If that is the case, then I was clearly wrong. However, it seems that every time we have an attack here in the US, there are always precautionary courses of action to follow. The one exception is when a firearm is used. When a vehicle was used to commit a recent terrorist attack in New York, it was promptly agreed that new barriers would be put up around the park in which the attack took place, as a means of preventing another attack like that from occurring again. So my question is are there any barriers we can agree to as as a means of reducing attacks in which firearms are used? and by reducing them. I don't just mean preventing these attacks from taking place, but also reducing the amount of damage we experience from a single attack.

Talked to my friends who are gun fanatics about this after the last mass executions we had a few months ago and they didn't really care...kind of a niche product. Couple of them were like "I can see why"....

Not political people, not liberal by any means...one is a cop and NRAtard even.

If they ban them they might just increase in value.

No effect on these mass public executions. You can put free mental health clinics on every corner and ban all immigration and you won't ban scary.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 21 2018 05:56am

So long as there is a profit incentive, there are always going to be means of acquiring illegal firearms, but I also think in the case of preventing mass shootings, we need to consider in what ways we allow investigators to prevent such incidents from taking place. People will say that law enforcement should have done something to prevent the shooting from taking place, but they can't really answer at what point the attacker should have been arrested. The fact of the matter is the police cannot arrest the individual and take away their weapons when said weapons are acquired legally. When the first illegal act of the attacker is the shooting itself, there is nothing that law enforcement can do to prevent the shooting from taking place. The attacker can be on a government watch list, but as long as they are still allowed to legally purchase their weapons, the police cannot stop them.

Surprised so many people don't think these should be banned even though they don't serve any purpose for self-defense, hunting, etc.

Mostly because a belt loop serves more or less the same function as a bump stock, minus some accuracy (which bump stocks also have).

Doesn't really solve any problems.

They don't really serve a purpose outside of a range toy. However a ban is really for show, they don't turn semi autos into full autos they just mimic it and you can get the same effect without installing one. Go on youtube and look up Jerry Miculek vs Bumpfire if you don't believe me.

Mainly because it's a waste of time that doesn't actually accomplish anything and only serves as as "See we did something" type of response. Also, the last legislation banning bump stocks that was introduced was so vague that it would've also applied to oiling your gun, getting a new trigger, replacing springs, and a host of other accessories. Would also ban rubber bands, belt loops, string, and other things.

Take it easy bud

How many people would the ban actually affect?



They can be 3d printed so its pretty pointless

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Feb 21 2018 07:11am

Dat freedoms

This. It's just a way to provide political cover for the administration.