Trump moves to outlaw 'bump stocks;' considers other steps after Florida shooting

RealCDN - Awesome - too bad obama didn't do this... lives may have been saved.

It was during the Obama administration that Obama's BATFE allowed the "bump stock" to be sold. Multiple rounds fired with a single pull of the trigger? Sure, why not. Obama's BATFE were already involved in illegally purchasing, illegal selling, illegal transport, illegal possession, illegal export of U.S. firearms to Mexican drug cartels during the same time frame.

Trump directed the U.S. Justice Department to quickly complete a proposed rule that would treat "bump stocks" as machine guns, which could effectively outlaw them in the United States.

It appears that Trump is trying to correct one more of the Obama administration's mistakes.

If you'd ever talked to (m)any other Aussies than that one guy, you would know.

I've spent years traveling for surf and have spent a lot of time with a lot of Australians. Maybe it was just the crowd I was exposed to, but my distinct impression is that a lot of Australians aren't that into "rules". In fact, despite all the differences between a lot of Australians and a lot of Americans there is one trait that they appear to share and that is the idea that rules were meant to be broken. Not all, but a lot. Of course, I've met some very progressive minded Australians who are all in with their gun laws but they have been in the minority in my experience. The majority of my Australian acquaintances are a little more rough around the edges.

But that's beside the point, which is, there are more guns in the hands of the Australian public than there were before the ban. Despite the "rules".

What rule?

If you'd ever talked to (m)any other Aussies than that one guy, you would know.

Wow, you found the guy who proves the exception to the rule. Impressive!

What rule? It's true that he doesn't fit the gun control narrative but he's hardly an exception, his personal observations were his alone but the stats that he referred to are pretty accurate. It's a fact that there are more firearms in private citizen's hands now, than there were before the ban. Where there's a will there's a way and there is definitely a will for many people to acquire firearms, even in Australia. Why would the US be any different?

I have. It was at a local shooting range where he was a guest of a club member.

Wow, you found the guy who proves the exception to the rule. Impressive!

Yeah. Just ask any Aussie.

I have. It was at a local shooting range where he was a guest of a club member. This Australian said that the two buyback programs in Australia reduced the number of firearms in private hands by about 20%. He also said that many Australian shooters simply replaced their confiscated firearms with newer models designed to skirt the edges of the new regulations. According to him there has been a steady increase in the number of guns in Australia and there's now more than before the 1996 ban. Every gun that was turned in has been replaced, and then some.

This Australian expressed the opinion that his county's gun laws sucked and envied the freedom he found in the US. In between firing sessions ( with guns that are outlawed at home) this Australian repeatedly told his wife that they should move here and she seemed very receptive to the idea. She really liked shooting the AR-15.

Australia is not the US, they have a different set of national experiences and cultural expectations. What works in Australia has very little chance of success in the US. The bottom line is that Australia's stricter gun laws have done nothing to reduce the number of guns in Australia and any expectations that the Americans would fare differently is unrealistic.

I hate to break it to you, but the guns are not going anywhere. 

Yeah. Just ask any Aussie.

From where? Do they grow on trees?

That might as well be the case. There are easily over 4 million AR platform rifles in private hands right now. Add to that another couple of million or so of non AR semi automatic rifles that are functional equivalents. And then there's all those AK 47 based semi automatics, there has got to be at least million of those. That's just in private hands in the US.

Then there's always the millions of fully automatic "real" assault rifles that have been sold around the world over the past 40 something years along with an equal amount that were just given away to friendly nations. They're everywhere, they're readily available, they're affordable and they can last a long time. I have seen Vietnam era M-16A1s being offered right along side of current issue M4s by third world gun dealers.

So the stone cold reality is that these types of guns are not going away until people stop wanting them and right now a lot of people want them. It's basic supply and demand banning semi automatic rifles would just create a black market and being illegal and unregulated the black market has a way of making certain commodities, that would ordinarily be difficult or impossible to acquire, suddenly as easy to get as opening your wallet.

I hate to break it to you, but the guns are not going anywhere. Society's energy would be better spent on coming up with a plan B for the hand we've been dealt. Maybe taking a good hard look at the underlying dynamics behind this particular type of crime would be a good place to start.

