Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Certainly sounds more relevant of a reaction than the suppressor ban does.

 amanita wrote:
The choice of tannerite for an explosive is an interesting one. It's stable and not even flammable, but it can be set off by high impact such as a rifle round. Makes one wonder how that fit into the plan.

Reports are that he had planned to escape, so he could have had additional targets/attacks in mind. Possibly park the car somewhere and shoot it up until it explodes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Thats actually...really surprising.

On that note...

If they are made illegal, or any other changes are brought in, is the average American gun owner likely to turn in any the already own?

I ask because being a Brit, my impression of gun owners is very much skewed. To me, they're all baying loonies, because that's how they're commonly portrayed.

Not intended to be a troll post, and not seeking controvesy for its own sake. My mental image is inaccurate!

Sometimes the procedure is that guns manufactured before the ban of a particular detail will remain legal so long as they're provably manufactured before the date. So gun companies tend to go nuts with making more or buying up existing stock since they'll be able to sell them for more after the ban.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On that note...

If they are made illegal, or any other changes are brought in, is the average American gun owner likely to turn in any the already own?

I ask because being a Brit, my impression of gun owners is very much skewed. To me, they're all baying loonies, because that's how they're commonly portrayed.

Not intended to be a troll post, and not seeking controvesy for its own sake. My mental image is inaccurate!

if they follow previous "bans", such as with Automatic weapons, existing items wont be required to be surrendered, but no new ones allowed into the market. Whether they require registration as an NFA item or not...we'll see, my guess would be yes, in which case itll be a $200 tax stamp and paperwork to the ATF plus inflated market prices to get ahold of one.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Not being a gun enthusiast or anything, but bump firing mechanisms seem like something you could make at home without a huge amount of effort depending on the gun (maybe not as pretty as the ones manufacturers currently sell, but functional).

They gonna ban the cranks you can mount on a trigger guard too?

What about binary triggers?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Not being a gun enthusiast or anything, but bump firing mechanisms seem like something you could make at home without a huge amount of effort depending on the gun (maybe not as pretty as the ones manufacturers currently sell, but functional).

You can literally use a string and your belt loop. Fugly as all hell and gimmicky.

Most gun enthusiasts think it's an impractical range toy and not something you'd ever use when hunting or self defense.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Not being a gun enthusiast or anything, but bump firing mechanisms seem like something you could make at home without a huge amount of effort depending on the gun (maybe not as pretty as the ones manufacturers currently sell, but functional).

You are correct. You can also get the same effect with a thumb and a belt loop.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Not being a gun enthusiast or anything, but bump firing mechanisms seem like something you could make at home without a huge amount of effort depending on the gun (maybe not as pretty as the ones manufacturers currently sell, but functional).

Correct. You also don't even need a device to bump fire a semi auto.

I'm not surprised the white house supports a ban on those stocks, as they want to be seen as "doing something".

I am surprised the NRA supports it though.

 whembly wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Not being a gun enthusiast or anything, but bump firing mechanisms seem like something you could make at home without a huge amount of effort depending on the gun (maybe not as pretty as the ones manufacturers currently sell, but functional).

You can literally use a string and your belt loop. Fugly as all hell and gimmicky.

Most gun enthusiasts think it's an impractical range toy and not something you'd ever use when hunting or self defense.

Yeah I've seen people bump firing like that. I was thinking something more like a bump stock but DIY home style; just something that lets the grip float but only in the direction of recoil so you can still keep a good firm hold on the arse end of the gun to be able to aim half decently. I'm thinking a couple of pipes, a makeshift grip and a linear bearing.

Of course not something terribly useful for hunting or self defence. I more meant as in even if you ban them you could whip something up at home and it'd still be effective for shooting in to crowds of people.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The White House appears to be on board for bump fire restrictions.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/354083-white-house-open-to-new-restrictions-on-bump-stocks

NRA too.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354081-nra-backs-new-regs-on-device-used-in-vegas-shootings

Interesting to see that moving forward, more interesting will be what effect this may have on internal GOP politics.

Not being a gun enthusiast or anything, but bump firing mechanisms seem like something you could make at home without a huge amount of effort depending on the gun (maybe not as pretty as the ones manufacturers currently sell, but functional).

Correct. You also don't even need a device to bump fire a semi auto.

I'm not surprised the white house supports a ban on those stocks, as they want to be seen as "doing something".

I am surprised the NRA supports it though.

It’s a stupid toy, with no practical purpose other than shooting away a ton of money in ammo at the range, or spray-n-pray against a large group of people.

