Important information about bump stocks

[stanc]

I don't own a bump stock, so therefore a question: which action or operation initiates the first round to fire? In a plain semi-auto it is the "trigger" finger pulling the trigger back that causes the firing sequence to initiate.
--
For the bump stock, is it that same finger? or is it the forward press of the slide/bumpstock (I guess by the other, non-"standard" trigger hand) that initiates the first firing sequence? i.e, for a right-handed person, is the first round initiated by the left hand pulling the slide forward, or is it the right hand trigger finger somehow pulling the trigger?

Maybe someone who knows how these things work can answer.

Maybe this will answer your questions:

[video=youtube;myEXIa9xCXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEXIa9xCXA[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myEXIa9xCXA

[montana]

I don't own a bump stock, so therefore a question: which action or operation initiates the first round to fire? In a plain semi-auto it is the "trigger" finger pulling the trigger back that causes the firing sequence to initiate.
--
For the bump stock, is it that same finger? or is it the forward press of the slide/bumpstock (I guess by the other, non-"standard" trigger hand) that initiates the first firing sequence? i.e, for a right-handed person, is the first round initiated by the left hand pulling the slide forward, or is it the right hand trigger finger somehow pulling the trigger?

Maybe someone who knows how these things work can answer.

This is what the lawyer was concerned about. : The ATF former assistant chief and acting chief firearms technology branch expert stated in 2010: If they come out today and band the slide fire or binary trigger by name, they will have to make illegal, the operating principle. "Meaning semi auto".

[grayfox]

Montana:

Talk about emotional arguments that are purely speculative, read your own paragraph. The one about the gun free zone has to top the list. You are assuming falsely that most Americans would carry guns if there were no restrictions placed on them. That wasn't even true in the 'Old West'. You actually think that things would have been different if the Ruby Ridge blaster had a M-60 MG instead of his pistol or shotgun? Maybe so. That would have been resolved with one pass from an Apache.

One other thing. I surely will criticize stuff when I see it. Nothing saying as a mod I can't take part in things.

LR55

Your statement concerning his gun-free zone comment presents an over-assumption/false choice. You do not have to assume that "...most people would carry guns..." You only need to assume, or grant, that more people would be carrying than do now, and that there is more probability that someone or ones would have been present to fire back at those assaults, thus likely deterring or reducing casualties. In fact, you only need to observe that massacres certainly seem to be perpetrated in "gun-free"zones... therefore with fewer of those zones there would likely be less mass-shootings. OTOH, admittedly, if there were indeed still as many GF zones under the "more people carry scenario", then the # of carrying citizens might not help as much. Even Dodge City in the old west was, at times, entirely a GF zone (if some history is to be believed)... which (in fairness) may have helped, or maybe not. Even so, allowing more carry can be a rational attempt to reduce massacres in public.

I don't see how such a comment from Montana is emotional as it can be shown to have a fairly rational basis as I explained.

To be fair, let's not over-assume or offer up over-stated strawmen counters.

The Ruby ridge, M60 or Apache issues, I will leave to y'all to discuss.

[LR1955]

Your statement concerning his gun-free zone comment presents an over-assumption/false choice. You do not have to assume that "...most people would carry guns..." You only need to assume, or grant, that more people would be carrying than do now, and that there is more probability that someone or ones would have been present to fire back at those assaults, thus likely deterring or reducing casualties. In fact, you only need to observe that massacres certainly seem to be perpetrated in "gun-free"zones... therefore with fewer of those zones there would likely be less mass-shootings. OTOH, admittedly, if there were indeed still as many GF zones under the "more people carry scenario", then the # of carrying citizens might not help as much. Even Dodge City in the old west was, at times, entirely a GF zone (if some history is to be believed)... which (in fairness) may have helped, or maybe not. Even so, allowing more carry can be a rational attempt to reduce massacres in public.

I don't see how such a comment from Montana is emotional as it can be shown to have a fairly rational basis as I explained.

To be fair, let's not over-assume or offer up over-stated strawmen counters.

The Ruby ridge, M60 or Apache issues, I will leave to y'all to discuss.

GF:

I do not agree with the notion of 'Gun Free Zones' in the least. They invite crime in my opinion. However, I doubt eliminating them would result in more people carrying guns. It is an assumption and no one has any way of proving it one way or the other.