From where? Do they grow on trees?

I would think the same place where endless supply of illegal drugs comes from. Cocaine doesn’t just sprout off trees ready to snort either.

The law breakers will always be able to get them. . . .

From where? Do they grow on trees?

Trump directed the U.S. Justice Department to quickly complete a proposed rule that would treat "bump stocks" as machine guns, which could effectively outlaw them in the United States. -- article

Machine guns are still legal in certain states.

Banning "AR-15 style" rifles is a bad idea. Currently, there are 47 different types of AR-15-style firearms on the market. The only people adversely affected would be law abiding citizens. The law breakers will always be able to get them. . . .

clamenza

In 2013, there were 33,636 Americans killed by guns versus 33, 782 fatal crashes. 

Hawaii is the state with the lowest gunshot deaths. 2.6 deaths per 100,000, compared with Alaska 19.8.

Zichi - so you're saying its all climate. I mean, living through those long, dark Alaskan winters must be enough to drive anyone batty!

And Hawaii? Hello! I mean, put a Mai Tai in me and the only thing I'm shootin' is loving glances at the hula girls!

Guns In America will never be taken away! Why...? Because of this. Period. 

Good!

The US guys at the office say "don't hold your breath". When Trump finds out that his base doesn't like it, this will all disappear. This is based on their experience.

In 2013, there were 33,636 Americans killed by guns versus 33, 782 fatal crashes. 

As years go by cars will get safer and will be safest when self-driving with almost zero deaths. At the same time, guns will get more and more dangerous, especially when then become electronic like the new rapid fire electronic gun that will put any AR to shame. Any NRA2A member should have a firm understanding about this and other gun technology or they are not a real NRA2A person, but rather a Liberal like Trump who wants to make law set in stone restricting the gun rights of real Americans. Trump is a Liberal now and he broke his oath to uphold 2A to his followers.

It doesn’t actually

Then why is Trump going Liberal on these bump stocks? It is an infringement on the rights of Americans. It is not the Trump/Hannity Conservative way. Because of Trump there begins a cancer that will slowly eat away at 2A/NRA gun rights.

when there are millions more guns in the states, does that mean the proliferation is to blame?

Yes, it does. Of course it does.

if you removed the large, Democrat-ruled cities from the equation...

According to Forbes, the most Republican city in the US is Mesa, Arizona.

Federal records show Arizona to be consistently among the most deadly states for gun violence.

Arizona's total gun-death rate - a figure that includes murders, suicides, accidents, police shootings and other unclassified killings - was nearly 16 per 100,000. The national rate was about 10.

"Places that have more guns have more gun violence, and Arizona is very high on that," 

http://archive.azcentral.com/community/pinal/20110127arizona-gun-death-rate-nations-worst-sev.html

Mesa is the 8th most violent city in Arizona: 14 murders in a population of 450,000.

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/arizona-s-most-dangerous-cities/collection_094a5688-1473-11e5-9041-6b67567e22b1.html

You don’t, obviously. But it’s food for thought

No, it's fudging the numbers (i.e., deception), and it's the only way to get statistics to support your argument.

It doesn’t actually

It does actually.

Why would you remove them? Are you going to remove large cities from the equation in other countries too?

You don’t, obviously. But it’s food for thought

If you look at the rest of cleo's post, yes, it seems proliferation is to blame.

It doesn’t actually

That’s great, zichi!

Good for you!

but if you removed the large, Democrat-ruled cities from the equation like New Orleans, Chicago and Atlanta, the numbers would be more in line with the rest of the West.

Why would you remove them? Are you going to remove large cities from the equation in other countries too?

Yup, ok. And when there are millions more guns in the states, does that mean the proliferation is to blame?

If you look at the rest of cleo's post, yes, it seems proliferation is to blame.

