With over 500 American casualties in a single mass shooting, the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that bump stocks are bad.
Sen. John Cornyn, the majority whip who called for hearings on the bump stocks this week, also said it was the video footage that got him thinking about the gun accessory.
"You know, I'd heard about them before, but I'd never actually seen one, and I certainly had never seen a video of someone using them to spray a concert audience of 22,000 people with gunshots," Cornyn said. "I just had no idea that that was possible."
Cornyn had no idea it was possible despite past Democratic efforts to ban bump stocks and similar devices, and despite numerous videos showing their fearsome efficiency—including those from the two primary manufacturers of bump stocks in the United States. But if Republicans like Cornyn have suddenly discovered bump stocks, it’s because they’ve been given permission.
"The NRA believes that devices intended to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations," Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the group's top two leaders, said in the statement.
If that makes it sound like everyone is in agreement and bump stocks are on their way out, don’t bet on it. Because there’s a basic reason why the NRA and other gun manufacturer organizations are likely to agree to any legislation.
Other groups are making the NRA seem tame.
"Gun Owners of America opposes a ban on bump stocks,” Executive Director Erich Pratt said in a statement ... “Any type of ban will be ignored by criminals and only serve to disarm honest citizens.” He said it’s “sad to see some Republicans quickly call for a vote on gun control.”
Pratt shouldn’t worry. While both Republicans and Democrats are introducing bills concerning bump stocks, none of them is scheduled to receive a vote. Instead, Republicans will hand off the issue of bump stocks to the Trump ATF for “study.” Who is the director of the ATF? Like so many other positions, Trump hasn’t gotten around to putting anyone in the role. Instead, Thomas Brandon, a long time agent who came up under the Obama administration, is acting director.
So expect the issue of bump stocks to be handed to the ATF, and expect any actual ruling to be delayed until an actual new ATF director issues a report. By which time, the idea of bump stocks will have slipped from public discourse—unless, by tragic necessity, it hasn’t.
Why not proceed on legislation to ban something that everyone seems to agree is a bad idea? There’s a reason why the NRA and other organizations are loathe to allow legislation on any type of hardware related to guns.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., called the issue a distraction.
“Proposed 'bump fire stock' ban is a red herring that would lead to ban of other firearms and accessories,” he tweeted.
The entire argument from the NRA is framed around the trite saying that “guns don’t kill people” etc. But allowing a ban on bump stocks is admitting to the idea that some pieces of hardware are intrinsically dangerous. It’s admitting that there are occasions when something should be denied to a “law abiding American” simply because of its potential to cause harm.
That’s the path that worries Massie, the GOA, and the NRA. Because their argument is based on that idea that no piece of hardware, no matter how potent, is evil in itself. Not even tracer rounds.
Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock tried to buy tracer ammunition at a gun show in the Phoenix area in recent weeks, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation tells CNN. …
The official explained that if Paddock had tracer ammunition, he could have had a more precise idea of where his shots were going in the darkness, and could have been more accurate.
Tracer rounds are legal in Nevada.
If you haven’t seen a bump stock at work, the following two videos will give you an idea of how effective they are in making a semi-automatic rifle behave like a fully automatic weapon.
Though the shooter in the first video declares that, with experience, he’s learned to control the aim of his bump stock equipped gun, here’s a “pro-second amendment” shooter showing you just how much bump fire stocks “are a stupid idea.”
What’s clear is that the device, or rapid fire of any sort, is a poor idea … for accurate target shooting. But there’s a reason why the armies of the world equip their soldiers with guns just as “stupid” as this modified AR-15. Because they can shoot a lot of people in a hurry. And while they may not be as accurate as a carefully squeezed off single shot when it comes to marking a target, experience turns rapid fire into equally rapid death.
Still, the video from “Legally Armed American,” complete with its parody of the left as “always wanting to ban everything,” makes a point. When it comes to shooting at targets, or hunting, or law enforcement, a bump stock is a profoundly useless, even harmful, device.
So why does it exist?
Note: If some of this piece seems contradictory to ideas in an earlier article I wrote on bump stocks, there’s a simple reason—I was wrong, and was rightly taken to the wood shed by multiple commentators. Much appreciated.
Want to see how the speed of a bump stock actually compares to that of a fast shooter? Here’s one more video.