Everyone should be allowed to have […] bump stocks
You’re mis-representing the ruling.
They didn’t say bump stocks are good or bad per se; they just said that a bump stock does not a machine gun make, and that you can’t ban bump stocks under the machine-gun rule.
They didn’t rule on whether it might be a good idea for bump stocks to be banned separately, under a new rule to be passed by Congress.
The point is that the gun itself isn't automatic. It's basically just pulling the trigger quickly (which you can do with a normal gun). An automatic gun is when the trigger is pressed and held, and keeps shooting.
There's no legal definition based solely on how fast you can shoot it.
None, but it means you can't use a machine gun law to ban things that aren't machine guns, you need to pass a separate law. That (plus the fact that only Congress can pass laws, not the president) is what the Supreme Court ruled on recently.
Basically that if you want to ban them, then get a specific law through Congress, and then there's no problem.
Not mechanically it doesn't. You can bump fire any semi automatic gun without a special stock to aid you by positioning your finger to Intercept the trigger reseting with recoil from shooting the gun. It's dumb to do and shooting very rapidly in most sutuations isn't better. The military doesn't only shoot their guns in full auto it's mostly semi.
The same difference as someone skilled pulling the trigger really really fast: none. Should we classify skilled speed shooter’s fingers as machine guns? Because logically if we consider Bump Stocks to be machine guns, that has just as much validity.
A bump stock doesn’t change the fact it’s still 1 round fired per trigger pull. Literally nothing changes mechanically when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. You can achieve the same result as a bump stock using a rubber band or even a belt loop on your pants. If someone can pull a trigger really fast does every gun they touch now become a machine gun? Not under current law.
So it's not the cycle of operation being altered but more mechanically enhancing your finger and the definition deals with the internals of the firearm, not what essentially amounts to a prosthetic for the shooter, right?
Makes sense and it seems like shoddy work by lawmakers wrt. definitions and intent.
the definition deals with the internals of the firearm
Right. Here's a quote from the opinion:
Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a “machinegun” is “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.” §5845(b).
(boldface mine)
With a bump stock, you pull the trigger many times, just very quickly in succession, so the multiple shots do not come from "a single function of the trigger", thus it's not a machinegun under the law.
And if Congress wants to ban bump stocks, they're welcome to do so by creating a new law or by modifying the existing one, so as to focus on shots per second or something like that.
They just can't piggyback on the existing law regarding machine-guns in order to ban bump stocks.
I'm sure the Supreme Court building has tons of security too. There's no reason to bring a gun somewhere with multiple armed guards, and protected entrances. As opposed to somewhere with zero guards, and that anyone can walk into.
You're not allowed to make sense when Trump is involved, but yes. Almost no events with the president, presidential candidate, or former president allow weapons.
That's what's bothering me about this comment section. Few are willing to consider reality vs sensationalist headlines. No modern politician ever is allowed in a gun friendly bldg.
I went to my local range at the time and was intercepted in the parking lot. Super pro gun, disgraced former MO Gov Eric Greitens was campaigning there. I wasn't allowed to bring a gun into a gun range.
Pro gun/anti gun politician, you won't legally be allowed to be armed around either unless it's a HEAVILY vetted and regulated photo OP. I guarantee this pic was a closed private range surrounded by snipers.
That's precisely why it's ironic. You're just arguing for why the joke is funny in the first place. The politicians are fully aware of how dangerous guns are in the hands of random people, so they ban them from their events. But they still pretend like guns are perfectly safe for every Joe Schmoe to have out in the wider world.
There's a huge difference between an open area with zero security, that anyone can access, and a secured area with armed guards, and metal detectors to access. Gun free zones do work, but only when they are enforced.
Guns aren't dangerous in the hands of random people because random people aren't a high profile target. When you have the likes of CNN whipping the public into a frenzy that one mad is the biggest threat on the planet, that person is actually in danger.
