One big class action lawsuit coming up:

[James331]

Anyone ever use any of this silly crap. Accuracy with a bump stock is a joke, frankly were lucky the shooter didn't have a "hunting rifle" like a heavy Remington 700 chambered in 300 mag, could have been much worse.

 

[weilke]

Anyone ever use any of this silly crap. Accuracy with a bump stock is a joke, frankly were lucky the shooter didn't have a "hunting rifle" like a heavy Remington 700 chambered in 300 mag, could have been much worse.

Not likely. He wasn't aiming for individuals, just spraying into a crowd. The ultimate coward.

 

[1600vw]

His hallway camera was placed in a room service cart and moved outside his door. And even if, as you say, they have cameras everywhere, they don't have someone watching everywhere all the time. They could go back and review historical footage, but it would not help in prevention.

Kinda my point. Security can not watch every monitor, and how many do you suppose watch those monitors? I am sure not only one person. But for some reason this man had super human skills and could look out a window and watch that monitor and not miss nothing. I don't buy that.

Tony

 

[1600vw]

I was up in the mountains of Colorado one day at a buddies place. This truck shows up. The dude gets out holding one of these. He then starts spraying bullets everywhere. He had a bag that caught all the casings. ****ed off some people too. This was almost 20 years ago now. My how time flies.

Tony

 

[1600vw]

This buddy I speak off had to do a little time behind bars " DUI". He asked if I would take his guns while locked up and keep them safe. I said sure. I had no idea what I was getting into. He had around 20 rifles of all different kinds. It took two trips in my truck to haul all his weapons and ammo. This was no easy task.
I told him he could defend himself against anything. He said you think so, I can only fire one at a time, 20 guns do no good unless you have twenty people manning them. Kinda the same here. this man could only fire one at a time. Why all the guns. At best he needed three. One side arm, and two riffles incase one failed. The others would be of no use to him and just extra weight. Why did one man need all these weapons? Only reason, there was more then one person.

Tony

 

[brian]]

Anyone ever use any of this silly crap. Accuracy with a bump stock is a joke, frankly were lucky the shooter didn't have a "hunting rifle" like a heavy Remington 700 chambered in 300 mag, could have been much worse.

I was thinking the same thing.

Ex Army SGT here - trained a lot of people to shoot. In short - this is the type of thing someone would buy that - well - would be the guy I was afraid didn't know which end of the weapon to point down range.


Never heard of an "accessory" like this. I hope the company is sued out of existence - one case I think the attorneys should be very well compensated..

(this is exactly the reason we can't have nice things ..)

 

[bflynn]

Never heard of an "accessory" like this. I hope the company is sued out of existence - one case I think the attorneys should be very well compensated.

I never hear of an accessory like this either. I think they were very clever in what they did and their product was declared to be legal because how it behaves does not change an AR-15 to meet the legal definition of a machinegun.

Not sure why you would hope that the company gets sued. They make a product that is legal to shoot. It's not legal to shoot people with it, but also not legal to shoot people without it. If your argument is that it made the shooter more effective, you might want to consider that you did the same when you trained people to shoot.

Your post strikes me as hoping that Ford gets sued because some idiot in Charlottesville used a Tundra to run into people.

 

[azblackbird]

And before you start, yes I understand suppressive fire and the desire for weapons that at least match what the bad guys have but it is rarely truly needed.

I have several fire extinguishers laying around the house and in my vehicles. So far I've rarely needed them, but they're sure good to have just in case. Same can be said for having several weapons laying around. What's that Boy Scout motto again?

Anyone ever use any of this silly crap. Accuracy with a bump stock is a joke, frankly were lucky the shooter didn't have a "hunting rifle" like a heavy Remington 700 chambered in 300 mag, could have been much worse.

I have a couple. They're basically novelty items and are for entertainment purposes only. Sure it's fun to do a few mag dumps, attract a small crowd (if you're at the range) and to get your inner "Rambo" out of your system. But for practical purposes they're pretty much worthless for any accurate type shooting. As an aside... if there were ever total civil unrest, they would be good for throwing a ton of lead (cover fire) at the enemy if you were ever to find yourself in an attack/advancement or retreat mode.

