It's a start.

[ZR]

Massachusetts on Friday became the first state to impose a ban on bump stocks since the deadly shooting at a Las Vegas music festival.
An appropriations bill that included a prohibition on the devices, which are designed to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the firing action of fully automatic weapons, was signed into law Friday by Republican Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito. The Democratic-controlled Legislature gave final approval to the measure on Thursday.
Polito is Massachusetts' acting chief executive with Republican Gov. Charlie Baker on vacation outside of the state. Baker had previously expressed support for banning the devices.

Baker and Polito "support the Second Amendment to the Constitution and Massachusetts' strict gun laws," said Brendan Moss, a spokesman for the administration.
Authorities investigating the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history said the gunman, Stephen Paddock, used a bump stock when he opened fire Oct. 1 from his Las Vegas hotel room on concert-goers below. Fifty-eight people were killed and hundreds more wounded.
The Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, had sent an alert to its members earlier Friday urging them to contact Baker's office and demand that he use his line-item veto power to separate out the bump stock ban from the rest of the $85 million budget bill, which was needed so the state's comptroller can close out the books on the previous fiscal year.
"The provision passed by the legislature ... allows for excessive punishment including life imprisonment, with a minimum sentence of 18 months, for the mere possession of these accessories," said the group.
The legislation, which would also ban most trigger cranks, provides no "pathway to legal ownership," for the devices and no ability for current owners to sell them, said the gun owners group. The group previously criticized lawmakers for taking a vote before even holding a public hearing.
Democratic state Rep. David Linsky, one of the first in Massachusetts to call for outlawing the devices, said it would make the state safer while respecting the rights of gun owners.
"I am proud of my colleagues in the Legislature for continuing Massachusetts' reputation as having among the safest and most effective gun laws in the nation," Linsky said in a statement.
An organization founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was grievously wounded in a 2011 shooting in Arizona, praised Massachusetts lawmakers for banning bump stocks and urged other states to follow suit.
California law already prohibited the sale of bump stocks.

[ZR]

Twelve of the rifles the gunman in the Las Vegas mass shooting (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/us/las-vegas-shooting.html) had in his 32nd-floor hotel room were each modified with a “bump stock,” an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire faster.

The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/las-vegas-shooting.html) that it would support tighter restrictions on such devices.

A “bump stock” replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires.

<video preload="auto" x-webkit-airplay="allow" loop="loop" id="video_1509749818477" style="display: block; height: 405px; width: 720px; position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px;"></video>

By The New York Times


The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.

The bump stock is not banned (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html) under federal law even though it allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm. (It is illegal for private citizens to possess fully automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986; ownership of earlier models requires a federal license.)

“The classification of these devices depends on whether they mechanically alter the function of the firearm to fire fully automatic,” Jill Snyder, a special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said at a news conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday. “Bump-fire stocks, while simulating automatic fire, do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically, making them legal under current federal law.”


http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/59d66f1d351ccfd9008b8ac6-480/bump-stock-device.jpg

[5.4MarkVIII]

Waist of time. “Bump firing” is a technique, yes you can buy a stock that will do it. But it can be done with a belt loop,or simple string or even just practice.

Like this guy https://youtu.be/7RdAhTxyP64

Will keep the liberals happy for now untill the next shooting.

[ZR]

I didn't say solution, it's a start.

[Zexhuffer]

I didn't say solution, it's a start.

A start to what?

[ZR]

Personally, not at all for gun control but do feel guns that are or devices that simulate, military weapons have no place in the hands of Joe Blow.

[hsousa88]

The day I’m legally allowed to own a handgun at home I’m buying one. That is all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[94stang87]

^ u can go get you lisence

[5.4MarkVIII]

Personally, not at all for gun control but do feel guns that are or devices that simulate, military weapons have no place in the hands of Joe Blow.

I don’t dissagree with this persay but I’d put it in the same category as owning a high hp car. Not something every joe blow needs

But people enjoy them as a hobby. In a free country you should be free to enjoy your hobbies as long as your not hurting anyone else.

[hsousa88]

^ u can go get you lisence

Can’t legally own a handgun for home protection.

[ZR]

I don’t dissagree with this persay but I’d put it in the same category as owning a high hp car. Not something every joe blow needs

But people enjoy them as a hobby. In a free country you should be free to enjoy your hobbies as long as your not hurting anyone else.


We are sorta on the same page, just don't agree on where the lines are is all. We are allowed to use small explosives to celebrate (firecrackers), does that mean a small nuke is ok but only if we promise to use it properly? Same goes for if it was ok to lic an x Indy car but promise to never use it to it's potential / intended use? JMO but to me, an auto / auto simulated weapon is the same thing.