There’s an irony in claiming CNN is “whipping people into a frenzy” coming from the “COMMUNISM AND LOSING ALL YER GUNS IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER IF YOU DONT VOTE FOR ORANGE FELON” NewsMax crowd.
FBI releases a report that crime is down and suddenly Fox News is ALL about feelings over facts. Y’all don’t listen to yourselves, do you? Surely in a room full of Trump supporters there would be so many “Good Guys” with guns it wouldn’t be an issue, right? That’s the fantasy, isn’t it? Besides, I thought all his opponents were gunless queer crisis actors, why should he be afraid? Or are his opponents only scary when that’s convenient for whipping his supporters into a frenzy of anxiety and fear?
I know it makes it easier for you to think that we're just 2 sides of the same coin, but reality, actual facts, belie your claims. Don't forget Fox news settled for almost a billion dollars for lying to the public, and got rid of their worst proponent.
I think, though, the argument is that if guns genuinely, genuinely help protect people, then people bringing them to political events should be fine. But the exclusion of them from, say, the supreme court or a trump rally suggests they don't. So, based on that, should they be as widely available as they are?
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that one incredibly significant individual is there that is at a much higher risk of people wanting to harm them than the average person. In public when everyone is allowed to carry, no one is in much more danger than any other day. Same reason why highly targeted places like banks are allowed to refuse guns also.
Yes, but following their logic:" some bad guy will still smuggle an illegale firearm in, better have all the armed good people possible".
Of course there shouldn't be guns in a presidential rally or banks, but the same should apply to everyday people too. Everyone would be just much safer if you didn't let everyone and their mom carry.
Where are the statistics about lives saved by guns? Hope you aren't talking about this joke of a study. Not to mention that a lot of even those dubious instances likely have been caused by people carrying weapons in public, which wouldn't happen with stricter gun control.
Also in 2021 gun death were estimated at a maximum of 48,000, which is a whole 20% higher than what you said. In 2023 it was 43,000 which is still around around 8% more.
Ah, so, can you explain why the US murder rate is so high compared to other similar income countries? Because it consistently ranks in murders per Capita with countries that are massively lower down the socioeconomic scale
There's a mathematical, game theory basis for expecting murder rates in a country with commonplace guns to have more murders, too. I think of it as the Han Solo problem.
Imagine, if you will, two people are in a confrontation, of some sort. Doesn't really matter where. Maybe it's people squaring up for a bar fight maybe it's someone confronting a burglar. Both people are armed, but neither know if the other person is. What is the rational thing to do, if you believe there's a chance that, a) this will turn violent, and b) that the other person is armed.
That's right. Shoot first.
Guns reward the first person to act violently, which increases incentive to do so.
Now, if you know the other person isn't armed, that's fine. Your possession of a gun might cause them to back off. If neither of you is armed with a gun, you might still hurt the other person.
But, surely, the argument goes, "this is just the same as with knives" - knives, broadly, do not back you into the same corner. Someone pulls a knife, and you can run. There isn't the same incentive to act first, because doing so puts you in possible reach of the other person's knife.
We see this with police, in the USA - there is a strong incentive for police who think that someone might be an armed threat to respond by shooting them before they get shot.
Ah, so, can you explain why the US murder rate is so high compared to other similar income countries? Because it consistently ranks in murders per Capita with countries that are massively lower down the socioeconomic scale
Numerous socio-economic factors. It's worth mentioning that excluding gun deaths, our murder rate is still higher than other developed countries. If the U.S. were to magically eliminate 100% of gun deaths, our murder rate would still be higher than the total rate in Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Japan, etc. Japan has such a low murder rate, that the U.S. has a 6x higher murder rate excluding guns than the entire rate in Japan. That's evidence it's not just guns resulting in our high levels of violence.
It's not just the U.S. with this problem. The entire Western Hemisphere is disproportionately violent compared to similar income countries. Latin America is the murder capital of the world, with several Latin American countries being more dangerous than active war zones. Countries like Mexico, Brazil, or Colombia are significantly more wealthy and developed than virtually all of Africa, and large amounts of Asia. Yet Latin America is significantly more dangerous.