Security can not watch every monitor, and how many do you suppose watch those monitors? I am sure not only one person. But for some reason this man had super human skills and could look out a window and watch that monitor and not miss nothing. I don't buy that.

You've been watching too much CNN. They're all scratching their heads wondering how could he pull this off without any formal "military" training, or without somebody helping him. It doesn't take much training for a guy to haul a few weapons up to a hotel room, toss out a few wi-fi cameras with an iPad link, and to knock out a couple windows and proceed to cause mayhem. I have no words for the ignorance I've witnessed from the media (and even on here) regarding the amount of guns, ammo, and the "explosives" he had on him. Basically what he had amounts to a fun day in the desert or at the range (sans the Tannerite) for me and my friends whenever we go out and spend a day shooting.

Why did one man need all these weapons?

If you knew anything about guns (especially the AR/AK variants) is they have a propensity to jam especially when using cheap ammo or extended or drum mags. His thoughts were that he wanted to lay down as much fire power in the shortest amount of time possible. Rather than do mag changes, it was much easier for him to just grab another rifle that was ready to fire. I counted (just going by the videos) at least 3 different rifles that he used.

 

[brian]]

I never hear of an accessory like this either. I think they were very clever in what they did and their product was declared to be legal because how it behaves does not change an AR-15 to meet the legal definition of a machinegun.

Not sure why you would hope that the company gets sued. They make a product that is legal to shoot. It's not legal to shoot people with it, but also not legal to shoot people without it. If your argument is that it made the shooter more effective, you might want to consider that you did the same when you trained people to shoot.

Your post strikes me as hoping that Ford gets sued because some idiot in Charlottesville used a Tundra to run into people.

Looks like we won't agree on this one. Then again, I see this as a hack to get around a law and a poor one at that. Clever - it isn't. A ford pickup at least started as a useful product. I normally don't pick winers and losers, but at some point you gotta wonder "why"?

 

[Skyrys62]

Two pressure cooker bombs were used in the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013. The pressure cookers were filled with nails, ball bearings, and black powder.
Haven't seen any of those outlawed or class action suits yet.

Outlaw bump stocks, and I feel safer because killers always obey the law.

If a killer has decided to kill, he will find a way.

Maybe drones!

 

[John221us]

Two pressure cooker bombs were used in the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013. The pressure cookers were filled with nails, ball bearings, and black powder.
Haven't seen any of those outlawed or class action suits yet.

Outlaw bump stocks, and I feel safer because killers always obey the law.

If a killer has decided to kill, he will find a way.

Maybe drones!

@brian] has a good point. Ford pickups and pressure cookers have a legitimate use/purpose. Bump stocks, not so much. Even the NRA is on board with outlawing them. Regardless of the accuracy issue, it did enable this psycho to shoot more bullets randomly into the crowd. He killed close to 60 people and injured close to 500. Those numbers are staggering. Things that are designed to do massive damage should be outlawed. Such is the case with bombs, hand grenades, and other such implements of destruction. Outlawing bump stocks is certainly in line with these other restrictions.

 

[Salty]

Bump stocks will get outlawed because most gun owners have figured out that they are silly anyway.

 

[Gerhardt]

Outlaw bump stocks, and I feel safer because killers always obey the law.

If a killer has decided to kill, he will find a way.

If you're looking to kill one person, a killer will find a way. If you're looking to do something like Paddock this was very easy and effective. I have no problem making bump stocks illegal. With that said, they are a fun way to waste a lot of money quickly. One of those things that's fun to do every now and then but not something someone would use very often at all. I don't own one but I have used one. It takes several mags of practice to get decent control.

As for lawsuits, we all know they're coming.

 

[azblackbird]

If a killer has decided to kill, he will find a way. Maybe drones!