Ruby Ridge was a crime committed by the government. Not because they wanted to arrest that guy but because they used excessive force and in my opinion committed murder. I seriously doubt it would have ended any better if that guy had a MG or two on his property. In fact, logic says it would have ended way worse. But I am speculating based on a society that is allowed to buy any weapon of their choice aside from nukes, and the way that LEA would probably have to respond under such conditions.

I wonder what our country would be like today if the NFA had never been enacted. There are only two things that I am sure of. First, our society would be very different than it is now. Not sure if it would be better or worse but it would be different. Second, I would own a bunch of sub-machineguns.

One thing about the bump stock and Vegas thing. Lets say that none of the weapons he had with bump stocks were used in the act of terror and murders he committed. The reality of today indicates that we as gun owners would be handed two choices. First we could accept that bump stocks be banned and keep our semi automatic rifles. Or the rifles would be banned and we could keep the bump stocks. Lesser of two evils? Slippery Slope? Doesn't matter what you call it, given the political and social condition of our country right now, those are probably the choices we would be handed.

LR55

[grayfox]

I agree with you on par 1 and 3, only that Ruby Ridge par 2, I'm not studied up upon so I'll listen - sounds plausible.
I'm not a fan of gunfree zones either. The point I was proposing is only that more carry is a rational proposal for dealing with public massacres, (certainly making more GF zones hasn't helped) - will that help in fact, hard to say. We won't know unless it is tried. But as you say, it might not help. The true source of the evil comes from inside a person's heart...

My statements about the bump stocks in Vegas is from a legal "not what you know but what can you prove in court" standpoint. A key element in rulemaking is whether it has a complete analysis behind it; I see weaknesses in that analysis. So the best hope in this present scenario is the thoroughness of the legal team that filed the complaint and the fairness of the judge/appeals court/Scotus.

And for the 2 choices, you might be right on that. But even the ban on current weapons might end up like the "ban all hi-cap mags" law in NJ: apparently according to the NJ St police, no hi-cap mags have been surrendered, zilch. -- they are showing once again that it doesn't accomplish much for you to pass a law that you cannot enforce.

[grayfox]

I also think that we should be pointing out, loudly, the hypocrisy of the anti-gunners... like Feinstein who carries a handgun even in Calif b/c she might get attacked, you know... or that the Senators from the Left (among others) have armed guards protecting their children's schools. Or all the armed guards they use while out and about, why their own "personal space" should be a gun-free zone like they advocate for others!

Hypocrisy in the lust for power over others, and they are exempt from any law, that sums up their motivation. And we should not let the public forget that, it is as much a part of the 2A debate as anything else.

[stanc]

One thing about the bump stock and Vegas thing. Lets say that none of the weapons he had with bump stocks were used in the act of terror and murders he committed. The reality of today indicates that we as gun owners would be handed two choices. First we could accept that bump stocks be banned and keep our semi automatic rifles. Or the rifles would be banned and we could keep the bump stocks. Lesser of two evils? Slippery Slope? Doesn't matter what you call it, given the political and social condition of our country right now, those are probably the choices we would be handed.

The reality is that bump stocks were used in the Vegas shooting. The "two choices" you cite may actually be why bump stocks were scapegoated by both the NRA and the President. If that is indeed the case, I doubt that the ploy will work. Since the bump stock ban will have no effect on future mass shootings, attention will return to semi-auto firearms like the AR15.

[stanc]

One thing about the bump stock and Vegas thing. Lets say that none of the weapons he had with bump stocks were used in the act of terror and murders he committed. The reality of today indicates that we as gun owners would be handed two choices. First we could accept that bump stocks be banned and keep our semi automatic rifles. Or the rifles would be banned and we could keep the bump stocks. Lesser of two evils? Slippery Slope? Doesn't matter what you call it, given the political and social condition of our country right now, those are probably the choices we would be handed.

That may be how the NRA and the President viewed it, with bump stocks being sacrificed in an attempt to save semi-auto rifles.
If that is indeed the reason bump stocks were banned, it's a ploy that will not work, because it will not prevent mass shootings.
The next shooting rampage with an AR15 will cause efforts to impose a ban on semi-auto rifles to resume as intensely as before.

