ARLENE VIOLET - Bump stocks need outright ban

ARLENE VIOLET - Bump stocks need outright ban

Let’s get something out of the way. The murderer in Las Vegas would not have been stopped from his evil deeds. Hell bent on causing destruction, he meticulously planned his attack. He fit no profile. There is one element of his crime, however, which caused more carnage, that is, the purchase of a $99 item called a “bump stock.” This device is used to turn a semi-automatic weapon into one with the speed and ease of an automatic gun, spewing out 700 rounds per minute. Bump stocks should be banned and rifle manufacturers must be subject to restrictions on gun design manufacturing to prevent homemade bump stocks from attaching to their rifles.

Gun enthusiasts often argue about how the federal government already restricts automatic guns. This mechanism, however, flouts the law. It allows a person to trans-mutate a legal semi-automatic into one that spews more shots more quickly. For indiscriminate murderers like Stephen Paddock, he was able to mow down more people and harm them to a point of criticality because of multiple wounds.

U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said he will offer legislation to stop the sale and production of these devices. Needless to say, many Congressional Republicans will hem and haw. Meanwhile, yahoos, no doubt, are rushing to buy bump stocks lest they be banned.

No true hunter would be found dead with a bump stock. He or she would ruin the deer meat so it is a fig leaf to say that a ban would begin the “slippery slope” leading to the ban on weapons. Hogwash!

Only those who have been relieved of their senses cling to their bump stocks. The Associated Press quoted one fellow who wanted it to spray 58 bullets to celebrate his 58th birthday. One woman was on a video gushing about how easy it is to lean into it and just fire. Please give these people an I.Q. test.

Sanctimony will soon follow with folks with straight faces defending the bump stocks because it makes people who are handicapped fire the guns more easily. Maybe they shouldn’t own a firearm if they can’t handle a semi-automatic.

One thing is for sure. Anyone who calls for banning the bump stocks will be excoriated for suggesting that folks should not be toting modified weapons. Then, there will be the usual canard about how trucks and fertilizers kill people. Of course, bombs are already illegal. Yes, people can stab people but the reality is that automatic weapons cause more carnage. And, by the way, they are supposed to be illegal.

It’s far past the time for a little common sense to be applied to the ownership of weapons. Yet, the indefensible will be defended. The Second Amendment put into the constitution by men carrying muskets will be stretched to cover extreme weapons. The NRA on Oct. 5 stopped short of explicitly supporting legislation to ban bump stocks, instead endorsing new federal regulation through the BATFE Regulation presupposes allowance under some circumstances. There should be an outright ban.

Just ask yourself this: Would you want to live next door to the guy who gets a kick out of rapidly firing 58 bullets to celebrate his birthday? Or the gal who loves her weapon because “it just fires?” Dodge City in the Old West wasn’t this bad!

Violet is an attorney and former state attorney general.

Editor’s Note: On Oct. 5, the NRA said “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” So far, several Republicans have voiced support for restrictions on bump stocks. Time will tell what emerges from Congress.

Comments

While I agree with some of what Arlene has written, I cringe when I read of "common sense" gun regulation. Arlene states that the Constitution was written when men were carrying muskets and while this was true, the second amendment was written so that citizens could protect themselves from an overreaching government and there was no mention of sporting arms or hunting. Arlene asked if I want to live next to a guy who "gets a kick out of rapidly firing 58 bullets..." or next to a gal who "loves her weapon..." I state YES. These folks do not bother me as they cannot do this anywhere but on a gun range. The folks who do scare me are the ones who want to stifle my Constitutional rights so that it make them feel good. I do agree that these bump stocks need to be done away with, but let's place the blame where it lies - the Obama administration is responsible for these being legal now, but Arlene conveniently forgot to omit that from her article.

Did the writer of this article know what a bump stock was before last week? Did Half of the U.S. know what it was? Unfortunately it's times like this that we learn about them. I would look more into the reason they are made, for the option to put yourself at a better defense point and not be made a victim, just like a majority hand guns and some rifles made for in the first place. Obviously bump stocks not for hunting, and most hunting rifles are made to a point where a bump stock would not would or fit. There are certain types of rifles that are made to be "customized."

As for fire rate, that number is the same as the speed of a vehicle. A Honda Civic has a max speed of 120MPH, could you do it, maybe, but for how long? The max fire rate is if it was possible to extend that rate for an entire minute, meaning you'd have to have one hell of a setup to support over 700 bullets, in reality your talking about 5 seconds of 50 bullets, not one minute of 700.

If there were to be a law restricting or regulating these I'd say that they should be registered or some sort of ID tag on them just like the weapons they are going on.

In my opinion, this article is a little on the fear mongering side with over exaggerated sentences and numbers without explanations but that is what this section is for. Also, don't forget we live in an area where people just don't have guns; Many other parts of the U.S. this would be abnormal.
I'd hate for an event like this happen again but it won't be, there are a lot more things that need to change first.

Research Australia's gun laws and the effect it had on violence, 80% drop in gun related suicides, 35%-50% drop in firearm homicides. I'd ask Cicilline to look into this for the long-term option. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp.

do the same thing as a bump stock simply by hooking my thumb through my belt loop and manipulating the trigger. Are we going to impose an outright ban on belt loops next?