I'm surprised this hasn't happened already. With today's "mega-drones" capable of carrying some decent weight, it wouldn't take much to rig one up with a few claymores (or variants) and hover 100 ft. above a crowd and cause some massive destruction.

Bump stocks will get outlawed because most gun owners have figured out that they are silly anyway.

Outlawing bump stocks is nothing but a cheap bone to throw to the anti-gun crowd. What will happen is a bill will get submitted and then the anti-gunners will load it up with a ton of useless pork and it will take a year or more to debate and make it's way through the process. By that time everybody will have lost interest as there will be another new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and it will eventually die. Same thing happened with the Sandy Hook bill. For all intents and purposes that bill is dead on the federal level. End result is that some states did pass their own legislation that added more restrictions (CA, NY, CT, for example), and other states (AZ, UT, NV, etc.) passed bills that loosened restrictions.

 

[labbadabba]

FWIW...I think that all our congressmen should sign a pact that states there will be NO LEGISLATION, EITHER PROPOSED OR PASSED, within six months (or maybe longer) after the occurrence of any traumatic event in this nation that pertains to that event. Legislation that’s based on emotions instead of logic is doomed to be ill prepared and poorly drafted. And right now everyone is running on emotion.

Not unlike the Patriot Act...

 

[deonb]

Two pressure cooker bombs were used in the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013. The pressure cookers were filled with nails, ball bearings, and black powder.
Haven't seen any of those outlawed or class action suits yet.

The problem with the automobile/pressure cooker legal argument is that gun manufacturers get special protections against lawsuits via the PLCAA that Ford and KitchenAid DON'T get. You don't get to claim you're special, and at the same time claim "but look over there - the other guys are treated differently". Of course it's different - the gun industry lobbied for being treated different and got their wish.

If you want to argue gun manufacturer should be treated like car manufacturers, then you should ALSO argue to give up the PLCAA special protections. Are you prepared to do that?

Hint: If you give up PLCAA you're going to see legislation on guns like there is no tomorrow - only the legislation will come from the bench from judges and lawyer who are arguing about the purpose of every individual gun sold that was used to commit a crime.

 

[denverpilot]

You can't manufacture or sell new ones.

All the ones already officially sold in 1986 are still transferable. A $250 'machine gun stamp' from the ATF and about 9month processing time is required.

They are not cheap. Starts at about 5k for something like a Mac10 and goes up to 50k+and more for a MP5 or collector pieces like WW1 heavy machine guns.

Technically they're a great investment if you want the hassle of signing away your right to not have the location where they're stored, searched at any time, without a warrant. (They have to set an appointment, though.)

Supply and demand... they're appreciating much faster than almost any other investment out there.

Ownership by a trust, deals with some other problems and adds some others... but basically protects against owner death, etc.

 

[weilke]

Two pressure cooker bombs were used in the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013. The pressure cookers were filled with nails, ball bearings, and black powder.
Haven't seen any of those outlawed or class action suits yet.

Yeah, but the pressure cooker wasn't sold with the intent of creating something that circumvents ATF restrictions against the making of a bomb or destructive device.

I am fine with outlawing bump stocks. But only if it comes with abandoning the ATF restriction on the new registration of machine guns. Legal, ATF title III firearms have been all but absent from the use in crimes. There is no logical reason why there should be that kind of restriction. Bump the tax stamp to $1000 and put a minimum age of 28 on the purchaser.

 

[denverpilot]

This buddy I speak off had to do a little time behind bars " DUI". He asked if I would take his guns while locked up and keep them safe. I said sure. I had no idea what I was getting into. He had around 20 rifles of all different kinds. It took two trips in my truck to haul all his weapons and ammo. This was no easy task.
I told him he could defend himself against anything. He said you think so, I can only fire one at a time, 20 guns do no good unless you have twenty people manning them. Kinda the same here. this man could only fire one at a time. Why all the guns. At best he needed three. One side arm, and two riffles incase one failed. The others would be of no use to him and just extra weight. Why did one man need all these weapons? Only reason, there was more then one person.

