SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban

[Wandering Monk]

Sure, but it does help a human fire the weapon faster, correct?

Faster than semi auto, and the same rate as full auto.

 

[Pogo]

Misleading. The shooter isn’t pulling the trigger more than once. The mechanism moves the hand unnaturally.

Actually as I thought, it doesn't even move the hand, it brings the gun and trigger back into contact with the finger using the mechanical energy from the recoil. It is a simple machine, not a human action.

Bottom line, bad decision on multiple counts.

 

[McBell]

Misleading. The shooter isn’t pulling the trigger more than once. The mechanism moves the hand unnaturally.

Not misleading.
The trigger has to be pulled and then reset in order to fire the next round.

No way around it.

 

[McBell]

Sure, but it does help a human fire the weapon faster, correct?

Yes

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You think you can achieve 400-800 BPM, I doubt there are even many Jazz musicians that can trill faster than 200 BPM.
Yes, it is not the same mechanism as the designed full auto version, but it is still a modified mechanism just not all of it is internal, and uses energy from the firing to cause the repeat, whether by klugeing the whole works or undoing the stop that otherwise prevents repeat fire.
How you execute the function is not the function.

This is why I think the 3 dissenting justices got it right, and the majority were being as obtuse as possible. The point of the bump stock is NOT "how you operate it" but hugely increasing the speed at which rounds can be fired. And that is the same thing that makes it a greater threat, not how much or how far your trigger finger moves.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can do the math, that is not the point, without the modification, you can't fire anywhere near 13 rounds per second even if the mechanism can in the real world. The proscription of the law was to keep weapons with this fire rate out of non-military hands.

Apparently you can't , given you just had to mention a fire rate to make a dramatic effect on an otherwise poorly thought out analysis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I watched another video where they measured the time it took to empty a 40 round magazine using a bump stock. The cyclic rate of fire on the first clip was 864 per minute. The second clip was 750 per minute.

This is the same rate of fire as a full auto M16.

The M16 rifle has a rate of fire of 700–950 rounds per minute when firing fully automatic. It uses 5.56-mm (.223-caliber) ammunition and has a muzzle velocity of over 900 meters per sesecond.

Ever shot a machine gun?

I did. Several kinds as well.

Try hitting a bullseye with one set on full automatic.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Ever shot a machine gun?

I did. Several kinds as well.

Try hitting a bullseye with one set on full automatic.

Yeah, I am an Army vet. I have fired fully automatic weapons.

The Vegas shooter wasn't worried about accuracy. He had a crowd to shoot at. 60 dead, 413 injured.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah, I am an Army vet. I have fired fully automatic weapons.

The Vegas shooter wasn't worried about accuracy. He had a crowd to shoot at. 60 dead, 413 injured.

Which is the only scenario where a bump stock is effective. Close up and aimed at close crowds of people not unlike a shotgun at close quarters to inflict mass casualties.

Bump stocks are not much use otherwise in terms of employing a high rate of fire further away , at distance, which turns it into what amounts as suppressive fire.

 

[McBell]

Which is the only scenario where a bump stock is effective. Close up and aimed at close crowds of people not unlike a shotgun at close quarters to inflict mass casualties.

Bump stocks are not much use otherwise in terms of employing a high rate of fire further away , at distance, which turns it into what amounts as suppressive fire.

The vegas shooting reveals they are effective when shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Which is the only scenario where a bump stock is effective. Close up and aimed at close crowds of people not unlike a shotgun at close quarters to inflict mass casualties.

Bump stocks are not much use otherwise in terms of employing a high rate of fire further away , at distance, which turns it into what amounts as suppressive fire.

The shooter was in an upper story hotel room of the Mandaly Bay, 400 plus yards from the concert venue. Just what distance are YOU talking about.

 

[Pogo]

Not misleading.
The trigger has to be pulled and then reset in order to fire the next round.

No way around it.

But the operator has nothing to do with resetting the trigger or the sear or whatever part of the mechanism you wish to claim makes the difference between a semi-auto where the operator determines the next firing though a conscious action and an auto where no operator action is required and is thus not a part of what the law is meant to deal with,

Resetting of the trigger is just a mechanical function of the already existing mechanism and irrelevant. To be pedantic about it, with a bump stock, you are not pulling the trigger but the trigger is automatically being pushed back to the finger.

Pulling a trigger requires an assumed intelligent agent, the trigger hitting an obstruction that causes a chain of events is different and in this case "automatic"

Your turn.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The shooter was in an upper story hotel room of the Mandaly Bay, 400 plus yards from the concert venue. Just what distance are YOU talking about.

Which is why I mentioned I'm not against a ban in areas where mass shootings had taken place. For what little help a ban would pose to people who's psychopathic brains are squirming on a death mission.

 

[Pogo]

Apparently you can't , given you just had to mention a fire rate to make a dramatic effect on an otherwise poorly thought out analysis.

Explain my error, or I will assume as usual that I am correct in my math.

 

[Pogo]

Ever shot a machine gun?

I did. Several kinds as well.

Try hitting a bullseye with one set on full automatic.

If the bullseye is a tightly packed crowd of humans accuracy relative to maximal capabilities is irrelevant.
Did you ever think about what type of target your machine would be useful for, or just fire it?

 

[McBell]

But the operator has nothing to do with resetting the trigger or the sear or whatever part of the mechanism you wish to claim makes the difference between a semi-auto where the operator determines the next firing though a conscious action and an auto where no operator action is required and is thus not a part of what the law is meant to deal with,

Resetting of the trigger is just a mechanical function of the already existing mechanism and irrelevant. To be pedantic about it, with a bump stock, you are not pulling the trigger but the trigger is automatically being pushed back to the finger.

Pulling a trigger requires an assumed intelligent agent, the trigger hitting an obstruction that causes a chain of events is different and in this case "automatic"

Your turn.

• Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

 

[Pogo]

Which is the only scenario where a bump stock is effective. Close up and aimed at close crowds of people not unlike a shotgun at close quarters to inflict mass casualties.

Bump stocks are not much use otherwise in terms of employing a high rate of fire further away , at distance, which turns it into what amounts as suppressive fire.

Which is why the Scotus is in error on this decision because it ignored the purpose of the law to make a technical decision based on new technology not available to the original writers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain my error, or I will assume as usual that I am correct in my math.

Hah! I do not believe you. Let's do the math. I got this figure from Wikipedia, but have seen the same rate claimed elsewhere:

" They can achieve rates of fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute depending on the gun.[1] "


Hmm, the math looks to be bit tricky. I have to divide the rounds per minute by 60 seconds per minute to convert. Deep breath. Okay here goes:

800/60 = 80/6 = 40/3 = 13.3333333333333 . . . Hey! No fair it does not stop.

But darn it, it looks as if you were right.

 

[Pogo]

• Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

Ok, if that is the legal party bureau definition, it has obviously become out of date and the Scotus decision is not in keeping with the intent of the law.
There is more to interpretation (Scotus"s job) of the law as I am sure you will agree.

Back to my origininal follow up, NOW WHAT? will Congress do anything about this obvious disparity between the spirit and the letter?
Trump signed it, Biden would, where do we go from here and how fast.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

Interesting. That is the current definition. Of course definitions can change. What is interesting is I took the first gun in the photo from the link The Thompson machine gun. It has a range in fire rate as well. It varies from 1,200 to 800 rounds per minute. The article i looked up on it said that most were at the lower end of 800 rpm. That is at the high end of the bump stock. So one could say that it fires as quickly as some automatic rifles:

Thompson submachine gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org