[RedSN]

In the US the purpose of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was primarily for citizenry to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, not for self protection of your home/property.
The 2nd amendment is outdated, irrelevant, and has nothing to do with owning guns.

[94stang87]

Can’t legally own a handgun for home protection.

You can own one though , just don't tell them it's for home protection

[92redragtop]

In the US the purpose of the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) was primarily for citizenry to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, not for self protection of your home/property. This may seem silly, but ask the Jews of 1930's/1940's Germany. The first thing the Nazi's did was confiscate their weapons, then shit got real. Sadam got tyrannical, killing his own people, Pol Pot, and many others.

When Yamamoto was considering invasion of the US west coast one of his greatest hesitancies was, in his words "A gun behind every blade of grass" of average Americans.

I personally don't own a gun or have my FAC (yet) but can see the point.

Doesn't the second amendment relate only to the right of a regulated (or maybe well regulated) militia to bear arms versus general population? I think the right for individuals to bear arms is a marketing thing from the 1970's.

[92redragtop]

I don’t dissagree with this persay but I’d put it in the same category as owning a high hp car. Not something every joe blow needs

But people enjoy them as a hobby. In a free country you should be free to enjoy your hobbies as long as your not hurting anyone else.

The intended purpose/use of a car (any HP) versus a gun is very different - transportation versus....?

[5.4MarkVIII]

The intended purpose/use of a car (any HP) versus a gun is very different - transportation versus....?

Not really. A big performance car bult run the track as a hobby, enthusiasts want the baddest car has to sound good look good and more importantly go as fast as possible at the track,
As a means of transportation you don’t need anything more than 150hp. And thousands of people are killed every years becasie of cars going fast and people being irresponsible.

Gun hobby is the exact same. Has to look good sound good. Some care about accuracy (like a well tuned auto cross car)
Some care about big boom large caliber, (like an 8 second 1/4 mile monster) some care about number of round per min. (Like a Lamborghini, useless as transportation)

In the end we live in a free country and should not have our rights taken away because someone else did something wrong.

Remember the out cry on these car forums when the government cracked down on the racing laws. And everything in the laws was already illegal. Now imagine the government saying it’s gonna ban super chargers because no average joe needs more than a certain amount of hp.

Exactly the same as what’s going on in the us. Only difference is more people actually die in care related accidents than by guns.

[RedSN]

.....what you mean by nothing to do with guns.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It is the right as an auxiliary militia, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. It allows for the people (militia) to be armed. It’s says nothing about individuals being armed to the teeth with fully automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers. On top of that...I think they are safe from the British now.

I have nothing against people owning guns. I myself have two small rifles and a shotgun. But I am fully aware that in Canada that is a privilege, not a “right”. In my opinion, that creates a different attitude and atmosphere versus what exists in the US.

[92redragtop]

Not really. A big performance car bult run the track as a hobby, enthusiasts want the baddest car has to sound good look good and more importantly go as fast as possible at the track,
As a means of transportation you don’t need anything more than 150hp. And thousands of people are killed every years becasie of cars going fast and people being irresponsible.

Gun hobby is the exact same. Has to look good sound good. Some care about accuracy (like a well tuned auto cross car)
Some care about big boom large caliber, (like an 8 second 1/4 mile monster) some care about number of round per min. (Like a Lamborghini, useless as transportation)

In the end we live in a free country and should not have our rights taken away because someone else did something wrong.

Remember the out cry on these car forums when the government cracked down on the racing laws. And everything in the laws was already illegal. Now imagine the government saying it’s gonna ban super chargers because no average joe needs more than a certain amount of hp.

Exactly the same as what’s going on in the us. Only difference is more people actually die in care related accidents than by guns.

Sure you could get into the argument for basic versus upgraded/high powered (car or gun) but start first with the basic purpose of each product. One is for transportation (in theory, even high powered cars fit this textbook definition) while the other is for.....?

[92redragtop]

self defense?

No. Original purpose is weaponry for war (designed to harm/kill is primary purpose of the tool)

[5.4MarkVIII]

while the other is for.....?

Sorry you seem to be missing my point

I have guns BECAUSE ITS MY HOBBY! Target shooting is something I enjoy in my spare time, I do it with guns I acquired legally with my own money. Who are you or anyone else for that matter to say I can’t enjoy my HOBBY becasie someone else in another place did something bad.
WE LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY as does people in the US.

You don’t need 400hp for transportation any more than you need semi auto for home defence.
Your argument is invalid.