[LR1955]

That may be how the NRA and the President viewed it, with bump stocks being sacrificed in an attempt to save semi-auto rifles.
If that is indeed the reason bump stocks were banned, it's a ploy that will not work, because it will not prevent mass shootings.
The next shooting rampage with an AR15 will cause efforts to impose a ban on semi-auto rifles to resume as intensely as before.

Stan:

You appear to believe the leftists care about mass shootings, killings via bombings, killings via running cars or trucks into people, etc. They want all guns banned and mass shootings are simply a easier way for them to get public support. If they really cared about safety, they would do more than just shrug their shoulders about the cop who got murdered by the illegal over the weekend in California. The last leftist I heard talk about it said something to the effect of 'well, being a policeman is a dangerous job'.

They are quick to shout that saving even one life by banning firearms is worth anything, but apparently saving one cop's life by closing the border and aggressively seeking out and deporting illegals who are criminals would be a violation of the Constitution (their version of the Constitution).

So, the debate is not about bump stocks being used in mass shootings. It is a pretty simple debate. Those who have wished to destroy the Constitution since the mid 60's and impose their totalitarian vision of 'social justice' on America (a country they believe is evil), want to disarm those they believe will oppose them. It is that simple.

Stopping mass shootings is not something the left wants. It deprives them of ammunition.

LR55

[stanc]

Stan: You appear to believe the leftists care about mass shootings...

I don't know how you took that meaning from my post. I was addressing the idea that banning bump stocks could prevent a ban of semi-autos. It won't. Future mass shootings will renew public and political pressure to ban semi-autos.

Gun owners gained nothing from the bump stock ban. In ordering the ban, the President handed the anti-gun crowd a victory without a fight, got no concessions in return, and further eroded the Second Amendment in the process.

[montana]

I don't know how you took that meaning from my post. I was addressing the idea that banning bump stocks could prevent a ban of semi-autos. It won't. Future mass shootings will renew public and political pressure to ban semi-autos.

Gun owners gained nothing from the bump stock ban. In ordering the ban, the President handed the anti-gun crowd a victory without a fight, got no concessions in return, and further eroded the Second Amendment in the process.

I agree, and this may have opened the door for a legal gateway for a semi auto ban. Time will tell if the ATF former assistant chief's statement in 2010, "if they come out today and band the slide fire or binary trigger by name, they will have to make illegal, the operating principle" was prophetic or not. LR55 is absolutely correct when he stated

So, the debate is not about bump stocks being used in mass shootings. It is a pretty simple debate. Those who have wished to destroy the Constitution since the mid 60's and impose their totalitarian vision of 'social justice' on America (a country they believe is evil), want to disarm those they believe will oppose them. It is that simple.

Stopping mass shootings is not something the left wants. It deprives them of ammunition.

[stanc]

I agree, and this may have opened the door for a legal gateway for a semi auto ban.

Oh, that gateway was opened long before the bump stock ban.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever..." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia

[montana]

Oh, that gateway was opened long before the bump stock ban.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever..." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia

It was better than if it had been a 4 to 5 decision the other way, but you have a point. A slower process, "but none the less" the end result could be the same.

[LRRPF52]

I don't own a bump stock, so therefore a question: which action or operation initiates the first round to fire? In a plain semi-auto it is the "trigger" finger pulling the trigger back that causes the firing sequence to initiate.
--
For the bump stock, is it that same finger? or is it the forward press of the slide/bumpstock (I guess by the other, non-"standard" trigger hand) that initiates the first firing sequence? i.e, for a right-handed person, is the first round initiated by the left hand pulling the slide forward, or is it the right hand trigger finger somehow pulling the trigger?

Maybe someone who knows how these things work can answer.

Your support arm becomes the spring, and also initiates all the pulling of the trigger. Your trigger finger is physically unable to pull the trigger when the bumpstctok is compressed because of the finger block.

Once you pull the firearm itself forward with your support hand, then it fires, and you allow it to somewhat free-recoil between the forward tension from your support arm, which activates the trigger repeatedly until you stop.

It's actually a step backwards from a semi-automatic firearm and much more difficult to fire if you haven't trained with it, very non-intuitive and more of a gimmick.

It's still lethal in trained hands that have taken the time to learn it, as Paddock's brother said he did, however, he could have been far more effective without using the bumpstock, and this is what is ignored in the technical discussion about the nature of bumpstocks.