Asking why a psychotic "needs" anything they think they "need" is an exercise in futility.

 

[Ravioli]

Hint - @deonb is overtly anti-gun. And everyone else who opined are overtly not anti-gun.

Put 'em back in the holsters boys.

 

[deonb]

Legal, ATF title III firearms have been all but absent from the use in crimes.

I assume you mean title II. You probably don't want to make a public argument that highly regulated weapons don't get used in crimes... kind'a the exact opposite of the usual argument.

 

[weilke]

I assume you mean title II. You probably don't want to make a public argument that highly regulated weapons don't get used in crimes... kind'a the exact opposite of the usual argument.

Three posts ago you didn't know that they are legal and now you are lecturing me on the minutiae.

I gladly make that argument. Why not ?

 

[Skyrys62]

Radar detectors were built with pretty much one intent and one intent only. To help circumvent restrictions of speed on public highways.
Of course, they were never intended to be anything but for recreational use... like the bump stocks.
Same premise.

Pretty much everything is a toy or a tool, until it's used as a weapon.

 

[Half Fast]

And before you start, yes I understand suppressive fire and the desire for weapons that at least match what the bad guys have but it is rarely truly needed.

Do you understand that the intended purpose of the 2A is to have the private citizen be as well armed as the common infantryman?

 

[deonb]

Hint - @deonb is overtly anti-gun. And everyone else who opined are overtly not anti-gun.

I'm not overtly anti-gun. Here's my position:

I don't personally need them right now since where I live I can get police on my doorstep faster than I can load a gun. But I would buy one if I lived in a different place, or start travelling into more isolated places. I certainly don't want to have someone take that right away from me unless they also remove the ability for criminals to have guns. But removing the ability of criminals to have guns would mean extremely invasive measures such as door-to-door searches, border controls etc. to the point that I'm not prepared to give up that much personal liberty for that little bit of extra security.

I support hunting - IF you know what you're doing or if you have someone next to you that knows what they're doing with a second gun. Haven't done it myself, and don't really want to, but I've certainly enjoyed the meat.

I support target shooting and other gun hobbies, but again it's not for me personally. I've fired a fully automatic rifle and it was about as exciting to me as hammering a nail into a 2x4. But not everybody has to enjoy the same hobbies, do we? I certainly don't want to have someone come after the ones I DO enjoy.

I wouldn't vote for or against a politician based on a specific gun position (pro or anti) - mostly because they can't change anything - it will be decided in the courts unless there is a constitutional change.

The second amendment will continue to amuse me because I don't know how anybody can interpret that and based on it legislate one type of weapon but not another. This has more to do with grammar, wording and styling rather than philosophy. If someone wants to repeal it and replace it with something that explicitly legalizes just guns (in the way that it is mostly interpreted right now), I'll be fine with that.

But in general the law and interpretation of it fascinates me. Which is why I started this thread.

 

[flyingron]

Automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are just highly regulated.
Despite the reasoning given for submitting the bump stock for, as pointed out, the approval determination is not restricted to that.
I've got a Bump Stock on my AR and another cute crank thing that repeatedly pushes the trigger on my little ruger 22 rifle. Both have similar determinations.

The BumpStock thing is much ado about nothing. It allows you to fire about three shots a second, but it's not imparting any particular accuracy shaking the weapon back and forth like that. In addition, even on the gas recoil AR, it still makes the gun prone to jamming.

As for selling gun stocks when Trump took office: good move. The gun/ammunition companies clean up when people FEAR there are going to be gun restrictions. As soon as the scare goes away, people stop buying/hoarding things.

 

[Half Fast]

I'm not overtly anti-gun. Here's my position:

I don't personally need them right now since where I live I can get police on my doorstep faster than I can load a gun.

I can't. When seconds count, the nearest county deputy may be 30 minutes or more away. Rural area, mostly cattle ranches and orange groves. And the occasional drug deal gone bad with a body dumped in a grove for the coyotes.