Taking a gun or accessory away from a law abiding gun owner becasie someone else did something bad with a similar gun or accessory would be exactly like taking a car or car accessory away from a legal car owner becasie someone else did a bad thing with a similar car or accessory.

Don’t know how many time I have to say the same thing. There is no argument against this. Unless your against the freedoms won for us by many brave men and women. Period.

[5.4MarkVIII]

No. Original purpose is weaponry for war (designed to harm/kill is primary purpose of the tool)

This is poor argument. How many things are build for different pourposes?
There are guns specifically build for target shooting or hunting or competition shooting.

My truck was build to haul things so I’m never going to use it for commuting?
My boat was build to tow a wake board so I’m never gonna use it to go fishing.

Give me a break.

[92redragtop]

does that mean a gun can't be use to defend yourself against an aggressor?

It can be used to harm/kill. That's the primary purpose, not transportation.

[5.4MarkVIII]

It can be used to harm/kill. That's the primary purpose, not transportation.

That’s already been answered and proven to be a flawed argument. Do you have another?

[92redragtop]

That’s already been answered and proven to be a flawed argument. Do you have another?

Don't think so - there is a reason (argument) that in most lawful societies guns are regulated differently than cars. Same reason why the analogies do not work against each other.

[92redragtop]

This is poor argument. How many things are build for different pourposes?
There are guns specifically build for target shooting or hunting or competition shooting.

My truck was build to haul things so I’m never going to use it for commuting?
My boat was build to tow a wake board so I’m never gonna use it to go fishing.

Give me a break.

Primary reason of a boat or truck was not for harm/killing so there is no reason to regulate them the same way you would regulate a tool that was specifically designed to hard/kill. Even the writers of the US constitution limited the ownership/possession of these weapons to members who belonged to a "trained/organized" militia. Most civilized societies operate similarly so I think the argument holds up based on empirical evidence.

[92redragtop]

Sorry you seem to be missing my point

I have guns BECAUSE ITS MY HOBBY! Target shooting is something I enjoy in my spare time, I do it with guns I acquired legally with my own money. Who are you or anyone else for that matter to say I can’t enjoy my HOBBY becasie someone else in another place did something bad.
WE LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY as does people in the US.

You don’t need 400hp for transportation any more than you need semi auto for home defence.
Your argument is invalid.

Taking a gun or accessory away from a law abiding gun owner becasie someone else did something bad with a similar gun or accessory would be exactly like taking a car or car accessory away from a legal car owner becasie someone else did a bad thing with a similar car or accessory.

Don’t know how many time I have to say the same thing. There is no argument against this. Unless your against the freedoms won for us by many brave men and women. Period.

Not technically FREE as there are laws and regulations you have to follow - we don't want everyone adopting a hobby of killing people for example.

[5.4MarkVIII]

Don't think so - there is a reason (argument) that in most lawful societies guns are regulated differently than cars. Same reason why the analogies do not work against each other.

but more people die from cars then guns so......... it’s only a problem you choose to speak out against when to dosnt affect your freedoms?

[5.4MarkVIII]

Primary reason of a boat or truck was not for harm/killing so there is no reason to regulate them the same way you would regulate a tool that was specifically designed to hard/kill. Even the writers of the US constitution limited the ownership/possession of these weapons to members who belonged to a "trained/organized" militia. Most civilized societies operate similarly so I think the argument holds up based on empirical evidence.

Your point is still moot. Because most people don’t buy them to Kill other people. So if the problem is the intent of the shooter and it’s obviously not the gun that is the issue.

As said many things are used for things other than original intention. So again. Not a valid argument.

- - - Updated - - -


Not technically FREE as there are laws and regulations you have to follow - we don't want everyone adopting a hobby of killing people for example.

So punish law abiding people because they believe something different.... pretty sure that’s been tried before.

[92redragtop]

Your point is still moot. Because most people don’t buy them to Kill other people. So if the problem is the intent of the shooter and it’s obviously not the gun that is the issue.

As said many things are used for things other than original intention. So again. Not a valid argument.

- - - Updated - - -



So punish law abiding people because they believe something different.... pretty sure that’s been tried before.

It's already been established and that's why there are laws on the books in civilized societies (ie. as a society our laws/regulations demonstrate what's acceptable to us and what's not, hence why trucks and boats are ok and guns/rocket launchers not so much).

[RedSN]

These attacks are much easier to perpetrate against defenseless victims. Having everyone packing seems ridiculous as well.
Texas: arguably the most armed state in th US, did not prevent an attacker from killing 20 people.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/official-says-more-than-20-dead-in-church-attack-1.3664389

Edit: I am not making light of the terrible incident in Texas

[5.4MarkVIII]

I get it. 30000 plus, deaths per year by car are acceptable because you use a car

But 30000 plus, deaths per year by gun are not okay because you have no skin in the game.