The NRA probably realizes that this one toy will be the one thing to become the poster-child of this attack and the reason why it was so deadly. The NRA probably realizes that this will affect (I’m guessing) less than 1% of all gun owners in the US.

And, probably the main reason why the NRA is okay with this, it gives them talking points in the future. Whatever the next restriction will be after this, it will let the NRA declare “it’s never enough for liberals, we let them restrict our rights in 2017, now they are back for more, slowly chipping away is what they do”.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I am surprised the NRA supports it though.

Shrewd politics. The winds are blowing against them right now and they stand to lose a lot of face by blindly opposing any new legislation. If they instead support an ineffective ban they get to appear to be one of the good guys when they're really just throwing rotten meat at a rabid dog to keep it from biting of their leg.

If my American friends can answer a question?

How much did this guy spend?

From the reports he had 15 stocks so that's $3K

23 rifles(?) and from the pics not cheap ones plus at least 12 large capacity magazines + various sights.

It's not as if this is a spur of the moment act (as we know) it took planning and investment. Just curious as to how much investment.

Cheers

Andrew

PS Though I know its my opinion, I could see the bump stocks being banned completely, with no grandfathering rights. They are an addition, a supplement if you like and not the actual gun itself. Kind of like banning a particular make of tyre. The tyre goes not the car.

 AndrewC wrote:
If my American friends can answer a question?

How much did this guy spend?

From the pictures Ive seen, assuming 23 mid-high end AR's with optics, upgrades, etc?

Probably at least $50k. $50-100k would be my guess, somewhere in there.

PS Though I know its my opinion, I could see the bump stocks being banned completely, with no grandfathering rights. They are an addition, a supplement if you like and not the actual gun itself. Kind of like banning a particular make of tyre. The tyre goes not the car.

In general in the US, the government cannot ban something and then post facto seize it, no matter what it is.

 AndrewC wrote:
If my American friends can answer a question?

How much did this guy spend?

From the reports he had 15 stocks so that's $3K

23 rifles(?) and from the pics not cheap ones plus at least 12 large capacity magazines + various sights.

It's not as if this is a spur of the moment act (as we know) it took planning and investment. Just curious as to how much investment.

The stocks had been going down in price - they were $200 when introduced but they were commonly about $100 last I saw. I bought mine for $100 a few years ago.

It's impossible to estimate how much the telescopic sights were, because glass varies wildly - you can get $50 scopes or you can get $7,000 scopes. I will say that I saw some eotech holo scopes, those run about $350-$400.

We don't know a breakdown of how many of what rifles, and again there is a lot of variability there. The Daniels Defense are a mid to high range AR - around $3000 apiece. He had at least one AK - those are usually pretty cheap, $600ish.

Those big Surefire mags are a bit spendy as well, like $150 apiece for the 100 round mags.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
If my American friends can answer a question?

How much did this guy spend?

From the pictures Ive seen, assuming 23 mid-high end AR's with optics, upgrades, etc?

Probably at least $50k. $50-100k would be my guess, somewhere in there.

Probably just pocket change for this guy from what it sounds like. He would gamble away 40k in a single night. Turns out Bernie Sanders was right, the problem isn't guns, it's rich people!

PS Though I know its my opinion, I could see the bump stocks being banned completely, with no grandfathering rights. They are an addition, a supplement if you like and not the actual gun itself. Kind of like banning a particular make of tyre. The tyre goes not the car.

In general in the US, the government cannot ban something and then post facto seize it, no matter what it is.

Yeah, they can confiscate them if anybody is dumb enough to try to sell them at a gun show or something like that I guess. But other than prohibiting them from being sold (which would include private sellers as well) there really isn't much you can do about the ones that are out there. I'd expect demand to pick up before they get banned though, just because people will want to buy the stupid toy just to stick it to the government.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I am surprised the NRA supports it though.

Shrewd politics. The winds are blowing against them right now and they stand to lose a lot of face by blindly opposing any new legislation. If they instead support an ineffective ban they get to appear to be one of the good guys when they're really just throwing rotten meat at a rabid dog to keep it from biting of their leg.

That and they get to drive another round of windfall sales for the gun industry by scaremongering everyone about how the government wants to take all your guns and bullets, which really works best when the government actually bans things on occasion.

Win win.

I used the car metaphor after the bull bars carryon in the UK many years back. People were affixing metal bull bars onto their cars not realising the results of hitting a pedestrian with them. They were subsequently banned and any car carrying the bars was seized and the bars removed and destroyed.

You could own them, but the minute they were affixed to the car they could be confiscated.

I could forsee a similar attitude in the US.