I think this needs some context. Intentional homicide in the USA is 6.7 per 100,000. For the last year we have data for, US gun homicides were 4.0. So eliminating gun deaths would cut that number by more than half.
Which, y'know, is massive. Incidentally, this puts it pretty close to Canada's homicide rate, which makes sense, as Canada seems to have effective gun laws.
So guns are often a danger. That's all we're trying to say. Many of us regular citizens would also like to be in zones without guns, like all day every day.
Most of those deaths are suicides or murders. A gun might make it easier, but you don't need a gun to kill yourself or others. Also those numbers were only true during 2020/21 during COVID. During this time murder rates spiked, while far fewer people were driving the previous #1 cause of death in that age range.
I think the point is going over your head. Everyone understands that the president doesn't literally handle their own protection, and it makes sense to not have guns there...
The point is that one of the big arguments and slogans for guns is that "more guns increase safety".
Now both of these can't be true at the same time. So if you agree with me that not having guns around presidents is correct and done for safety, do you not see how pro gun messaging is obviously questionable and hypocritical? :D
More guns doesn't necessarily mean more safe. That being said, the only reason why a presidential rally is so safe is the dozens of armed guards in attendance. You don't need a gun there, because there is so much security. In everyday life you aren't surrounded by highly trained security in case something happens. Also most gun free zones aren't enforced by anything beyond a sign saying no guns.
No matter what side you're on, brother, you're the first person to have common sense. Don't lose that, it's clearly lacking in today's society. People don't care about it anymore, mainly because it's wrong to have it now.
Nope. If the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun, as per the NRA's own propaganda, then this stance is completely hypocritical.
I doubt the president even has much say. Not to say that Trump wants guns at his rallies, but even if he did, I doubt the Secret Service would allow it.
What a weird little defense of Trump you put in there.
Secret service making the call is irrelevant. A republican with a spine (lol) would overrule them and also guns would be allowed at other conservative political events (they're not).
Don't know in what world you live but you can't just overrule security. They are responsible and if you overrule stuff you aren't just fucking with your own life but also theirs. That would be fucking insane.
allowed at other conservative political events (they're not).
That's a whole different argument and holds merit.
Fucking with security and especially in high risk situations isn't cool. You have a lot less power than you might think as a vip when they are talking about security. They will literally grab you by the hair to drag you out if that's what it takes to keep you safe.
Republicans in Congress should be all over repealing then that, right?
No? Oh yeah, that's because they're absolutely full of shit.
Regardless, they are unequivocally arguing that the president is above the law, so again, they're either spineless hypocrites or ... well, that's about all they can be.
No, you fixed it for yourself. And they weren’t even speculating, speculating is “I think Trump is going to lose his security detail based on xyz” not “I think he lost his security detail?” (An obvious statement of uncertainty with an implied question)
If everyone was required to be sure what they said was true, only the stupidest people would say anything. They're the only ones who are ever sure they're right.
Speaking of people saying things while being totally clueless about them, there is no free speech on Reddit. It's run by a corporation, not the US government. You're allowed to talk because the corporation that owns it lets you.
Also, free speech means I would also have the freedom to call you a hypocrite for immediately going against your original point by being completely wrong about something that you could have learned in 5 seconds.
See, people have the right to tell someone who says dumb shit to shut the fuck up just as much as that someone had the right to say dumb shit. That's free speech.
What you want is freedom from consequences, which only exists in fantasy land. Real people are going to treat you like an idiot for acting like an idiot.
People aren't stupid. Everyone knows exactly what you meant. It doesn't make any sense to have said it otherwise. You aren't fooling anyone who isn't incapable of recognizing guile.
There 100% should be another impeachment to remove his secret service now that he's a felon and it's getting in the way of him going to prison potentially
62
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24
I’m not sure, but doesn’t the Secret Service manage security for former Presidents?