WA Senate passes bump stock ban

[PhantomWolf]

Because just one more law will turn the tide.

Just like how penalty enhancements for crack cocaine stopped the crack epidemic dead in it's tracks.

Actually one law likely would turn it, but it's never going to happen. Handguns are the tools of choice of at least 50% of murderers in the US. A similar percentage of people that commit Suicide likewise use a handgun.

Restricting Handguns would make a difference.

Now yes, a number of both groups would find another way to do the deed if they didn't have access to a handgun, but it would certainly reduce the number of crimes of passion or spur of the moment killings.

It would also mean that criminals had less opportunity to gain access to them. But the fact is that if you reduced the deaths by just 10% by restricting the use and ownership of handguns in the same way other 1st world countries have, that'd be 3,000 people a year saved!

 

[William Parcher]

Actually one law likely would turn it, but it's never going to happen.

It would probably require more than one law.

It's illegal for you to possess a (hand)gun.
It's legal for us to search you and/or your environment (home, car, work, etc.) for guns at any time and this does not require a warrant.

 

[Lurch]

Because just one more law will turn the tide.

Just like how penalty enhancements for crack cocaine stopped the crack epidemic dead in it's tracks.

The penalty for use can't do what the reduction of availability will.

Of course, merely taking away what people want is not the solution; witness Prohibition. Rather, adopt a more progressive, sensible solution. For drugs, look to Portugal for an example. For guns, look to most any developed nation. When politicians *and* citizenry agree to work together, a good outcome can obtain.

 

[BStrong]

Actually one law likely would turn it, but it's never going to happen. Handguns are the tools of choice of at least 50% of murderers in the US. A similar percentage of people that commit Suicide likewise use a handgun.

Restricting Handguns would make a difference.

Now yes, a number of both groups would find another way to do the deed if they didn't have access to a handgun, but it would certainly reduce the number of crimes of passion or spur of the moment killings.

It would also mean that criminals had less opportunity to gain access to them. But the fact is that if you reduced the deaths by just 10% by restricting the use and ownership of handguns in the same way other 1st world countries have, that'd be 3,000 people a year saved!

And we also have another number to consider.

The Violence Policy cCenter has published a study on defensive gun uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It is intended to debunk other surveys (Lott et al) stating that defensive gun uses may be as high as 2.5 million a year.

VPC published their study spinning the myth right up front that the only successful DGU results in the death of the criminal and a finding of justifiable homicide. I'll give VPC credit for at least addressing what is not something that exactly works in their favor. VPC includes the NCVS section classification titled"SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIORS, BY TYPE OF CRIME"

In the three year study sample from the BJS numbers reported by the VPC, firearms were used as a defensive weapon in 175,700 violent crime incidents and 109,000 property crime incidents.

Over a period of three years, using the lowest numbers from the government themselves, from a study from the VPC (which for sure isn't a 2nd Amendment advocacy group) we get to 260 defensive gun uses per day. Below is a link to the VPC study

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

 

[BStrong]

It would probably require more than one law.

It's illegal for you to possess a (hand)gun.
It's legal for us to search you and/or your environment (home, car, work, etc.) for guns at any time and this does not require a warrant.

If you have nothing to hide why shouldn't that be the law across the board for any type of criminal statute?

Is there really any reason not to allow law enforcement officers to do anything they like at anytime to anyone?

 

[William Parcher]

we get to 260 defensive gun uses per day.

Because this country is chock full of insane criminals who cannot easily be stopped by innocent civilians unless a gun is pointed at them.

 

[William Parcher]

If you have nothing to hide why shouldn't that be the law across the board for any type of criminal statute?

Is there really any reason not to allow law enforcement officers to do anything they like at anytime to anyone?

I don't know. But I wouldn't really want cops coming into my house and tearing it apart looking for guns that aren't even there.

 

[Ranb]

....looking for guns that aren't even there.

Says you.

 

[Elagabalus]

Because just one more law will turn the tide.

Just like how penalty enhancements for crack cocaine stopped the crack epidemic dead in it's tracks.

Dude, you live in a State where a Bump-fire stock is illegal. Any of the last terrorists/gunman in Cali use a Bump-stock?


QED

 

[BStrong]

Dude, you live in a State where a Bump-fire stock is illegal. Any of the last terrorists/gunman in Cali use a Bump-stock?

QED

It's worse than that.

In California machineguns can only be possessed under very strict regulation and outside of being a licensed manufacturer or dealer under both federal and state law it's wholly illegal and you can't possess "high-capacity" magazines. Video from Oakland over the weekend:

 

[thaiboxerken]

How many people have lost their lives because they didn't have a bump-stock installed on their gun?

 

[Ranb]

I'm going to say none have died for lack of a bump stock. I can also say the same for the opposite. As far as I know, no one has died because a person owned a bump stock. In Paddock's case he could have probably bump fired without the slide fire stock and killed/wounded just as many in the eight acre field of targets he fired upon that night.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, great. No harm done by this ban.

 

[BStrong]

Ok, great. No harm done by this ban.

And no benefit for public safety.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, great. No harm done by this ban.

Unnecessary laws are harmful in and of themselves.

 

[PhantomWolf]

In Paddock's case he could have probably bump fired without the slide fire stock and killed/wounded just as many in the eight acre field of targets he fired upon that night.

Nice weasel word. In my understanding, Bump firing without a stock is a lot harder than with one. As such it's also very possible that he might not have been about to kill/wound just as many in the eight acre field of targets he fired upon that night had he had to rely on manually trying to bump the guns.

 

[Ranb]

Nice weasel word.

Not really. You want me to deal in absolutes?

In my understanding, Bump firing without a stock is a lot harder than with one.

In my experience it is not a lot harder, probably be more accurate with a slide fire stock though.

As such it's also very possible that he might not have been about to kill/wound just as many in the eight acre field of targets he fired upon that night had he had to rely on manually trying to bump the guns.

I suspect he could have killed/injured as many using aimed semi-auto fire at the rate of two rounds per second without bump firing. I've no idea why he only spent less than a minute with the trigger pulled that night.

Until we know more about why he spent so little of the time he had actually engaging the targets below and which rifles he used, speculating is of little use here.

 

[BStrong]

Nice weasel word. In my understanding, Bump firing without a stock is a lot harder than with one. As such it's also very possible that he might not have been about to kill/wound just as many in the eight acre field of targets he fired upon that night had he had to rely on manually trying to bump the guns.

It's very easy to bumpfire a rifle:

 

[Elagabalus]

Bump fire stock still seems easier.




Goto:3:05

 

[thaiboxerken]

Unnecessary laws are harmful in and of themselves.

How so?