Not only do statistics prove gun laws are not the bogeyman posters here want to believe

Then why is Trump going all Liberal and wanting to make this gun ban? Next he will ban more...then ban more. Soon there will be no guns under Trump. Trump snowed his followers this time. President Hillary never imposed any gun bans while she was president. Trump is a Liberal. As you said. There are many many many more gun deaths countries like Switzerland and there is the Conservative belief that Japan has a higher murder rate than the US with swords. So why is Trump proposing making things more strict for guns? That's not the Republican way. It's the Liberal way. Trump is becoming a Liberal.

Each gun in Switzerland kills 0.0000191 more people than each gun in the US. OK.

Yup, ok. And when there are millions more guns in the states, does that mean the proliferation is to blame?

no, it doesn’t.

Not only do statistics prove gun laws are not the bogeyman posters here want to believe, but if you removed the large, Democrat-ruled cities from the equation like New Orleans, Chicago and Atlanta, the numbers would be more in line with the rest of the West.

This is the brain speaking.

Americans like guns.

The NRA controls many polititions.

Almost 30000 Americans get shot every year, including children

the obvious answer...the NRA owns all the gun ranges, and guns. No individual can own one. If you want to shoot, pay your ten bucks at the NRA gun range.

Top 5 Senators With the Most Contributions From the NRA

John McCain (R, AZ) – $7.74 million

Richard Burr (R, NC) – $6.99 million

Roy Blunt (R, MO) – $4.55 million

Thom Tillis (R, NC) – $4.42 million

Cory Gardner (R, CO) – $3.88 million

 As of 2017, the base salary for all rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and Senate was $174,000 per year, plus benefits.

Here is the main problem - the politicians are paid very miserable, that is why they do such a miserable job. Any idiot with millions or billions of dollars is able to buy them! A senator MUST be paid 174 millions dollars per year to make it fair. The politicians MUST be financially independent. However, USA and many other countries are run by big corporations and big money.

Another benefit from a fair pay would be that we would not have to elect such stupid idiots politicians. Much-much more smarter and wiser people would love to run to be politicians. Smart and wise politicians would ban all the guns, not just the bump stocks...

Switzerland .00012341

US .00010430

I think you just shot yourself in the foot and demonstrated the exact opposite of what you're trying to 'prove'.

Each gun in Switzerland kills 0.0000191 more people than each gun in the US. OK.

Switzerland is estimated to have 24.45 guns per 100 residents, and a gun-related death rate of 3.01 per 100,000 residents. The US is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 residents, and a gun-related death rate of 10.54 per 100,000 residents.

Four times as many guns, 3.5 times as many gun deaths.

More guns = proportionally more gun deaths.

Fewer guns = proportionally fewer gun deaths.

qed

MrBum - I’ve already laid out the cold hard facts.

the narrative you want to support is fundamentally wrong and ignores a much larger problem.

@clamenza

Here's your gun ownership numbers together with mass shootings, as opposed to the general homicide numbers you posted. Look at the US out there all by itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

America's mental illness and breakdown of the family unit is comparable to other wealthy countries. Americans watch the same violent movies and play the same video games as other countries too.

The difference is the MASSIVE amount of guns in the country. Nearly three times that of its closest competitor, Switzerland, by your own source. A quick Google search will show you that Switzerland has much stricter laws than America despite their high gun ownership. Does your conservative media tell you about all that?

From Wikipedia;

firearm-related deaths per gun per year

Switzerland .00012341

US .00010430

again, gun ownership and gun laws are not the problem.

People who believe one word from this mouthy and frivolous guy are amnesiac and they deserve Trump as president. Ask Melania how it feels to be kissed goodnight by a mouth that tinkled prostitutes few minutes earlier.

Zichi - it’s fun to make up numbers and then omit gun ownership numbers isn’t it?

The problem isn’t gun laws. It’s mental illness and breakdown of the family unit.

Guns are a symptom of a much larger problem.

This is the (Dis)United States of America in 2018:

Kid: "I'll take this pistol, please."

Store clerk: "How old are you, kid?"

Kid: "Eighteen."

Clerk: "Sorry, you have to be 21 to buy that."

Kid: "Oh. Well, can I buy this AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle?"

Clerk: "Yep, you sure can. Shall I wrap it for you?"