I’m honestly not sure what your argument it’s. Guns are made to kill. Well yes and no. Historically speaking guns aided in hunting to feed people and to kill enemys or people wishing you harm.

But so were knives. Do you want knives banned too? Some knives are made to kill and statistically there are usually more deaths by knife in the us than by rifles.

See the argumant a short time ago to my cars vs gun senario used to be, “car related deaths are accidents” but the last little while has proven that argumant invalided.

In the end, are the deaths of people the problem? If the answer is yes. Then you should be fine with stricter regulation on knives and cars and smoking and drinking and many many other things that kill as many if not more people per year than guns do.

If you not fine with that than its just the idea of a gun that’s your problem. Then I suggest spending some time with guns and responsible gun owners.

If your fine with infringing to the rights of law abiding citizens who have broken no laws and done nothing wrong then it’s a whole other conversation.

[5.4MarkVIII]

Texas: arguably the most armed state in th US, did not prevent an attacker from killing 20 people.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/official-says-more-than-20-dead-in-church-attack-1.3664389

Edit: I am not making light of the terrible incident in Texas

Hopefully then wake up and the millions spent arguing gun control every year gets spent on finding the root of the issues. Be it mental health or what ever other reason is behind the actions of these horrible people

Only then will we actually start saving lives.

[5.4MarkVIII]

Or like in Australia where they chain the doors and burn the building down full of people.

[92redragtop]

I get it. 30000 plus, deaths per year by car are acceptable because you use a car

But 30000 plus, deaths per year by gun are not okay because you have no skin in the game.

I’m honestly not sure what your argument it’s. Guns are made to kill. Well yes and no. Historically speaking guns aided in hunting to feed people and to kill enemys or people wishing you harm.

But so were knives. Do you want knives banned too? Some knives are made to kill and statistically there are usually more deaths by knife in the us than by rifles.

See the argumant a short time ago to my cars vs gun senario used to be, “car related deaths are accidents” but the last little while has proven that argumant invalided.

In the end, are the deaths of people the problem? If the answer is yes. Then you should be fine with stricter regulation on knives and cars and smoking and drinking and many many other things that kill as many if not more people per year than guns do.

If you not fine with that than its just the idea of a gun that’s your problem. Then I suggest spending some time with guns and responsible gun owners.

If your fine with infringing to the rights of law abiding citizens who have broken no laws and done nothing wrong then it’s a whole other conversation.

How many of the 30K deaths were the result of cars being weaponized intentionally? Not statistically significant and current laws in practically every modern society reflects that (unless you live in a place like Mogadishu).

[5.4MarkVIII]

How many of the 30K deaths were the result of cars being weaponized intentionally? Not statistically significant and current laws in practically every modern society reflects that (unless you live in a place like Mogadishu).

So loss of life only matters when it’s intentional.
Nice thought for families of accident victims.

[92redragtop]

I'll have to side with ragtop on this. The automobile deaths are a result of accidents, the gun deaths are intentional.

I'm still not a fan of gun control, other than making sure they get into responsible hands.

The Australian video I linked does a pretty good job of showing the ineffectiveness of gun control.

I will look at the video tomorrow night but the screen shot does some serious cherry picking with the countries they chose (all dictatorships with weak financial/electronic systems, except for Russia - which is how western governments can oppress their people - cut off access to all money except paper money physically in the hands of civilians).

[js197]

nobody ever died not even once before they made automatic guns and if they were all banned today nobody would ever die again.

true fact. people dont kill people, guns kill people.

no ordinary citizen can walk to a gas station and buy enough gas to burn down everything in sight.

no ordinary citizen can go rent a big truck and do bad things.

every normal person knows the periodic table of elements doesnt exist and the average person with a high school diploma doesnt know how to go and make horrible things happen.

only automatic guns can hurt people.

nobody who ever murdered with a gun would be smart enough to find another way to do horrible things because only guns can do horrible things.

no murderer in this world would be smart enough to throw bricks off a rooftop or put harmful gas in a subway. its impossible.

these are 100% facts. its always the guns fault. always.

+ if we ban guns today aliens will come and give us cool tech and robot women who can cook/clean/sex at the same time + do your taxes and find deductions you didnt know existed.

[5.4MarkVIII]

+ if we ban guns today aliens will come and give us cool tech and robot women who can cook/clean/sex at the same time + do your taxes and find deductions you didnt know existed.

This is probably the most convincing argument I’ve ever heard.

[92redragtop]

I’ll take two robots please

Japan is working on this.