But in general the law and interpretation of it fascinates me. Which is why I started this thread.

If you're seriously interested and open minded, spend a while perusing this site: http://www.gunfacts.info/

It's pretty well researched and footnoted, so you can check out the sources.

 

[Half Fast]

The BumpStock thing is much ado about nothing.

Yes, it is.

That's why I'm hopeful the NRA can trade this nothing for something real, like nationwide carry reciprocity.

 

[Norman]

I'm not overtly anti-gun. Here's my position:

I don't personally need them right now since where I live I can get police on my doorstep faster than I can load a gun. But I would buy one if I lived in a different place, or start travelling into more isolated places. I certainly don't want to have someone take that right away from me unless they also remove the ability for criminals to have guns. But removing the ability of criminals to have guns would mean extremely invasive measures such as door-to-door searches, border controls etc. to the point that I'm not prepared to give up that much personal liberty for that little bit of extra security.

I support hunting - IF you know what you're doing or if you have someone next to you that knows what they're doing with a second gun. Haven't done it myself, and don't really want to, but I've certainly enjoyed the meat.

I support target shooting and other gun hobbies, but again it's not for me personally. I've fired a fully automatic rifle and it was about as exciting to me as hammering a nail into a 2x4. But not everybody has to enjoy the same hobbies, do we? I certainly don't want to have someone come after the ones I DO enjoy.

I wouldn't vote for or against a politician based on a specific gun position (pro or anti) - mostly because they can't change anything - it will be decided in the courts unless there is a constitutional change.

The second amendment will continue to amuse me because I don't know how anybody can interpret that and based on it legislate one type of weapon but not another. This has more to do with grammar, wording and styling rather than philosophy. If someone wants to repeal it and replace it with something that explicitly legalizes just guns (in the way that it is mostly interpreted right now), I'll be fine with that.

But in general the law and interpretation of it fascinates me. Which is why I started this thread.

As Colonel Potter from the series MASH would say, "Horse Hockey". The likelihood of a cop being near your home when you have an emergency is wishful thinking. You are your own first line of defense until they arrive. If you have to load your gun you are not prepared to defend yourself and your family. An unloaded gun is useless. Stop fooling yourself. If you are concerned about your children getting hurt from you need to educate them. My dad bought me a .22 rifle when I was about twelve and taught me to accept the responsibility of gun ownership.

 

[ChemGuy]

bump stocks...meh...im fine ether way on legality.

But I do wish these whack jobs that want to basically kill themselves and take a bunch of people with them would start using something other than guns and 'assault rifles'. Just go rent a damn box truck, throw a couple pallets of cement bags in the back and start driving thru crowds or something. then we can all scream to outlaw trucks and cement bags.

 

[MtnMarcus]

I did it as part of my military training, not to pretend I was Rambo or whatever. I see no need for full automatic guns in the civilian world or for work around devices that allow them to fire at a cyclic rate exceeding what is normally achieved with semi auto. The possible exception would be for highly trained police SWA teams. Though I would prefer that the average cop did not have access to them as even in the case of police having them, their main purpose is to inflict mass casualties. Though many cops want them because they think they are cool and it gets their rocks off.

And before you start, yes I understand suppressive fire and the desire for weapons that at least match what the bad guys have but it is rarely truly needed.

]

We're on the same page

 

[SkyDog58]

Yes, it is.

That's why I'm hopeful the NRA can trade this nothing for something real, like nationwide carry reciprocity.

In regards to nationwide reciprocity, are you willing to accept nationwide (federal) standards in regards to the qualifications and training for concealed carry?

 

[DFH65]

Why does anyone NEED a personal airplane? Those things fall out of the sky and rain death on unsuspecting people.

We have been blessed in this country with a stable government. That may not always be the case. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting.

Incrementalism is the enemy here. You don't need a bumpstock to bump fire a gun your finger works just fine with a little practice. Plenty of videos on YouTube showing the technique or as mentioned a rubber band or a piece of wood and dowel. So what do we ban next. Fingers? Semi-automatics (that will get interesting).