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who sponsored the measure, said he was nevertheless encouraged that the White House was considering new firearms restrictions. "Sign after sign this week that we've hit a fulcrum point in this debate where politicians are, for the first time, scared on the political consequences of inaction on guns," Murphy wrote on Twitter.

Great news/about time. Don't really care if this is a poll-driven policy/move as long as something's done to limit access to assault rifles/bump stocks. Should have never been a partisan issue anyway (not talking about gun control as a whole but -at the very least- access to machine guns/near automatic firearms) .

It took 2 massacres (Las Vegas, Florida) but finally got to this step

Trump also controls both Houses of Congress, unlike Obama's last 6 years, so let's see if it can get thru Congress

Wait few more days. Trump will be blaming Korea. Wait one more month. He will be blaming Democrats.

Reckless: I hope Trump understands that he does not make laws, and he is not a dictator. The legislature makes laws which he signs or vetoes, and may enforce.

That’s so old school. Obama proved that he could make his own laws and get the judges he appointed to make them legal. Of course a lot of the laws he tried to make were overturned- many of them unanimously by the Supreme Court. Not all judges were his appointed lackeys.

Clameza: your graph says Switzerland has a lower intentional homicide rate for 100k people...

Yup, and way fewer guns. Per capita gun crime in the US is minuscule compared to the Swiss

Obama had 8 years to ban these devices but obviously he was bought and paid for by the NRA and so he did nothing.

"Awesome - too bad obama didn't do this... lives may have been saved."

Or Bush Jr before him, or Clinton before him or Bush Sr before him or ...

Clameza: your graph says Switzerland has a lower intentional homicide rate for 100k people...

I see no reason for bump stocks, but just a little reminder for those who swallow whole the liberal media lies about gun violence in the United States;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWZzfqdVAAEokX2?format=jpg&name=medium

Despite all those guns, there are few gun crimes per capita as opposed to say, Switzerland

dont believe the hype

If Trump is actually genuinely sincere in this, then really well done to him. It's not much, but only a small step-by-step process would ever work for gun control in America. You ask for too much and it won't get off the ground.

Banning bump stocks won't prevent the next massacre, but once the next one occurs then further steps can be taken as it will be clear bump stocks are only a tiny part of the problem

I also want to believe Trump on this, but I'm pretty skeptical

Fair enough, but this should be a non-partisan issue. So give the guy the benefit of the doubt. If he succeeds, it's a good thing. If he doesn't, and can rightfully be shown to have done nothing, we can criticize at that time.

No it means a lot. Full automatic firearms have been Federally banned for decades. It boggles the mind that the government did not take any action to ban an accessory device that emulate full automatic fire. As to banning semi-automatics, no need, just ban magazine capacity ad regulate the sales.

I also want to believe Trump on this, but I'm pretty skeptical and think that by tomorrow he'll not only revert to the "now is not the time to talk about guns (never is), but mental health" etc., excuses when the NRA reminds him about donations, and then he'll claim he never said what he said.

Hope I'm wrong.

It is a step in the right direction, but there is nothing stopping people having high powered rifles and having more than one magazine of rounds. Therefore, it really means nothing.

Banning bump stocks is not enough. Not all of the recent massacres have even used those. We need to ban semi-automatic rifles.

I don't think banning semi-automatic rifles is enough. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns. I'm for an all out ban, but I realize that'll be difficult in the current climate.

But we need to make gun ownership at least as difficult as getting a driver's license. There's absolutely no reason for it to be convenient. Require training, long waiting periods, mental health screening, periodic registration renewal, etc. Kind of like how things used to be until the crazy wing of the NRA took over and created the gun lobby.

Banning bump stocks is not enough. Not all of the recent massacres have even used those. We need to ban semi-automatic rifles. The line between what citizens can and can’t own is drawn in the wrong place.

Good luck on this one Trump. I hope you're sincere on this, and I hope you can actually get it done.

Awesome - too bad obama didn't do this... lives may have been saved.

"We cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference, we must actually make a difference."

I want to believe this. It's a start.

By moving to ban bump stocks, the president seems to be saying he accepts there's a problem with civilians possessing guns that fire multiple rounds quickly.

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons next!