Gun Control (Spray yourself down when entering and exiting the thread)
- Thread starter Crolis
- Start date
It doesn't require anything attached to the firearm to bump fire. All it requires is the recoil and reset against a stationary finger, whether the finger is held stationary by a bump stock or other device not attached to the firearm. One could use a belt loop or a stick if one wanted to. Not that it is practical, but the operation is the same.
That said, I do believe the bump stock is a way to circumvent the law as currently written, as well as binary triggers which can fire faster than a bump stock with nothing other than a human finger.
I understand that a bump stock is not required to bump fire. However, it is a purpose-built device made to make it as easy as possible and to provide stability with the finger shelf and the alignment of the stock slide track itself. A trigger crank is a very similar idea. As would an electromechanical mod to a trigger.
To me, bump firing should be prosecutable outside a range with licensed MGs. So, it should be made illegal in every state, whether done with a rubber band, belt loop, or bump stock. That would align the activity and device culpability. Bump firing, whether with a device aid or whatever, should carry a sentence enhancement for crimes involving guns.
I don't disagree that there shouldn't be more weight given to anything used to increase lethality, whether a bump stock/bump firing, gas pump and a lighter or whatever. Also, dump the body of the perp at a land fill and stop publishing names. Kids especially want to be infamous.
It won't stop crime, but it can limit some.
I get the sentiment, but HELL NO.
The device should be illegal, attaching it to a firearm in use of a crime should be an enhancement, sure.
But whether or not someone was bump firing during a crime is exactly the kind of entirely subjective judgement that will 100% rely on police discretion and 100% be unequally applied. A bump device, by its very nature, is not a smooth 900+ rounds per minute, and is indistinguishable from someone simply pulling the trigger quickly.
I suggest sticking to objective criteria. Was the crime committed using a magazine over 20 rounds that ended empty, for instance.
You really should do your homework.
(1) I've posted over a dozen times in this thread, including in several specific responses to your posts, which country I come from. It's also in my Tribus.
Hint: It's not the US.
(2) An infantry platoon here is 20 persons, not 50. No Bradleys here at all -- the local infantry tends to prefer APCs to IFVs.
(3) I served in the local military, as does most of the local population. For several years.
(4) I even trained on full-auto military rifles, including shooting in full-auto, while still in high school as a civilian and had one issued to me full-time.
(5) As acknowledged here several days before your post, I messed up late-night back-of-envelope math, but it doesn't change the basic point.
I did get the numbers correct (same source as yours), and explicitly mentioned that the non-firearm casualties were likely people being trampled due to the panic. Right here.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threa...-and-exiting-the-thread.1456193/post-42914146
Of course collateral damage from trampling should be counted. It's all part of the same incident.
When counting casualties from, say, a fire, you count burns, smoke inhalation, people who got masonry falling on them as well as panic trampling. All reporting agencies I know of do it this way.
As to "not that fast", just look at the damage done. That's the real test.
Not stopped, but very much limited the damage.
Limiting ownership to 1-2 weapons/person, and limiting ammo sales to 50 rounds/year (outside those used within a firing range).
Those are the laws we have here .
I am curious, and yes I know where you are living. Is that 1-2 weapons of all stripes, or 1-2 semi-auto or auto weapons?
Full disclosure, I am one of the lucky few who can afford Title II weapons here in the US, but I have zero interest in owning one. Even as an infantryman, I thought full auto was pointless. Probably because I grew up fairly rural, and hunted for a decade before starting military service? I am asking because I am curious.
It's 1 handgun and 50 rounds of ammo owned per license, total. There are some very few people in the country with more than one license; I believe there is one person with seventeen. Long guns, whether rifled or smoothbore, are theoretically possible, but in practice are limited to the few people who obtained the licenses decades ago, and even those are having significant issues renewing the licenses (which is a thing; they expire).
Very interesting. One handgun can be owned, and long guns are theoretically possible to own, but are not owned. I am assuming that the reference to the license is for the firearm, not for person who owns said firearm? That the licensing scheme is per weapon, not licensing the owner? Because both have been proposed here, and there are arguments to be made for either. I appreciate your response, thank you.
This is interesting, thanks.
Per handguns vs. long guns—wouldn't long guns (such as a bolt-action rifle) be less risk for harm, since they cannot be concealed as easily as a handgun?
It's per firearm per person. I.E. the license, as issued, allows the person it is issued to to possess and carry one firearm and up to fifty rounds of ammo for it. In American terms, it's a very much 'may issue' system, in which you basically have to convince the licensing board that you need a weapon, and they have the right to deny your application for whatever reason they want to, including none at all. In practice, this restricts firearm licensing to former/reserve officers/NCOs above a certain rank (I think it's either captain or major for officers, don't remember about NCOs), combat unit graduates, and border community residents. Notably, there is no distinction between concealed and open carry, and most people who carry do so openly, i.e. you'll see people with a pistol tucked into their belt and nobody makes a big deal of it.
Licensed firearms are seen as tools of self-defense against hostiles who can strike at any moment. A handgun is suitable for daily carry (my boss, for example, carries one daily, with the license obtained via his former service as a radar technician NCO); a rifle - not so much. On October 7th, many residents of the Gaza border communities - those who were armed, anyway - ended up defending themselves and their families to the last of those fifty licensed rounds.
Thanks for clarifying that. Here in the US, there are some states that require a license to purchase firearms, but most do not. And I believe that SCOTUS has struck the ability for states to use the 'may issue' as a licensing schema, as it could be used to deny people the right to own firearms based on arbitrary judgement, for fear that said judgement might be based on race or religious affiliation.
Interesting, so someone like me would in practice be allowed to own a single handgun, having been in the infantry? Or does 'combat unit graduates' mean something different?