Here is the bigger problem and I have said this lots of times and will no doubt a million more...At some point weapons technology is going to evolve (it already has but it isn't widely available yet) beyond the centuries old use of controlled explosions under pressure propelling a solid object to target to something like lasers that will kill and maim much faster much more efficiently and at much greater distance all that any kid will be able to build in his basement and then what?

How about we just stop killing each other.

 

[Half Fast]

In regards to nationwide reciprocity, are you willing to accept nationwide (federal) standards in regards to the qualifications and training for concealed carry?

No, I am not. I'm ready for states to recognize my carry permit just like they do my drivers license, with each state setting its own licensing requirements.

 

[SkyDog58]

No, I am not. I'm ready for states to recognize my carry permit just like they do my drivers license, with each state setting its own licensing requirements.

Except for commercial driver licenses which do have federal standards though the license is issued by the states. Personally, I'd like to see federal standards for regular licenses as well.

As to your reciprocity issue, good luck. I don't think you will see it. Personally, as 36 other states honor NC's concealed carry permit including almost all of the states that I am most likely to visit, I'm not too worried about it. NC by the way recognizes a permit issued by any state.

 

[azblackbird]

Gotta love all the so-called "experts" trying to establish a motive for this shooting. It's so obvious any first year psych student should be able to figure it out. The shooter by all standards was very successful in life except for one thing. He needed to one-up his father. The second I heard that his father was once on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, I instantly knew his motive. He wanted (if he'd have carried out his plan and gotten away) to be the FBI's number #1 most wanted man in America.

 

[brian]]

As Colonel Potter from the series MASH would say, "Horse Hockey". The likelihood of a cop being near your home when you have an emergency is wishful thinking. You are your own first line of defense until they arrive. If you have to load your gun you are not prepared to defend yourself and your family. An unloaded gun is useless. Stop fooling yourself. If you are concerned about your children getting hurt from you need to educate them. My dad bought me a .22 rifle when I was about twelve and taught me to accept the responsibility of gun ownership.

I never got this one. Don't get me wrong, I have guns if needed. But having one loaded an at the ready- well, not for everyone. Most victims know the person. But to imply everyone must be armed and ready? Well, I hope that is not the society we are trying to create.

 

[Cooter]

I never got this one. Don't get me wrong, I have guns if needed. But having one loaded an at the ready- well, not for everyone. Most victims know the person. But to imply everyone must be armed and ready? Well, I hope that is not the society we are trying to create.

I don't think it has anything to do with creating a society. He's simply pointing out the reality of what it means to properly defend a home. Not everyone chooses to prepare themselves for what might happen, and most get along just fine. But some people make it a point to understand that nature of the real threats that exist and respond accordingly.

 

[Half Fast]

Except for commercial driver licenses which do have federal standards though the license is issued by the states. Personally, I'd like to see federal standards for regular licenses as well.

As to your reciprocity issue, good luck. I don't think you will see it. Personally, as 36 other states honor NC's concealed carry permit including almost all of the states that I am most likely to visit, I'm not too worried about it. NC by the way recognizes a permit issued by any state.

My Florida permit is widely accepted, but it changes all the time. Whenever I'm going out of state I check to make sure it's still honored everywhere I'll be.

Reciprocity has been in work for a while. I think it will get there eventually.

 

[brian]]

I don't think it has anything to do with creating a society. He's simply pointing out the reality of what it means to properly defend a home. Not everyone chooses to prepare themselves for what might happen, and most get along just fine. But some people make it a point to understand that nature of the real threats that exist and respond accordingly.

And my wife should wear a dress, and meet me at the door with a scotch. (I kinda like that one.)

Unfortunately, I "get" there are times and places to either not be or (if it comes with the job) be packing. To suggest this is normal, well, I hope it isn't normal. If it is, then I need to know what to buy my 80 year old mom.