[FRB6.5]

It would have been a far more horrific outcome had it been a truly skilled marksman who actually aimed versus the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Imagine Ad Topperwein gone bad...

For those not familiar with him, he was an exhibition shooter from 1901-1951. Over a 10 day period in 1907 he fired at 72,500 wood blocks tossed into the air and only missed NINE.

[LRRPF52]

In Russia, access to firearms is heavily restricted.

Even where some of their paramilitary warrior class train (Kossacks), they are limited to deactivated AK-100 series rifles with feed lips machined off the mags, and paint ball guns.

Yet they have massacres that make Vegas look insignificant in comparison. Beslan, for example.



Machineguns, suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and other arms that are unconstitutionally regulated/taxed by the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, and 1986 FOPA never have stopped:

* Organized crime gangs from using them
* Assassins from taking out their targets (Barry Seal 1986 shot by Columbian hitmen with MAC-11s, Obama's campaign director in 2007 shot with a suppressed .45 ACP in his 3rd story apartment, etc.)
* Columbian drug lord Dadeland shooting of 1979, which also included an armored vehicle with firing ports

[video=youtube_share;2l0INA-yG1I]https://youtu.be/2l0INA-yG1I[/video]

Drug gangs, assassins, and criminals with the means and motive can have everything from SMGs to grenade launchers and RPGs, mortars, explosives, and all manner of military weaponry that is heavily restricted from the public per 1934 NFA.

Here are some caches uncovered within the US, and just over our Southern border:






What should this have to do with American citizens and their ability to enjoy their rights?

Nobody has ever made a sound or reasonable argument about how the 1934 restrictions-forward have had any real effect on preventing the types of massacres we've seen, and this would still be true and much worse if Roosevelt and his cronies had gotten their way with 1934.

The idea that passing a law will somehow make it harder for determined criminals to own and effectively employ any weapons they want just doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny when you look at the facts.

[newb]

I can see a move to banning semi-auto's in the future.

Someone can do the same effect as the bump-stock with a semi auto by doing the thumb in the belt loop trick.

Next it will be pump and lever action rifles because one can rechamber quick. Then it will be bolt action because those are sniper weapons and look what Oswald (supposedly as the lone shooter) did with one.... or even what Charles Whitman as reason to ban all guns since he about had about one of each type.

When we have dumb@$$ politicians punishing good people for what the few bad do, making irrational laws, and giving speeches about "30 caliber magazine clip that shoots 300 rounds per second".... we are screwed. One cookie at a time from the jar until empty, because if they took the entire jar at once people would revolt.

It is well documented since early 1900's (even before then by other groups) about external forces that have infiltrated and their long slow process working to take over the government and nation. They won't have as easy a time here as they did in other parts of the world as long as the common folk have modern technology means to fight back. Our present social condition is ripe for their next push forward as it was before WWII and we see their same tactics again right out of the history books.

Many pieces to the pie and none of them are good.

[newb]

Nobody has ever made a sound or reasonable argument about how the 1934 restrictions-forward have had any real effect on preventing the types of massacres we've seen, and this would still be true and much worse if Roosevelt and his cronies had gotten their way with 1934.

Funny you mention him.... I believe he had strong campaign backing by the Communists at work here inside the USA.

Source = Bella Dodd, ex-Communists that changed her ways, testified before congress, and wrote memoir "School of Darkness". Good read; ANTIFA, Yvette Felarca, anti-police protest and riot agitators (involved with Communist party), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, "snowflake" generation, all these poor (sarcasm) downtrodden and oppressed victim groups, etc... all will make easy sense after that refresher of history.

Written 1954, might be hard to find a copy, but can be read online... http://genus.cogia.net/

[stanc]

It's actually a step backwards from a semi-automatic firearm and much more difficult to fire if you haven't trained with it, very non-intuitive and more of a gimmick.

However, for those who are sufficiently skilled, a bump stock does emulate full-auto fire very well:

[video=youtube;I6BFarrICWs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6BFarrICWs[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6BFarrICWs

[stanc]

[Paddock] could have been far more effective without using the bumpstock, and this is what is ignored in the technical discussion about the nature of bumpstocks.

It would have been a far more horrific outcome had it been a truly skilled marksman who actually aimed...

I would submit that this is a really, REALLY BAD argument to be making.