all. It would be better to say that a bump stock makes a rifle less terribly inaccurate than bump firing without one.

right as you said paddock and his 8 acre target meant at the distance the lack of accuracy was negated

there are plenty of other situations where you have large groups of people and accuracy is second to rate of fire

A suitable compromise might be to register both, so yes.

a compromise how? the state government is saying that automatic rates of fire shouldnt be let on the streets
how is making more auto guns in anyway towards that goal?

 

[Ranb]

bump stocks arent able to be registered federally then they cant be registered in WA?

so it doesnt matter if your rich or poor in WA you cant register them? it affects both equally?

If the bill passes the poor man's version of full auto will be illegal. The "rich" man's version will still be legal but restricted.

there are plenty of other situations where you have large groups of people and accuracy is second to rate of fire

And over 300 million people in the USA who have not demonstrated any willingness to use a bump stock that way.

a compromise how? the state government is saying that automatic rates of fire shouldnt be let on the streets
how is making more auto guns in anyway towards that goal?

What the state wants and what I want are not always the same thing.

Actually the state (actually just the bill sponsors) doesn't want high rates of fire facilitated by a bump stock. Doing it some other ways is fine, for now. The original bill made any device that increased the rate of fire contraband. I suspect that the bill sponsors wanted to select just one bogeyman, the bump fire stock, to get enough support in committee.

 

[BobTheCoward]

its all a matter of taste i guess as you wouldnt use them

yet paddock had a dozen of them..

As he should have been allowed to.

 

[ginjawarrior]

If the bill passes the poor man's version of full auto will be illegal. The "rich" man's version will still be legal but restricted.

you're right they should just make both sorts illegal

And over 300 million people in the USA who have not demonstrated any willingness to use a bump stock that way.

well now paddock killed himself yeah you're right. for now

im sure that will change soon enough due to copy cats

What the state wants and what I want are not always the same thing.

Actually the state (actually just the bill sponsors) doesn't want high rates of fire facilitated by a bump stock. Doing it some other ways is fine, for now. The original bill made any device that increased the rate of fire contraband. I suspect that the bill sponsors wanted to select just one bogeyman, the bump fire stock, to get enough support in committee.

i suspect they wanted to do something about people being able to get unregulated full auto style weapons

the fact that they are allowing them on license as and when they can be registered federally doesnt look to be the boogeyman hunt you're claiming

if it was that it would be a flat ban

 

[ginjawarrior]

As he should have been allowed to.

should? he was allowed them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

should? he was allowed them.

And that should have happened

 

[PhantomWolf]

How does that import stuff for guns work in NZ? Is there a group of people or a single person who decides if something is suitable for sporting use? The sporting use criteria is used in the USA.

There is an approved firearms list held by the police. To bring in a gun or fire-arm you need to have the appropriate fire-arms category, and a police permit for that gun or firearm. Guns are inspected at customs to make sure that they comply with the permit and that the permit holder does have the correct licence category.

The Categories are:

A) Standard Firearms Licence. Allows non-military sports and hunting style rifles (i.e. not AR-15's, AK-47's, or anything with a pistol grip) and sport type shotguns. It also includes pre-charged pneumatic type airguns and explosive projectile launchers such as gas powered potato launchers.

B) Pistols Endorsement. Given only if a member of a Police approved Pistols and Handgun club. Can only transport Pistols between home and club, only use them at an approved club.

C) Collectors and Prop firearms Endorsement: This includes otherwise restricted weapons. Weapons held under this category must be deactivated and/or plugged.

D) Military Endorsement: Reserved for Military and Police personnel. Automatic weapons are allowable for work purposes only.

E) MSSA Endorsement: Military Style Semi Automatic rifles and semi automatic shotguns. Must show just cause for why these fire-arms are required. Self defence is not considered a justifiable reason for any category of fire-arm ownership.

 

[Ranb]

the fact that they are allowing them on license as and when they can be registered federally doesnt look to be the boogeyman hunt you're claiming

WA might control bump fire stocks like MG's if the bill passes. While a MG can be registered with the feds and possessed in WA, the BATFE does not register bump stocks. This means a bump stock can't be owned by those in WA without a license.

 

[lionking]

And that should have happened

Yeah, we get your position.

Fortunately most nations don't consider the freedom to commit mass murder as worth having.

 

[Lurch]

So bump stocks degrade accuracy of fire. Their advocates decry
--nay, trumpet--this aspect, to the point of denigrating their capability as awfully inefficient as killing instruments. But out the other side of their mouths claim their utility at the firing range. But they're supposed to be so terrible at putting rounds on target. Well, other than the keeping ammo makers in business, the only other attraction must be the thrills at playing soldier, and imagining the mowing down of whole enemy divisions. Like I said; the gun-stroking set gets their rocks off on this kind of thing.

I get sick and tired of the stating of the fact that the great majority don't use their weapons to kill. The counter fact is that more than enough of them do. And we've seen what havoc just one person can wreak when high fire rates are employed; some 500 victims can attest eloquently enough to that.