In the (liberal) state in which I live, one does not need a license to own a firearm. Open carry is also legal without licensure, so if you are not a prohibited person, you can legally carry openly here, much like you described. There is a licensure scheme for concealed carry here, which costs a hundred dollars for license fees and a couple of hundred dollars to a licensed instructor, because there is a class requirement. So people carrying here is common but not prevalent, and nobody makes a big deal of it here. The (conservative) state that I used to live in was a Constitutional Carry state, meaning no licensure is not required for open or concealed carry, again so long as you are not a prohibited person.
Thanks for the clarifications, I always wondered how they managed firearms over there.
@Barmaglot pretty much covered it, but a couple of additional clarifications:
To privately own >1 weapon, you have to be designated a collector. There are very few of those in the country (probably <50), and their weapons have to be physically disabled. Professional sports shooters don't own their weapons, rather these are owned by the relevant national club; this is similar to security firms, whose employees don't own the weapons they carry but must draw it from the firm's central armory and return it there at the beginning/end of their shift.
Incidentally, this was one of those "written in blood" rule changes, after multiple cases of domestic abuse by security guards using their guns on spouses or kids at home.
Active-duty cops who are issued guns cannot obtain a private license, to avoid one person being able to carry two weapons (and most cops don't carry a gun).
No full-auto weapons in private hands (although organized crime manages to steal some from the military).
The reason for virtually no long guns in private hands is that there are pretty much no animals to hunt, and virtually none that are legal to hunt (if, say, snakes need to be exterminated, that's done by a licensed exterminator with extra training and licensing for a firearm for that purpose, never by a private hunter).
Since hunting is far more widespread in the US, you'd likely need to allow 2 weapons/person, one handgun and one long gun.
Last edited:
I listed the current requirements back here in January.
As a former infantryman, you'd come under (5)(8) in that post -- but only if you were active-duty in the regular military or active duty reserves sometime within the past 10 years.
One change that was made since my post back then is that now not only infantry qualifies ("Rifleman 07"+), but also "Rifleman 04"+ which adds other former combat soldiers (Armored Corps, some Artillery, Combat Engineering, Field Intelligence, Border Patrol), but the "within past 10 years" limit still applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman#Israel
You'd have to keep up with qualifications, and not run afoul of the licensing authority, but yes, your chances of obtaining a handgun license were you an Israeli citizen and interested it one, would be quite decent. It's not always straightforward though, here's a translation of a post on an Israeli forum, from someone... not impressed by the above mentioned authority:
Oh, and while law-abiding citizens are regulated to this degree, police estimate that there are somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 illegal firearms in the Arab sector (~2 million people).
If I correctly recall a post of Tom Foolery's elsewhere mentioning his age, I'm not sure he'd pass the "active-duty combat soldier within past 10 years" criterion.
I consider that a feature, not a bug. Even in our current circumstances, handguns in untrained civilian hands would do more harm than good .
Slight correction, while there are people who hunt with handguns, said handguns are specialized and typically a one-shot weapon that fires a rifle cartridge. If you are a hunter here in the US, you would still need two guns, but one would be a hunting rifle and one would be a shotgun. Because we hunt not only big game (deer, elk, antelope, moose etc), we also hunt fowl. Pheasant, duck, goose, and other birds are pretty commonly hunted. I could get behind legislation that carves out those types of firearms for private hunters.
You recall correctly, in September it will be 35 years since I wore that particular uniform.
As I know nothing about hunting, I gladly stand corrected
.I wasn't aware that many people hunt w/handguns, as I would have expected accuracy wouldn't be good enough at long range.
As I understand it, the 'handguns' the Americans hunt with are not your everyday carry pistols, but rather stuff like this.
Not necessarily. I know people who have hunted with revolvers and semi-autos. Some may have scopes but they aren't so different from models that are openly carried. It's also not uncommon to carry a handgun along with another rifle or shotgun when hunting in areas where dangerous animals live (bears, cougars, etc.) There are single shot handguns that typically have long barrels (Thompson Center Contender and the Remington XP-100 are examples) and use rifle cartridges that are used for targets and for hunting.
As far as long guns, rifles of various types... single shot (Thompson Center Hunter, CVA Scout, etc.), bolt actions (Remington, Winchester, Browning, Savage, Weatherby, etc.), lever actions (Marlin, Winchester, Henry) pump action (Remington), and semi-autos (Remington, Browning, etc.) are used with bolt actions and semi-autos by far and away the more popular types. For shotguns, single shot, bolt actions (Savage), pump actions, and semi-autos (Remington, Winchester, Browning, etc.) are used.
Yes. But they do more damage due to higher mass/higher velocity rounds, and they can hit victims at longer ranges. It's a tradeoff but TBH handguns are used in far more gun crimes than long guns are.
As I know nothing about hunting, I gladly stand corrected
I wasn't aware that many people hunt w/handguns, as I would have expected accuracy wouldn't be good enough at long range.
Hunting with handguns is fairly common here, although technically the gun isn't for the pig, but for putting down the dogs that the pig cripples.
That said I don't think anyone needs to be able to hunt with a handgun.
Seriously? You felt it appropriate to separate "law-abiding" from those in the Arab sector? So nobody in the Arab sector is law-abiding?
Do you even hear yourself?
Well... for the possessor of a fire arm to be law abiding, you must have a license... and what are the chances that the the Israeli government gives those out to Arabs? So, his intended meaning is probably correct... though, of course, this is still troubling for reasons not terribly different than those implied by your accusation.......
Link for that? That's an order of magnitude more than all estimates I've seen for all illegal firearms here put together, regardless of who's holding them (estimates vary widely).
Pretty much all illegal guns are held and used by organized crime.