Cheers

Andrew

So a middle aged man drops $75K on guns and equipment with no apparent motive and nobody picked up on it? I understand on a fundamental logical basis that you can't anticipate that. But at the same time surely there should have been alarm bells going off somewhere.

 Vaktathi wrote:

In general in the US, the government cannot ban something and then post facto seize it, no matter what it is.

I apologise in advance to any American dakka members if I've fethed this up

but with regard to the NRA and bump stocks, there was a BBC article explaining why they are supporting a ban on them.

I'm on the move, and I can't post the link(it's awkward on my phone) and I forgot half the article.

but anyway, the NRA are shifting the blame onto Obama and the ATF for not doing the paperwork properly or something with regards to these.

And because it's a federal thing, it's a simple fix and doesn't require Congress or something, and that stops Democrats from adding on extra stuff to ban more stuff or something.

It's something along those lines and it's good Congress tactics by the NRA but very cynical. Hoped that made sense

Just read the damn article on the BBC!

It's the ATF a few years ago who determined that it's kosher. Because there's no moving parts...

The call is for the ATF to re-review that ruling.

They can reclassify it as an NFA item, which would make it really hard/more scrutiny to acquire.

 whembly wrote:
It's the ATF a few years ago who determined that it's kosher. Because there's no moving parts...

The call is for the ATF to re-review that ruling.

They can reclassify it as an NFA item, which would make it really hard/more scrutiny to acquire.

And thus stop Congress from drafting new laws and thus stopping the Democrats from banning more stuff. The NRA are a cunning bunch of fethers.

Cheers whembly that's what I was trying to say

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's the ATF a few years ago who determined that it's kosher. Because there's no moving parts...

The call is for the ATF to re-review that ruling.

They can reclassify it as an NFA item, which would make it really hard/more scrutiny to acquire.

And thus stop Congress from drafting new laws and thus stopping the Democrats from banning more stuff. The NRA are a cunning bunch of fethers.

Cheers whembly that's what I was trying to say

Actually the ATF is using it's executive branch's prerogative and making these regulatory rulings... there's nothing stopping Congress from passing additional laws/restrictions.

They can pass a law outright banning these bumpstock, and Trump can sign it... and there's nothing the ATF could do to reverse that.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's the ATF a few years ago who determined that it's kosher. Because there's no moving parts...

The call is for the ATF to re-review that ruling.

They can reclassify it as an NFA item, which would make it really hard/more scrutiny to acquire.

And thus stop Congress from drafting new laws and thus stopping the Democrats from banning more stuff. The NRA are a cunning bunch of fethers.

Cheers whembly that's what I was trying to say

Actually the ATF is using it's executive branch's prerogative and making these regulatory rulings... there's nothing stopping Congress from passing additional laws/restrictions.

They can pass a law outright banning these bumpstock, and Trump can sign it... and there's nothing the ATF could do to reverse that.

And the NRA and the GOP can say they worked across the aisle to get restrictions passed.

And in 2018 they can say “look, they want more, it’s never enough” come campaign time.

And it costs them nothing except a gimmicky tool.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's the ATF a few years ago who determined that it's kosher. Because there's no moving parts...

The call is for the ATF to re-review that ruling.

They can reclassify it as an NFA item, which would make it really hard/more scrutiny to acquire.

And thus stop Congress from drafting new laws and thus stopping the Democrats from banning more stuff. The NRA are a cunning bunch of fethers.

Cheers whembly that's what I was trying to say

Actually the ATF is using it's executive branch's prerogative and making these regulatory rulings... there's nothing stopping Congress from passing additional laws/restrictions.

They can pass a law outright banning these bumpstock, and Trump can sign it... and there's nothing the ATF could do to reverse that.

And the NRA and the GOP can say they worked across the aisle to get restrictions passed.

And in 2018 they can say “look, they want more, it’s never enough” come campaign time.

And it costs them nothing except a gimmicky tool.

Can you blame them??? That's smart politics...

Bonus points if they're able to get that suppressor legislation to pass along with that.

Yeah, spot on D-USA

It's clear IMO, that the media are looking for something to carry the can for this awful crime, and bump stocks are public enemy number 1.

The NRA have stolen a march on everybody else by getting there first and being the people to propose this ban.

It takes people by surprise, the NRA can raise their hands and say they tried to act in the national interest, the bump stocks get banned, and it's a win for the NRA.

And like you say, the NRA can say in future that it's never enough to satisfy the Democrats, which plays to the NRA supporters.

It's good tactics, and utterly cynical, but politics was always a rough old trade.

Were bump stocks fitted to all of the weapons used?

Will there also be a call to ban trigger cranks and binary triggers?