Bump Stocks Matter: Banning Semiautomatic Firearms

Some people wonder why I worry about the Trump administration’s move to ban bump-fire stocks (“Bump-Stock-Type Devices” BSTD). After all, they aren’t really useful for anything practical. They’re inaccurate, unstable. Why we’d be…

“ft”: “Bottom line, our country would be better off without Bump stocks or the really stupid trigger cranks.”

“Better off.”

If this were a move to specifically ban bump-fire stocks or trigger cranks on product safety grounds (unstable, inaccurate, etc.) you’d see a lot less opposition to it. But if you read the language of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (and every submitted bill I’ve tracked down so far), that isn’t what is being addressed. It is clearly and explicitly a “problem” of “rate of fire,” in that these devices — training wheels — assist the shooter in merely approaching the semiautomatic firearm’s theoretical rate of fire. (In the case of bump-fire, by using recoil to let the trigger reset, for the next manual operation.)

The NC sheriff candidate, who was criticized for his “cold, dead hands” joke remark (why the assumption that he was joking?), stated earlier in that meeting that he wants to ban anything that allows any firearm to “fire in rapid succession.” That’s what this proposed rule allows, too.

“I think we need to ban the sale of any mechanism that will allow a firearm to fire in rapid succession. And the reason why that’s the terminology that we need to use in our statutes is somebody out there is going to be able to develop some mechanism of some kind that is going to be able to fire in rapid succession.” (emphasis added-cb)
— R. Daryl Fisher, March 7, 2018

Anyone know why paper cartridges for muzzleloaders were invented? Pouring powder, and patching and ramming a ball are slow. Using a cartridge increased “rate of fire.”

Remember the British — Revolutionary War period!Ferguson rifle? As a self-priming breechloader, it greatly increased… rate of fire.

MiniƩ ball? Easy to load; increased rate of fire.

In short, this NPRM, and the intent of the gun controllers, is a camouflaged ban on semiautomatic firearms. Doubt it? Read the NPRM language, and ask yourself how “President Hillary Clinton” would read and apply the rule.

Still doubt that “rate of fire” criteria is what the victim disarmers have in mind?

Some useful criteria
In the Las Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock used guns that had a rate of fire of 9 rounds per second and magazines holding 60-100 rounds each. With these weapons, Paddock was able to kill dozens and wound hundreds in minutes. If the devastation Paddock caused with his weapons is equivalent to what he could have caused with M16s or M4s, then the weapons he used should be banned from civilian use. This is why I believe using rate of fire and magazine capacity are the most useful criteria for identifying what weapons are or are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (emphasis added-cb)

Well, any magazine with a capacity greater than one is going to increase “rate of fire” over a single-shot. Or a musket.

“Rate of fire” is the new tactic from the gun grabber playbook to ban semiautomatic firearms. After all, what duck hunter needs anything but a double-barrel (apparently muzzleloaded) shiotgun> What deer hunter needs more than Granpa’s old bolt-action musket?

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.



3 thoughts on “Bump Stocks Matter: Banning Semiautomatic Firearms”

  1. “Bump Stock? We don’t need no stinkin’ Bump Stock.”
    Apologies to “The Treasure of The Sierra Madre”
    And “Blazing Saddles”.
    How to bumpfire without bumpfire stock – YouTube

    Practice is all you need, Like Jerry Miculek.

    The ultimate goal is to ban ALL gun accessories and eventually all semi-auto firearms.

    Ban the Bump Stock?
    The repeal the Hughes Amendment to FOPA and let us have our Machine Guns!

  2. Yes; the objective appears to be rate-of-fire rather than mechanism-of-fire. For the purpose of “regulating” mass shootings, this would SEEM to be the proper objective. Or, more precisely, the SUSTAINED rate-of-fire achievable for the 10 minutes it is expected to take for the cops to arrive.

    It is appealing to suppose a RoF is “too high” which exceeds, e.g.: 10 minutes times 120 rounds per minute = 1,200 rounds capable of killing hundreds of victims. We are invited to suppose, e.g., that 10 * 4 r/min = 40 would be acceptable (or, at least preferable). Terrorists/crazies will be regulated to an upper limit of 40 rounds before the police arrive.

    IF we are on the right track here (sustained RoF) then we simply must ACCEPT 40 casualties in each mass shooting; it’s the “best we can do”. But is this TRUE? Are 40 casualties “acceptable”; the “best we can do”? It is THIS – the proposition – which we are invited to adopt as acceptable.

    It’s a regrettable practicality that we must define some outcome – short of perfect – to be regarded as “acceptable”. I suggest 4 casualties; the conventional definition of a mass shooting. An armed first-responder who is ON-SITE could draw and return fire during the time it takes for a terrorist/crazy to make 4 aimed shots.

    It IS feasible for civilized society to arrange for armed first-responders to be on-site in any venue vulnerable to a mass shooting. Conversely, it is NOT feasible for society to prevent a terrorist/crazy from equipping himself to achieve 40 r/min for 10 minutes.

    What puzzles me is WHY it is beyond-the-pale to discuss (in polite company) armed first responders on-site in venues vulnerable to mass shooting. It seems even more puzzling WHY it is acceptable to assume that a terrorist/crazy to limit himself to 1,200 rounds.

    I hazard to ask whether we might make a choice of the focus of our analysis more judicious than sustained rate-of-fire.

  3. #1: For the last decade, the average number of shooting victims per incident has been higher in the EU, and in countries with far stricter gun laws, than in America.

    #2: This ‘ban’ amounts to the president amending an existing law simply because he didn’t like it, which is not a power granted to him by the Constitution. It is, however, behavior we came to expect from his predecessor but which we should not tolerate from him. He is violating separation of powers and to let this pass is to send the message to his successor that we grant the same overreach to him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *