GOP Senators John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham may support a ban on bump stocks. New York Times.
There are signs that bump stocks, which were used in the Las Vegas attack, could be banned by congress with some GOP support. New York Times. Bump stocks are a weapon modification that allow fully automatic fire on normally semi-automatic rifles. They do so by using the recoil of the rifle to bounce the finger against the trigger which allows the shooter to fire rapidly. At least four GOP senators, including John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Orrin Hatch have said that they are willing to consider legislation on bump stocks. The NRA hasn't commented on the issue yet but Gun Owners of America, another major gun rights group, opposes the ban.
My Comment:
I'm conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, I oppose all gun control in principal. The left has demonstrated time and time again no matter how many laws that are passed it is never enough. The goal has always been total gun confiscation and any new gun law gets them one step closer to that goal. That alone makes any gun control law a non-starter for pretty much anyone in support of gun rights.
I also think that the use of bump fire stocks didn't help the shooter kill more people in Las Vegas. A semi automatic weapon would have worked almost as well. The shooter was in an elevated position and shooting into a very crowded area with little cover and almost nowhere to escape too. The attacker sacrificed accuracy over volume of fire. If he had fired his weapon semi-automatically, he could have aimed better and would have likely taken a similar number of lives, depending on his skill.
I think we have to admit that this case was extraordinary as well. No matter what the law, Stephen Paddock had the resources to bypass them. Paddock was a millionaire and had the resources to purchase fully automatic firearms. Had he obtained a class 3 license, and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have been able to since he passed every other background check, he would have been easily able to afford fully automatic weapons, despite their prohibitive costs. Dropping 20k for a fully automatic rifle would have been chump change for Paddock and given his wealth he could have afforded several of them. Indeed, I don't know why he would go for bump-fire stocks when he didn't need to use them with all the money he had.
He would have also easily been able to modify his rifles in other ways. It's not that difficult to illegally convert a semi-auto if you have access to a machine shop. It's expensive and you have to know how to work metal, but if you are at all competent, you can do it easily. And of course, as rich as Paddock was, he could have easily bought illegal weapons from the black market. All the gun control in the world wouldn't do a damn thing to stop the black market availability of arms, especially when there is a lawless failed state called Mexico is on our borders.
Bump fire stocks are also pretty bad for mass shooting. Paddock was very smart and worked hard to mitigate the disadvantages that bump stocks cause. A normal shooter wouldn't have his advantages. Firing a semi-automatic weapon automatically is generally very bad for a gun that isn't designed for it. Doing so can cause jams, misfeeds, overheating and will eventually destroy the firearm. That wasn't an issue for Paddock who had a massive and expensive arsenal kept in a secure location, but for your typical mass shooter, you can't just switch out your gun for a new one when it fails. Normally, using a bump stock in mass shooting will just end your spree quicker.
Indeed, bump fire stocks are pretty useless for everything. They are dangerous for the user too because shooting a weapon automatically that isn't designed to do so can hurt you due to misfires and overheating. Your barrel will warp eventually and get so hot that you can get severe burns just from handling it.
I generally considered bump fire stocks to be a rather stupid range mod and one that will probably get you kicked out of most gun ranges. Due to the damage they can cause to your weapon, I don't really respect people that use them even if they just do so to have fun on the range. I think their legitimate purposes are pretty stupid an even though the massive downsides they have for illegitimate purposes are obvious, they are also capable of carnage in the perfect situation like the one Paddock created.
So should they be banned? Very tough question. I really, really, really don't like the idea of banning any firearm mod because the gun control lobby will see it as a victory. If there is any group that doesn't need a victory it's them. I consider them evil and against the most basic human right. Self defense. We shouldn't ever have to kneel down to these animals and should fight them at every turn.
But I also don't think that bump fire stocks are, well, good for anything. They are bad for range fun, they damage your guns and even in a mass shooting they will cause you to fail. I wouldn't trust my life to one in a self defense situation and even in a civil war 2 situation, I'd much rather have a semi-automatic over a bump fire modified one. I think that there is a good case for restricting them on a user safety basis.
Even though compromise is a dirty word in the gun rights lobby, I think we might be able to have one here. I don't think we should completely ban bump fire stocks. If a few misguided souls want to use one and wreck their guns they should be able to. But make them have a class III license. Regulate them the same way we do for SBR's, machine guns and destructive devices. Make people undergo background checks for them and make them pretty expensive.
In return we can demand something from the gun control lobby. If they are bound and determined to have restrictions on bump fire stocks, we should make them pay a price for it. The SAFE act has been tabled by that coward Paul Ryan but I think we can get suppressors legalized if we exchange them for bump-fire stocks. Unlike bump-fires, suppressors are literally a safety feature and would help protect the hearing of hundreds of thousands of gun owners. And they have no use in a mass shooting situation as they aren't "silencers" and are still really loud and would wear out quickly in a situation like Las Vegas.
That kind of grand bargain might be worth the cost in the long run. Though the gun control lobby would be energized instead of demoralized, the general public would be happy and probably wouldn't demand any other kind of legislation for a long time. And it is a damn shame that suppressors are regulated so draconianly to be de-facto illegal for most gun owners.
On the other hand we would still be giving up a critical liberty and risk building momentum for gun control. That's not a risk anyone in the gun rights community can take and we all understand why. We don't trust the gun control lobby at all and even a good faith compromise with them would likely be met with betrayal. We know that their final goal is a total gun ban and any compromise with them will be used to advance that goal. Just like ISIS, any deal with the gun control lobby is temporary and is guaranteed to end in betrayal.
In the end though, it's going to be up to the politicians. I don't know if they are going to go for a ban or not. With the NRA not weighing in yet, and little reaction from the gun community, it's hard to predict what they will do. If there is massive opposition to a ban, which I think there will be from gun rights groups and citizens, then I doubt anything will pass. If not, there might be. Knowing the gun rights lobby and the gun control lobby, I doubt any compromise will be reached and in the end nothing will happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment