Does the Bump Stock Ban Matter?

Thank you to / res_editss_ for editing this video! I definitely could not have done this on my own. Check out his page!
Patreon: www.patreon.com/ArmchairViole...
My Twitter: / armchairviolenc
Videos I took clips from:
3d Print gun: • 3D Printing TimeLapse ...
Slowmo bump stock firing: • What is a Bump Stock? ...
VSO Gun Channel: • Froglube Persistence T...
Bump Stock vs. Semi Auto: • Gun Expert Demonstrate...
Recreational shooters review bump stock: • How Fast Can A Bump St...
• "Bump Stock VS Semi Au...
Bump stocks not practical: • How Las Vegas gunman m...
Machine gun firing: • Monstrously Powerful M...
12 shot reload: • Fastest shooter EVER, ...

[@ArmchairViolence]

KZbin won't let videos like this be monetized, so support my Patreon to allow me to keep making suspiciously violent content! patreon.com/ArmchairViolence

[@BiggityBoggity8095]

What’s sad to me is that this is what we consider to be gun control. Just blanket bans on dumb shit. NY banned the purchase of gear such as chest rigs and plate carriers because the shooter in Uvalde was wearing a plate carrier with no plates in it. People look at laws like this and actually see it as valid gun control. We have the information and the numbers to study who’s more likely to commit a mass shooting. We can be precise and targeted with the laws we pass. We choose to go the route of prohibition, which has so far failed. We refuse to adopt a more effective strategy.

[@StrawHat83]

It's refreshing to see a non-gun owner take the time to learn about a gun issue and come to a reasonable conclusion. Great video.

[@philsterboyy]

Agreed. To many people take bold and uninformed stances based on emotion. I find it ridiculous when people who are uneducated on firearms and have lived in a safety bubble try to tell me what I should and shouldn’t own. Granted I agree, bump stocks are silly range toys. Not the point though. The point is, an armed people are a free people.

[@Ferrari255GTO]

​@@philsterboyy honestly living in a safety bubble doesn't justify ignorance, and yet everyone chooses to make their own bullshit theories without looking up a single thing, wich would be a 50/50 since there's just as good a chance of finding good information or TV bullshit. I myself live in a fairly nice part of the world with minimal incidents and i still understand why firearms are important for the public, but sharing such a point of view turns you into an "extremist" despite the fact that such same people complain about the government on their own time too...

[@vintagecapgunsatyourmomshouse]

100% agree. Impressed

[@1718bb]

The bigger issue is that the ATF is effectively creating new law, which only the legislature and the president (by signing bills passed by the legislature) can legally do. We cannot let appointed bureaucrats create laws. Want to ban bump stocks? Get the legislature to pass a new law. Don't like that the 2A might prevent you from passing that law (and having it survive legal challenge), then amend the Constitution. Our society has rules. Play by them.

[@gentlemandemon]

Except that sort of ignores that the ATF got the power to create regulations by Congress. It also is somewhat related to chevron deference, which is strengthens the authority of regulatory agencies through the subject matter expertise.

[@1718bb]

@@gentlemandemonRegulate, not legislate. The definition of a "machine gun" is specified in the law. It is clear. The bump stock does not fit the definition. The ATF are knowingly redefining or breaking the law. But this is why we have courts. The judges get to determine this exact issue. And when they declare that what the ATF did is unconstitutional, this will be why. But the TV news will say, "Activist right wing judges legalize machine guns!!!" Not true. As for chevron deference, isn't there a case pending specifically on that?

[@gentlemandemon]

@@1718bb For my own edification, I just read the US code with the definition of "machinegun," which includes the phrase: "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." I'm no lawyer, but it's hardly a stretch to see how bump stock modified weapons fall under that category. Chevron deference is going to be ruled on by the Supreme Court, they're probably going to strike it down, and I don't like that. I don't want to get too into the weeds about it, but expecting Congress to micromanage agencies is ludicrous, particularly when the laws written to create those agencies intentionally left areas of discretion for the agencies to act on day-to-day business. I genuinely don't care about the "activist judge" label, it's a phrase thrown around whenever somebody doesn't like a decision. Brass tax, everybody's a legal consequentialist at the end of the day, whether they'll admit it or not.

[@1718bb]

@@gentlemandemonExactly. A single function of the trigger. The bump stock just allows you to slam your finger against the trigger really fast. You still get a single shot for each trigger pull.

[@gentlemandemon]

@@1718bb I'm not gonna have a semantic argument. At the end of the day, I think the video did a great job of explaining the issue.

[@relativisticvel]

The issue is if the ATF can ban bump stocks with executive fiat then they can ban pretty much anything that increases ROF, so trigger kits etc etc.

[@brylythhighlights4335]

I disagree. Taking a hard line on bump stocks is necessary, because allowing the ATF to enforce illegal bans means they can ban largely whatever they feel like.

[@PoormansMachineGun]

Bumpfire is a technique not a device. Banning the device will NOT ban a firearms ability to bumpfire.

[@institches2750]

It is unsettling that a law can change overnight, and suddenly a piece of plastic you haven't thought about in years becomes a felony. Do most gun owners follow the changing laws closely enough to even know when something they have becomes outlawed?

[@Daniel66776]

Dude why else do you have a congress if not to continuously and routinely change existing law and to add new ones, it’s one entire third of the government, why is that unsettling? What exact detail there is unsettling? The fact that you live in a democracy and laws can and will change throughout your life? Jesus what’s wrong with people these days

[@institches2750]

@@Daniel66776 When Congress passes something big, it makes the news. When the supreme court upends a landmark case, it makes the news. The ATF rarely gets a mention in mainstream news. Plus, the laws that Congress passes rarely affect the average person in their day to day. They affect industry in the long-term, or society in the long-term, but the average citizen doesn't go from totally fine to being a felon overnight. And usually there will be some interfacing party guiding the citizen. Like your doctor won't prescribe you something that's been outlawed. If the gov't decides to outlaw some tool in my shed for being too dangerous, I would never hear about it.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@Daniel66776 Actually, you've unintentionally touched on the essence of their argument. Congress didn't change that law. The ATF reclassified bump stocks as a machine gun without any legislative changes. The un-elected federal bureaucracy effectively changed a law on their own, without an act of Congress. That is a big part of the argument for people, and there are several comments here about it.

[@monsterhog1118]

It was trump

[@Ferrari255GTO]

​@@Daniel66776 the problem is not just the change, the problem is that theese changes happen spontaneously and almost unanounced and people who one day were law respecting citizens are now responsible for a FELONY no less. All out of a sudden you're ay risk of going to jail for a good while, loosing your right to use firearms since a background check will see said felony and deny sale and access to any firearms from legal stores. It goes from literall plastic to a VERY severe crime.

[@christophernewton8474]

Mr Violence here doesn't own a gun, so he has never heard this joke, but among those of us who do there is a common joke that BATF means Bureau of Arbitrary Technical Findings. Unelected bureaucrats making hundreds of thousands of even millions of law abiding citizens felons overnight on a regular basis by changing you mind about something without ever even speaking to a judge is such a tragedy and miscarriage of justice there's nothing to do but laugh.

[@alecubudulecu]

One correction. - a major one - bump stocks used in the shooting - refers to it being in the room with him. Along with the myriad of other guns he had. He ended up actively firing only 2 rifles. Neither of which had a bump stock on them. Still you make great points. But this is a key point. Bump stocks have not been used in crime. Why? For all the points you made.

[@KN-op3et]

I wonder if the legal issue is that if no action is taken on the bump stock, it sets an implied precedent for any other firerate-adjusting devices that follow the bump stock method. It's a similar problem facing pistol-stabilized braces. The first braces required the user to strap them to the forearm and the ATF said they were fine. Then the ATF said braces were fine so long as the user doesn't shoulder them (how to enforce??). Then they said it would be fine if shouldered. Looking at it purely from a design perspective, after the series of adjustments on brace models, braces are now functionally no different than a stock with a strap wrapped around them. So technically it's now legal workaround for a short barreled rifle for the majority of users.

[@moreparrotsmoredereks2275]

It is a similar issue, and a ban on pistol braces is just as useless as a ban on bump stocks. Anyone with a hacksaw can turn a regular rifle into a short barreled rifle if they really want to. You can even just buy an AR pistol upper receiver and a an AR lower rifle receiver separately, then just put them together and you have a short barreled rifle. Additionally, does limiting access to short barreled rifles even do anything? If someone wants to do a crime and wants to use a short barreled rifle for it, but can't acquire one, will they choose not to do the crime, or will they just use a regular rifle or pistol instead? It's a useless law that I seriously doubt has saved a single life or prevented a single crime, while turning many otherwise innocent people into felons by accident.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The reason short barrel rifles are regulated by the NFA is because originally pistols were going to be regulated as NFA items, and cuttig down a rifle would be a workaround. Pistols were too common to be regulated, so they were taken off the legislation. But the SBR remained. In the end, a workaround for SBRs is only cosmic irony considering that short rifles were meant to be legal but they were considered a workaround for a pistol ban.

[@meekrob29]

As commented earlier, machine guns aren't strictly illegal. They are NFA items, meaning they have to be registered with the ATF and require a $200 tax stamp. This in and of itself is not that difficult and anyone with a clean record and the patience to wait 3 months to 2 years could do it. What makes machine guns different from other NFA items (suppressors, short barrel rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices) is the 1986 Hughes Amendment which banned any new production of transferable machine guns. This capped supply makes them hard to find and their price very high ($10,000+ typically), which is the more meaningful restriction than the legal one.

[@meekrob29]

It's also worth noting that machineguns aren't particularly difficult to make compared to semi-autos. The open-bolt submachinegun is actually one of the simplest firearms in existence. The WW2 British Sten gun (~4 million produced), for example, cost the approximate equivalent of $175 to make in today's money.

[@christophervelez1561]

Wow coming in with a spicy topic!

[@Ventus_the_Heathen]

THANK YOU! For that final point.

[@Starless85]

Not a video I expected to see on this channel. Good job.

[@IvanBarsch]

Having seen people fire ten accurate rounds into five different targets with a ‘73 Winchester (lever action, remember) in less than two seconds…it really doesn’t matter.

[@Starless85]

“Both sides are more concerned with strategic fear mongering to their voter base instead of actually addressing the issue.” Best synopsis of ALL politics that I’ve heard in a while.

[@3nertia]

Under capitalism, problems only get solved if there's profit to be made ...

[@tyrusmfrechs7025]

Pretty sure it’s the left that’s fear mongering

[@jeice13]

One reason not to use this as a bargaining chip is that gun the end goal of gun control is basically to ban everything vaguely scary (seeing as other countries have progressed to knife control). Look at the term "high capacity magazine" which generally means whatever the current local limit is on capacity whether thats 5 or 50

[@jeice13]

Also as the second amendment is supposed to prevent banning weapons this ban is probably more constitutional than prohibiting actual machine guns

[@imjustsam1745]

Obligatory comments for the algorithm. Thanks for the intelligent and reasonable exploration. Hope you and yours are doing well.

[@BIGBADWOOD]

The standard semi-automatic AR-15 Guerra fired dispersed 30 rounds in about six seconds. That's an approximate discharge rate of about five rounds per second. Guerra then demonstrated the AR-15 modified with a bump stock. It had a significantly faster firing rate of about 7.5 rounds per second. The bump stock weapon simulated automatic fire, though didn't completely replicate it. This weapon didn't carry the consistent firing pattern characteristic of fully automatic weapons. The fully automatic AR-15 cleared a 30 round magazine in less than two seconds with a single pull of the trigger. This is an approximate firing rate of at least 15 rounds per second.

[@kaoskronostyche9939]

Interesting talk. Thanks.

[@dpchief_216]

Love your channel man! It would be cool to see some gun content from a Martial Artist’s perspective, especially a No BS martial artist such as yourself

[@CatArmyGeneral]

Shall not be infringed. I think they're stupid, and make it hard to control, but that's never a reason to ban something, and infringe on my inalienable rights. If you show up to the range with one, I might laugh at you, but you still have the right to own it.

[@MisterJayEm]

Many people seem to forget them, but I believe that there are considerably more words in that particular amendment.

[@bolsack8902]

Never got the bump stock thing. It’s like these people have never played any of those shooting games where the screen shakes the more you shoot

[@LawAndBedlum]

Thank you for that sober explanation

[@voldschen232]

it's interesting how this is still a topic for debate despite this happened years ago, one thing for sure abt the banned tho is that it doesn't always stop it 100% of what it is intended to do. ppl can learn how to bump fire with their fingers, 3D print, and sometimes illegally acquiring automatic firearms. it'll be more relevant if there's crackdowns on trafficking rather than going after civilians and consumers.

[@Tsmowl]

I was wondering when you was gonna upload again 🎉

[@gwashington65]

Abolish the ATF

[@meekrob29]

I appreciate the balanced and reasoned take, particularly from a non-gun owner. I would add that beyond the standard political ginning up of emotions, the real issue is over the legal precedent. Those opposed to the ban view it as an executive agency effectively making law and usurping the legislature, while those in favor support a less constrained executive branch being able to make rule changes not just on firearms policy, but on environmental, corporate, and so on.

[@BIGBADWOOD]

On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks in a 6-3 decision in the Garland v. Cargill case. As a result of this ruling, bump stocks are now legal to buy and possess in many states across the country.

[@whatthefu3786]

As someone living in europe this US gun discussions are just wild. For me it's like...I don't even have a analogy for this. You do you I guess.

[@deontaeb5466]

If he would have had a suppressor they would have had even a harder time locating him.

[@jtraptor7776]

Good video 4k views in two days seems slow for you tho, is this video shadow banned?

[@ArmchairViolence]

It's unmonetized. :/

[@pangopod2969]

Where outro song ? 😢

[@fawazahmed4978]

bro wheres the krav maga song outro thing? im upset im hurt bring it back

[@tdo7125]

Is there a difference between a stock and a bump stock?

[@mynameismynameis666]

no, because if you listen to the original footage, you can clearly hear a US made american Machinegun, not a bump stocked semi. But such is the sand that is beig thrown at your eyes when a lockheed accountant dies

[@stephenaddair1337]

I want one just because atf doesn't want me to own one , where can i buy one??

[@afightersdream]

This isn't really what I expected from you but why not

[@101deathcore]

pointlessly arguing is the point. bump stock is the perfect thing to get stuck into, it doesn't matter so you never have to say anything real. politicians love it.

[@Leo.23232]

it is reasonable to care about it being banned if theres no point of banning it, assuming you take the position that you shouldnt ban things without good reason which most people do.

[@PopeOfTheBullpuptistChurch]

The only reason we gun owners cared about the bump stock case is because it was yet another example of ATF “clarifying” (redefining) a definition set by Congress to something it isn’t, and there are plenty of firearm components on the market more gun owners actually care about that have been unlawfully redefined as things they aren’t.

[@treezun]

Why are machine guns banned? How don't they fall under 2a? Honestly asking...

[@justin8865]

For the algorithm.

[@charlesreed5839]

The use of a bump stock is to warn everyone around that an a#$hole is nearby.

[@isaacr5664]

Bro is on gun-fo

[@Shacksies]

Could you explain why you don't own a gun?

[@Captain_Obvious1]

Great video, I think that we've largely lost the ability to think rationally about any remotely political topic in the U.S.

[@jacobnoah5209]

Automatic guns are not illegal, but is illegal to own one without going through the correct lawful process to own

[@kevinb8572]

Great, another booksmart KZbinr. I love my bumpstock for my AK-47 with my 60 round mag. I don't have an issue with the accuracy at short range. You should never have a gun you can not fully control.

[@michiwonderoutdoors2282]

400M Perfectly doable shot if you're a sniper.

[@necronticgaming6186]

I say bump stock is situational Short range(cqb)=advantage Mid range=depends on recoil control(400 meters) Long range=f#ck no

[@JessDugan-oq2nj]

Guess it doesn’t matter as of today

[@michiwonderoutdoors2282]

Do a vid on Binary triggers.

[@michiwonderoutdoors2282]

Grazing fire

[@kalinfuson7241]

The new need a sd teacher you still br?

[@TheKiltedGerman]

Good, nuanced take. Off topic question: I've seen you wearing a Marine poolee shirt in past videos and was wondering if you were in at some point. Not as a "muh stolen valor" thing, just curious.

[@user-rc8br5sw6j]

He won a competition as I recall and they gave him a T shirt as I recall. But his USP is that he doesn't rely on an external locus of authority for anything either the argument and research stands or someone can prove it wrong or improve upon it with better.

[@ArmchairViolence]

​@@user-rc8br5sw6j I feel so understood 😇

[@user-rc8br5sw6j]

@@ArmchairViolence Everybody gets you by now. It's like that Bruce Willis Film. I used to think you're just as a@@@ole but now I see you're one of the good guys. And you respond. No I'm still an a@@@ole I'm just your kind of a@@@ole

[@institches2750]

​@@user-rc8br5sw6j What a perfect description of what I like about this channel.

[@TheKiltedGerman]

@@user-rc8br5sw6j Oh, I get non-position of authority thing. I was just curious because he'd worn the shirt in several videos and usually only poolees where it. I mean, he literally has a video on why military martial arts suck for self-defense. I was a MCMAP instructor back in the day and agree entirely.

[@IstoletwotrilliondollarsCIA]

it's really just for fun

[@hurdleguy8014]

Automatic rifles actually are not illegal to own.

[@sadtwolvesfan]

First they take our bump stocks then they tske our bumper cars

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

How will I pretend to be Dale when I'm 8 beers deep during my son's birthday?

[@josephlane1614]

Haven't watched the video yet but i'm gonna say it outright. I could make a bump stock using a ikea book shelf if i wanted to. Of course i'd eed some tools, most of which aren't hard to get. When you know how a bumpstock works you immediately know how easy it is to make them and how little you need one in the first place. Fun fact, most firearms can be bump fired without a bump stock. You also know that they have little to no combat applications. Just drill the third pin if you want acurate full auto capabilities lmao. This is not legal device or moral advice. This statement is hypothetical and i don't support murder. I simply am saying that if we want to reduce number of murders we should ask questions like whether or not a law is capable of banning the item, and whether or not banning the item would reduce murder. It's tough to make the arguement this law prevents criminals from having bump stocks, and even more difficult to prove it reduces murder seeing as mass shootings skyrocketed after the law was passed.

[@MansMan42069]

And this is only talking about a springless bump stock. The original Akins Accelerator was a bump stock with an internal spring that served the same function as the support hand when bump firing. Because it's purely mechanical and requires no effort on the shooter's part, it's more accurate and quite frankly _scary._ Granted, the only clips out there are on .22 plinkers so I'm sure an Akins Accelerator on an AR-15 would be a different story. Its existence caused a re-definition of machine guns to "requiring no *additional* input from the shooter to fire continuously". That original device is banned and you can only buy the springless ones today.

[@PhilosophywEdd]

It doesn't matter in the long run.

[@The_universal_cynic]

This is a good video but you failed to mention how many people he injured which is 413. Also there was another 867 cooler injured due to panic. He didn't need to fire accurately. He was aiming at a massive crowd of people so it really didn't matter.

[@shadowjezzter]

It is legal to own a machine gun, just requires licensing. For example, getting an FFL or “federal firearms license”. Just quickly pointing that out.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Basically you have to hold a sexond job as a NFA dealer. Larry Vickers had legal trouble because he was using his NFA dealer license to own machine guns. You're not supposed to do that.

[@shadowjezzter]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD so AK jesus as example? Still legal, just pointing out as not something many know. Still good vid

[@moreparrotsmoredereks2275]

I've fired fully automatic rifles in the military and at a civilian range. They're difficult to aim, and burn through ammo very quickly. A bump stock doals that up even further, because it's literally shaking the rifle back and forth as you try to control it. Full auto is not even used in the military any more outside of true machine guns in a suppressive role, because it is inaccurate and goes through ammunition too quickly. I had this conversation with family members a while ago, and told them that I wish every mass shooter had a bump stock, or even an automatic rifle. They'd kill fewer people. Also, side note: the worse mass shooting in U.S. history is not the Las Vegas shooting, it was at Wounded Knee in 1890. You know, where the Army surrounded a Lakota village of women, children and other noncombatants with machine guns, disarmed them, and then shot 200 of them. And issued 19 Medals of Honor, because nothing shows bravery like slaughtering unarmed children, right? But remember, only the government can be trusted with guns.

[@ArmchairViolence]

Completely agree with the first and second parts of your comment, but I also want to be pedantic and note that the term "mass shooting" typically denotes some kind of crime or illegality taking place. I'm not defending Wounded Knee, but it was "technically" legal, as it was sanctioned by the government, making the Vegas shooting the deadliest thing that fits the typical definition of a "mass shooting." Although, I could also rephrase the question to "deadliest MODERN mass shooting" to avoid that confusion as well.

[@moreparrotsmoredereks2275]

@@ArmchairViolence Fair enough. Wounded Knee isn't really relevant to the video anyway, I just have a habit of bringing it up because of its relevance to the larger debate around gun control. There is also an important political issue that is now coming up as a result of the bump stock ban. Machine guns have a specific definition under federal law, and bump stocks do not meet that definition. The ATF (an unelected law enforcement agency) has essentially rewritten the definition of a machine gun (written and passed by Congress) to now include a weapon that can be fired by "a continuous pull of the trigger." Under the actual law, a machine gun is a weapon that can be fired repeatedly with "a single function of the trigger." This matters because all semiautomatic triggers can be reset and fired again without entirely letting go of the trigger, so technically, all semiautomatic firearms can be fired by a "continuous pull of the trigger." So far, the ATF has used this to also ban the Forced Reset Trigger, which is basically just a semiautomatic trigger that has a very strong reset, allowing the trigger to be reset faster. However, all semiautomatic firearms essentially do the same thing, the only difference is the strength of the spring that resets the trigger. So, if this isn't stopped by the court systems, it could eventually lead to a complete ban on semiautomatic firearms. While bump stocks are stupid and useless and mostly just for rednecks that want to dick around in their back yard, the ban on bump stocks is actually a very important issue in the discussion of firearms law.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@moreparrotsmoredereks2275 Completely fair, but I didn't want to get into the weeds on legal definitions, precedent, and de-facto legislation attempts of bureaucracies on my violence-focused channel lol

[@FunningRast]

If you’re going to make a dumb comment at least get your facts straight. 1. They didn’t use machine guns nor automatic guns for that matter at Wounded Knee. The first use of an actual machine gun as we understand them wasn’t until 1893 by the British. 2. It wasn’t government sanctioned though they did try to cover it up. By ALL accounts, the officers lost control of the soldiers (not surprising giving the time and state of the military) after one of the Native’s guns went off accidentally WHILE they were in the process of disarming them. This wasn’t a unique event to the government, the US or the time as a whole. 3. 1890 was over 130 years ago when the military was very much undisciplined and the whole notion of protecting civilians as non-combatants wasn’t anywhere near what it should have been let alone what it became after the WWI or WWII. 4. No, you should never trust the government. That’s why it’s changed over the years and why it should always keep changing through your speech and votes.

[@2a0wen]

Ya lost it at 2:13. "... machine guns, which are super illegal to own." NO, they're NOT. They're highly regulated and super expensive to own. Machine guns are legal if you're willing to buy them and to pay the government to own them.

[@startown4814]

The bump stock ban seems made to appease anti gun people whilst not having any meaningful change to not step on the toes of the NRA. Especially with how bump stocks can be easily created at home this won't cut into the profits of the firearm industry.

[@daflamingoman4698]

Can’t wait for hasan to react to this video and miss the point entirely

[@MisterJayEm]

tl;dr- 8:05

[@glennchartrand5411]

It's a stupid gimmick. I'd laugh at someone who brought one to a range.

[@danieltrevino6485]

For a guy who doesn't own a gun, you did a pretty good job laying out the cold facts. But the political argument goes deeper than the right to own. There are serious legal consequences for thousands of people with an inanimate piece of plastic hanging in the balance. If they become machine guns overnight, are they subject to raids and seizures? Mandatory prison time and fines?

[@jc-kj8yc]

Not if the new law is set in place correctly. If they get banned, it's gonna be all over the news for a while, with the message to hand them in or dispose of them. Probably over a time period of 2-6 months. If you own one and use it on the range from time to time, you'll be informed fairly quickly to get rid of it. If, for some reason, you don't get the memo and have one somewhere collecting dust in your garage, what's gonna happen? If the police finds out about it somehow, a receipt of purchasing it before the ban and a reasonable explanation a la "I honestly forgot about that thing. Look at how dusty it is" should be enough.

[@institches2750]

​@@jc-kj8ycI'm skeptical of that assertion. "Aw, shucks, I didn't know," is not a valid legal defense. I'm pretty sure it's the law that ignorance of the law doesn't matter. You're assuming reasonable discretion in a system that is not known for that, and probably shouldn't be when "discretion" is so easily misapplyed as prejudice. The system should be designed so that its operators are acting fairly when they use it, not so that they have to ignore it sometimes.

[@josephlane1614]

KZbin unsubscribed me. Here i was trying to figure out why you aren't making videos anymore just to see that you have been😠

[@alejandrofranco9316]

Ban index fingers

[@lancesudberry209]

Or snipeing out of trunk years while home slice drove the car around town Muhammad

[@vintagecapgunsatyourmomshouse]

Really impressed. This video deserves 10 million views easily

[@SurmaSampo]

Gee, this school kid is really articulate and well reasoned. Must be going to a fancy charter school.

[@admcstabby]

Great video. It's nice to have an objective view on these matters, especially when it concludes: this is ridiculous. However, I would argue that there's a bigger reason so much attention is being brought to this decision, and I think Colin explains it pretty well towards the end of his video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYSnl6iHapuDh7csi=_78v08V7WNRwJJVU

[@davidalbus8089]

Our rights are either God-given and meant to be protected, or they are a privilege given to us by government and can be taken away by government. There is no in-between. Treating gimmicks such as bump stocks as bargaining chips simply feeds into the notion that rights are really just privileges. If you allow one right to be eroded then you give justification for all rights to be eroded.

[@darklyripley6138]

The idea of “inalienable rights” is a myth. There’s nothing metaphysical about rights. Rights are basically what we all agree should be valued. That’s all. There’s nothing “god given” about it. There were many things that we held as “rights” that we did away with. I am a firearms instructor and believe people should be allowed to own guns, but most pro gun people are the lowest common denominator. Instead of saying “Hey, I determine things through the harm principle. If something does more objective harm, we should do away with it. If not, we should be allowed to do or have x!”, you pro gun people will just say “HuR dUr! MuH cOnStItUtIoN!”, and not bother having a discussion. The constitution is not gospel. Nor should the laws of one generation dictate another.

[@davidalbus8089]

@darklyripley6138 your position is very foolish and ignores pretty much all of human history and human nature. It is a very childish surface level view that may look good to you know but will come back to bite you later. You look at the issues we have in America 5 they are nothing compared to the rule of unchecked tyrants. All men are equal. By saying that rights are a myth, you open up classifications of value when it comes to innate human life. This is a degradation in belief, and you might as well live under a monarchy with that viewpoint. Please take your utter ignorance somewhere else.

[@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812]

@@darklyripley6138 only that is not the view held by the US constitution, anyone who founded this country or the majority of its population. You don't have to share that opinion, but it is complete ignorance not understand the situation/circumstances of this country and what it believes. Rights come from God not government. End of story, in the united states that isn't a discussion unless you wanna rewrite the declaration of Independence and constitution. And to date nobody has done that, they can't even follow the simple process to pass a law (as this very video is about lol)

[@darklyripley6138]

@@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812 Rights do not come from god. Even many of the founding fathers didn’t believe that. They believed in inalienable rights, but used the expression “god given rights” as an expression. There’s no evidence for the existence of a god. Nor is there evidence that said god granted us rights. A society is what determines what is or isn’t a right. Not that I would expect bible thumpers to have a deep understanding of ethics or the philosophy of rights. It was once a held belief that slavery was a god given right. And unlike guns, the Bible actually supports slavery. Show me evidence of a god, then show me evidence that said god granted me the right to own a gun. Also, we can axe amendments. In theory we could get rid of any amendment tomorrow. So it’s obviously not true that these rights are god given if we can just decide to change them any moment.

[@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812]

@@darklyripley6138 oh God one of these idiots. Begone liberal

[@quasimongo410]

The only regulated item in a gun should be the barrel. Rather than prohibiting bump stocks, they should test fire every barrel before sale and make background checks only on such items. Every private gunsale should be excluding the barrel unless people do the paperwork themselves. Easy solution. Barrels/chambers cannot machined easily and will never be.

[@Shannon-ij1pm]

In the Vegas shooting, don't 60 people died but another 413 people were wounded so your shots per kill is a little disingenuous. Overall, I think bump stocks are a novelty, used by gun nuts who want to feel like they are shooting automatic when they are not. Probably not something a serious shooter who has shooting discipline would use. Since I don't own any long guns, I'm guessing. But it seems logical.

[@local_crackpot]

Sorry, i was the 667th like... my bad

[@cingkole7893]

True and Based

[@relativisticvel]

Machine guns are not illegal to own.

[@ArmchairViolence]

They are illegal unless you get very special licensing, which is incredibly difficult for an individual to get.

[@alexkehoepwj]

I didn't know that, but I looked it up and you're right

[@StrawHat83]

@@ArmchairViolence They are also incredibly expensive because working pre-1986 autos are rare. Ordinary folk ain't buy them. It's mostly retired NYC doctors and attorneys who move to New Hampshire. (The last bit is tongue-in-cheek, but NH has the highest concentration of autos in the US.)

[@FilmFlam-8008]

Technically you are wrong (as stated here by others). But practically you are correct if you have a belt loop on a pair of pants. Bump stocks are nothing but an assistance to do something that can be done pretty easily with practice. Even with a semi auto handgun (though that is a bit harder). The statue is badly written, and basically unconstitutional. Thought that hasn’t been appropriately challenged.

[@liamdurham7236]

@@ArmchairViolence They're like 15,000$ and the same year wait as a suppressor or short barreled rifle. Not difficult at all to be honest, cost as much as a used car though.

[@anomonyous]

No... Gun control advocates use emotional fear-mongering and reasoning. While some Gun rights advocates may use emotional language, the difference is that they're backed up by this little thing called THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION. So, yeah. I don't know. Tiny difference there. You know. The difference between someone lying and shouting, and someone telling the truth and shouting because the other guy was shouting.

[@Kinetic.44]

Any infringement on our rights matters!!!

[@monsterhog1118]

Always remember trump did this

[@Urmomma5f4t]

Based centrist take

[@treezun]

I mean, they dont have to ban fingers.. they could just, i dunno.. ban all guns? Lol

[@VerticalWTF]

I've designed a bump grip.Yeah it's just the grip people

[@CyberChrist]

A timely reminder that US forces shoot 25,000 bullets for ONE enemy combatant. Also, sound levels not matching at the end, where's the compressor at? ^^

[@PhilosophywEdd]

This is an irrelevant point to consider.

[@CyberChrist]

@@PhilosophywEdd Yet it's considered in the video, go figure ;)

[@ArmchairViolence]

This is actually pretty normal historically, and is largely because of the use of suppressing fire as a nearly ubiquitous tactic over the last 100+ years. The vast majority of bullets fired in war are meant to force an enemy to take cover and pin them in place. Only a minority of bullets are actually aimed at an individual with the intention of killing them. If bump stocks were being used in a suppressive role, that would actually be a better use for them. But that's simply not the reason people want them banned. Literally no one is afraid that the average civilian is going to have access to too much suppressive fire that could aid in bounding and flanking attacks within the context of a larger unit lmao

[@ArmchairViolence]

This is NOT do be confused with Dave Grossman's theory that soldiers intentionally fire ineffective shots so as to avoid killing another human being. The shots ARE effective, but they are aiding in position and movement instead of DIRECTLY getting a kill.

[@PhilosophywEdd]

@CyberChrist yet I'm sure you're misunderstanding the context it was being considered in. A soldier being able to fire 25k rounds at an enemy is ultimately irrelevant in the civilian bumpstock debate.

[@darklyripley6138]

I’m currently a firearms instructor and consider myself an expert. We’ve talked in the comments before on your Grossman video. I disagree with a lot of your assessment here. Here’s some points I want to address. 1, Yes, the ratio is better for the Club shooter, you’re only counting fatalities. The Vegas gunman wounded 413 people. With more being wounded in the confusion. The Pulse gunman wounded 53. So more damage was done overall, and you are leaving out wounded in your figures. 2, You bring up the total time the Vegas gunman was operating, yet ignore the Pulse gunman’s. The pulse gunman operated for 3 hours. So I think it’s kinda silly to take the total time of the Vegas shooting, and come up with an average RPM, yet ignore the other. I don’t even believe your method of coming up with that number is a good way to begin with. If I shoot 1 round every minute, and another person shoots 500 rounds every year, my RPM is technically faster, but the other guy is dumping rounds at a higher cyclic rate. The Vegas gunman’s RPM might be in the low hundreds, but his cyclic rate is upwards of 800. It’s dishonest to not recognize. Go listen to the footage. Compare it to Jerry’s fastest shooting. It’s obviously faster than Jerry. 3, Cyclic rate matters. There is a reason why the military uses machine guns. If you have a massive crowd, and an elevated position, you want an MG. I recommend you look up enfilade fire to understand why a full auto is useful. The Vegas gunman was not trying to just end as many lives as possible, but rather to hit as many people as possible. And with a higher cyclic rate, that is easier. 4, The Vegas shooter did have a bipod on some of his guns. And no, the recoil did not “make it safer for the victims”. This shows a lack of knowledge in machine gun tactics. This “lack of accuracy” is actually what you want. It leads to a cone of fire and beaten zone that is open, and able to hit more targets. The wider it is, the more you’re able to hit in any given area. 5, Full auto, even in rifles is extremely useful. We see this in modern conflicts like Ukraine. While on Syria, I noticed one of the indig forces was using his rifle in full auto, and was acting as more of an automatic rifleman than a regular rifleman. I was impressed with how accurate and effective he was. We also used our rifles in full auto pretty often. It’s not as niche as you think. 6, I want to make it clear that I don’t believe bump stocks should be banned. I honestly don’t care. But having been on all sides of this topic, from seeing how things play out at war, to training mil/LEO’s and regular citizens, I have had my opinions change a lot. Rifles only kill 200 people a year, so I don’t think targeting rifles or rifle accessories is a smart thing to begin with. But at the same time, most pro gun people are the lowest common denominator and are incapable of making good points. You can acknowledge that bump stocks can increase lethality in some situations, while also arguing for their place in the hands of citizens.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The lack of accuracy being desirable is a complete myth. I remember when years ago Lindybeige was dragged for repeating it. The USMC picked the M27 IAR which is a HK416 with heavy barrel pecisrly because they figured precision and accuracy is important for suppression. You get a beaten zone through distance. The natural shot to shot deviation of the weapon and the recoil will give you the beaten zone. A less accurate machine gun will leave you a wider but less dangerous beaten zone as distance increases and each shot has a lower statistical likelihood of landing on target. Either way, there's nothing more frustrating than having the enemy on your sights and the burst missing him completely. Machine guns are a greater casualty producer than rifles. When a gunne sees a foe running across a field, he needs to cut him down. Not miss. Cyclical rate matters less than you think, in fact it could be argued it doesn't matter past a certain point, because rifles easily reach 800-900 RPM and machineguns can go as low as 600-800 RPM. The reason militaries have machine guns is effective or sustained fire rate. You can fire for longer without overheating or constantly depleting your feeding system (a belt lasts a little longer than a 30 round mag). The added mass and robustness, the heat dissipation, the quick change barrels, etc allow a machine gun to just run through more ammo than a rifle. The famous Battle of Wanat showed what happens when you try to use an AR as a machine gun - they start choking from malfunctions and even blow the gas tube, turning them into straight pull bolt actions. Militaries don't use machine guns because they need a high ROF. They use machine guns because they can hold up the abuse.

[@darklyripley6138]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I love when people who never served, or have no experience try correcting me by citing a KZbinr. First off, note how I put “lack of accuracy” in quotations. That’s because I don’t believe this is a correct representation of what a machine gun actually does. What we really call it is a cone of fire. Which is how much spread you get. You’re also mixing up cone of fire and beaten zone. Secondly, the Marines picked the M27 under the guise of having “an accurate automatic rifle”, so that they could adopt a new rifle. They wanted a new rifle, knew that they would not easily be able to, so they came up this excuse. But that’s all it is. An excuse. Which is why they currently put 1-6 VCOG’s on their M27’s. They are used more as precision rifles rather than automatic rifles. Thirdly. “Cyclic rate matters less than you think”. Sure, please do tell the guy who’s been in actual combat, and currently teaches machine gun doctrine how much cyclic rate matters. I’m sure you have lots of first hand experience. My point was that ACV was using a formula to come up with RPM instead of looking at cyclic rate. It’s dishonest to say Jerry is faster with a revolver than the Vegas shooter. No one is capable of consistently shooting 600-900 RPM with a semi auto. “Look up the the battle of Wanat to see what happens when you try to use an AR as a Machine gun”. Or I can just refer back to my own combat experience, seeing as I have used rifles on full auto while overseas. Notice how you have to constantly repeat from other sources, and don’t fully understand what you saying. Also notice how you keep addressing points that I either never made, or you completely missed, such as the ROF point.

[@ArmchairViolence]

1. Yes, there were many more wounded in the vegas shooting. He fired a lot more rounds at a LOT more people. And that's kind of the point. When you ignore accuracy for rate of fire, your shots become dramatically less meaningful. If the gunman had taken even a SMIDGEN of time to actually aim his shots, instead of firing wildly with an inaccurate bump stock at a vague mass of people, he could have dramatically increased his lethality. His shots were less accurate and produced less kills, which I assume was his actual goal. You posit that he also wanted to wound people, but I bet he would have much rather killed them. Grazing people with bullets was probably not his intention. 2. The Pulse gunman operated for 3-5 MINUTES before barricading himself in a bathroom for the next few hours. The entire incident lasted for over 3 hours, but the main part of the shooting was very brief. If the Pulse shooter had kept up the same fatality rate for the same amount of time that the Vegas shooter was attacking people, the Pulse shooter would have far exceeded Vegas' amount of deaths with far fewer rounds expended. But my actually point of that section is that NEITHER shooter came anywhere close to the upper limit of their rate of fire. Having a cyclic rate of 800rpm is irrelevant if you're only USING 10rpm (except in certain cases not applicable here, such as suppressive fire). The Vegas shooter could have fired a similar number of rounds while actually taking the time to AIM. 3. An elevated position does not give you enfilade. Enfilade fire is when rounds are being fired against a formation's longest axis. The mass crowd did not have an axis, and the highly elevated position of the shooter would have made enfilade fire impossible irrespective of the crowd's formation. It's still a good position, but it's not enfilade. 4. While the vegas shooter did use bipods, not a SINGLE bipod was used in combination with a bump stock. Less than half of the bump stock equipped guns had any sort of optic, and the rest had front sights or no sights at all. He was shooting 400-500 yards from an unsupported position with a bump stock and often no optic. Needless to say, he was probably WILDLY inaccurate. Your claim that larger beaten zones are better is HIGHLY dubious. When looking up beaten zones: "A good example from history is the duels between Australian soldiers and German MG34 teams, during the 'April battles' and later, at Tobruk during 1941. The much narrower beaten zone of the Bren guns helped the Australians to win those duels, despite the lower rate of fire of their Mk1 .303" Bren guns. " The wider your beaten zone, the less effective the beaten zone will actually be. Are you, as a machine gunner, honestly going to say you would prefer less accurate guns? Ridiculous. ChucksSEADnDEAD MIGHT be confusing beaten zone and cone of fire because he says the beaten zone will get wider as distance increases instead of longer. But he is TECHNICALLY correct, and it's a really pedantic point either way. Also, he's not citing a KZbinr. He is saying that you made the same mistake as a KZbinr. He's explicitly stating that Lindybeige was wrong. In regards to the M27, are you telling me that a weapon with a cyclic rate of 700-900rpm are "used more as precision rifles rather than automatic rifles?" Doesn't this mean that high cyclic rate and creating beaten zones are only necessary in the minority of circumstances? Now imagine having that weapon in a role where you will NEVER need suppressive fire, and where using it as a light machine gun wildly decreases your accuracy and even prevents you from using a supported position. Do you see how the weapon's cyclic rate suddenly doesn't matter at all, and it now pretty much ONLY useful as a precision rifle? 5. I'm fully aware that automatic fire is extremely useful in military contexts, but that's largely because of suppressing fire. It's much less useful for picking off unarmed targets. Taking an M240 out to hunt deer, even large groups of deer, is nothing but a waste of ammunition. 6. I think there might be scenarios in which it could drive higher fatalities. If the crowd was on the same plane and at a MUCH closer range, I could see an argument for how a bump stock might make things easier for a mass shooter. But that's obviously a pretty niche scenario. For the vegas shooter, I think the range and elevation was simply too great to make a bump stock a good choice. Being able to fire from a more supported position with a better degree of accuracy would have been more than worth it. 7. Do you have experience in using an assault rifle in a machine gun role? Because that's what Chucks is talking about, and it would be really interesting if you've had that experience. Because, to add to Chucks' point, the vegas shooter had a couple dozen guns in his hotel room. 14 had bump stocks, and he used 13 of them. Probably because his high cyclic rates kept obliterating the barrels. Which is a really interesting concern with bump stocks that I hadn't thought about until Chucks pointed it out. If you've used a normal rifle in a sustained machine gun role, I want to know how that rifle performed. It might establish a decent case study for what the vegas shooter might also have experienced.

[@darklyripley6138]

@@ArmchairViolence 1, Let me put it this way, if you were Paddock, and you had the goal of inflicting as many casualties as possible, would you use a semi auto or a full auto weapon(given the position that he was in). If you say semi auto, I don’t believe you are being honest. From a military context, his position was perfect, and he used bump stocks in the exact manner that we would use a machine gun. 2, And the Vegas shooter had very long gaps where he wasn’t firing. Regardless of whether or whether or not you took those gaps into account, it’s still ridiculous to pick and choose, and come up with a formula that has an outcome you like. Because we can both use an equation to get an outcome we want. Which is why I am saying cyclic rate is what we should focus on. It’s also ridiculous to compare two shootings that are nothing alike. One is a guy firing from an elevated position into a crowd of thousands from hundreds of meters away. The other is a guy shooting people point blank. Obviously one is gonna have a better hit ratio. I again implore you to go listen to the cyclic rate of the Vegas shooter. I have been working with firearms for a very long time, and have met some of the best shooters in the world. I have yet to seem someone run a semi auto that fast, and that consistently. 3, Please read my comment before addressing points I never made. “Look up enfilade to see why machine guns are important”. I never said this was a case of enfilade. My point was that a full auto weapon when used in certain contexts can be more deadly than a semi auto. That being said, there were plenty of people who got hit by a single round, despite the elevation. So you’re incorrect in your assertion that it would be impossible from the shooter’s position. We know that rounds did go through multiple people. 4, Just did a search, and I’m clearly seeing a rifle with bumpstock and a bipod. A wider or tighter beaten zone is relative to what your target is. If I were engaging an area target(such a a crowd of thousands of people), I would want a larger beaten zone. If I were to engage targets of opportunity down a back alley in Iraq, I would want it smaller. It depends on your target. From a former Navy Seal on the topic of beaten zones “A lot of guys had trouble when we went to the new guns that had a smaller beaten zones. It was hard for them to engage certain targets” I don’t know where you got that WW2 quote. I’m also skeptical about quotes that talk about the Bren, since many historians incorrectly believe it to be laser accurate, and exaggerate its capabilities. A few things you need to understand here. German machine gun doctrine was different than Allie doctrine. The Germans based their entire squads around the machine gun. The Allies used machine guns to support the rifleman. It was reversed. Sometimes this worked well, sometimes it didn’t. It’s easy to take instances where a Bren beat an MG, and use that to your point. But I can just as easily point to D-Day where Germans were slaughtering Americans with MG42’s from hundreds of meters away before they could get off the landing crafts. Ironically, according to the formula you used earlier, the MG34 still has a higher rate of fire. The Bren having 120, and the MG34 having 150(this takes into account reloading, barrel changes, etc). In order to answer your question about the M27, we need to explain why that gun was adopted. The Marines said they wanted an automatic rifle, and adopted the M27. But it seems this was a back door way of adopting a new standard infantry rifle without overtly saying it. The M27 has a decent cyclic rate, but is rarely deployed as an actual infantry automatic rifle. The point of the M27 was never to have it be a machine gun, or be deployed with machine gun doctrine. Go watch modern footage of Marines training with them. Note the suppressors and 1-6 VCOG scopes. These are General purpose rifles/marksmen rifles that really aren’t supposed to be used on full auto. There’s a reason why the 0331(machine gunner) MOS still exists. 0311’s(Riflemen) get the M27. Not machine gunners. “Do you see how cyclic rate suddenly does not matter at all?” No. Because you fundamentally misunderstand what the point of the M27 is. There’s a reason why the SAW is the gun that produced the most casualties during the GWOT. The military likes to swing back and forth between “Accurate fire”, and “Total fire superiority”. Which one works? Well, given statistics, the later. 5, If your goal is to slaughter as many people as possible, you don’t care about ammo. Have you never seen pigs being hunted with automatic weapons, and mini guns? That’s pretty effective. Apples to oranges my guy. 6, 400 injured people disagree with you, bud. I remember asking an old mentor how well different rounds performed on humans. He said “I shot a lot of people with them, and I don’t think they’d disagree that they’re ineffective”. I’m not gonna act like bump stocks were the only thing that made Vegas the worst shooting in our history. A lot of factors came together and made a perfect storm. But it was a contributing factor. Denying such a fact is willful ignorance. 60 some people dead. Over 400 injured. Not even close to the next worst shooting in regards to wounded. If you have a crowd of thousands of people, and your goal is to do as much damage, you’re dishonest to say that a semi auto is your best choice. 7, It’s hard to tell if the Vegas shooter switched rifle’s because of the barrel overheating or because he was too lazy to reload. He wasn’t a trained shooter, so it’s hard to determine what goes through his head. Given the rifles he used, they 100% should have and could have sustained that kinda fire. Some of the guns had barrel profiles that are specifically meant to prolong sustained fire. From my experience, using a regular rifle as a machine gun, and using actual machine gun doctrine does not always work out well. I did use rifles in full auto during my time overseas, but I can only think of a few times where I used them in the way you’re talking about. In Afghanistan I was using an HK416(Very close to the M27), and used it during one firefight in full auto to break contact. It didn’t jam. I didn’t notice accuracy deteriorating. It was extremely hot though. I stopped shooting do to the heat, not because of an issue with the gun or accuracy itself.

[@ArmchairViolence]

​@@darklyripley6138 1. I would love something like a M249 or XM250. Great weapons! And there's no real downside to using them instead of a semi auto (in that scenario). But putting a bump stock on a semi auto does NOT make it equivalent to a full auto. It sacrifices too much accuracy. Full auto > semi auto > bump stock. Would I take something that has a higher cyclic rate with roughly the same accuracy, effective range, and ergonomics? Sure! Would I take something that has a higher cyclic rate with GARBAGE accuracy and ergonomics? Absolutely not! 2. If we can both come up with equations that support our point, that doesn't mean that cyclic rate is the defining variable. It means the point is moot. 3. I get that full autos have their uses, that's why they exist. But a bump stock is not a full auto. It's sacrificing too much. Where did you find information on which rounds hit which people? I couldn't find anything that specific, and I can't imagine the investigation would bother figuring that out. I could certainly see it happening (people being super-duper close to each other or ricochets coming in at different angles), but I'm really curious where you're seeing that. 4. I went off of this evidence list: ​www.ktnv.com/news/las-vegas-shooting/list-guns-and-evidence-from-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock Where are you seeing a bipod used with a bump stock? Is the context of that navy seal quote arguing that less accurate guns are better? Or is it arguing that the new guns were better, and that the guys needed to add a bit of traversing/searching fire? Because I suspect it's the second one. If we agree that using something designed as a precision rifle in the role of a machine gun is sub-optimal, even if it (on paper) has a good cyclic rate, then why would throwing a bump stock on a rifle make it functionally equivalent to a machine gun? A bump stock just makes it a really bad precision rifle AND a really bad machine gun. The Vegas shooter was using a weapon with the accuracy of a hip-fired submachine gun in the role of a light or medium machine gun. Unsurprisingly, it's going to suck pretty hard. It seems like you're making the point that cyclic rate is somehow the defining aspect of weaponry, which it's not. If you're making huge sacrifices in other variables, cyclic rate isn't worth it. Otherwise, we would replace all infantry firearms with KRISS Vectors. Also, I think the "SAW producing the most casualties during GWOT" thing is just apocryphal. I've can't find a source behind it. If you have one, let me know. 5. When you have more targets than bullets (there were 22,000 people at the Vegas music festival), you very much DO care about ammunition. Most people don't have the greatest military logistics chain in world history bringing them more ammo! If the Vegas shooter wanted to kill the maximum number of people, not wasting ammo would have been a pretty good idea. Instead of using it to frantically spray bullets mostly at the ground. I tried to look up how much ammunition he had left in the room with him, but I couldn't find anything. But it'd be interesting to know. 6. I agree that it was a perfect storm of variables, and that makes it very hard to come up with a definitive answer on how much each variable mattered because we have no other points of comparison. But in bringing up the 400 wounded, you're ignoring the sheer number of people in his sights. Only 2% of the people at the festival had any gun or shrapnel injuries, and the majority of rounds he fired hit no one at all. Even with a dense, target rich environment and no one firing back. As bad as it was, it could have potentially been a lot worse. An actual marksman might have exceeded 60 kills using a bolt action! 7. I can't imagine that picking up a different rifle is that much easier that reloading. Staging a couple dozen guns in ways that are quick to grab would be annoying to set up. I found a video that tested a full auto ar-15 to gas tube failure, and that occurred at 830 rounds. By then, the barrel had already drooped, ruptured, and had the muzzle break blown off. And it became too hot for hit to hold the barrel shroud about halfway through the test, even through gloves! kzbin.info/www/bejne/eITMq4mmm9Z5qtk While he was definitely going through rounds faster than the Vegas shooter was, I kind of doubt that a single civilian firearm would have held up super well throughout the entire Vegas shooting. He probably would have had to switch guns at least once or twice. One of my best friends is a gunsmith working for a military contractor, so how well a civilian rifle would hold up to sustained high cyclic rates would probably be a good question to ask him. Do you have any idea how many rounds you put through your HK416?

[@IgorNV]

I mean, concerning the "you can get them other ways" argument: laws aren't made so that the actions that break them stop happening completely, just to decrease its numbers. You know, banning drunk driving doesn't stop drunk drivers, just decreases the number of people who are willing to drive while drunk. And while it does make the gun less accurate, more so than regular automatic fire, I think we could argue why a shooter would want to put more bullets "down-range" faster, so they can flee, purse targets, and other things.

[@CaPnBaLlBaG]

Enforceability does come into consideration when writing laws. You can enforce drunk driving laws easily. Extra units can be put on patrol during holidays associated with alcohol consumption, field sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood tests, checkpoints, etc. Of course that's not going to stop everyone, but it is enforceable. The other issue with that comparison is that drunk driving is an action. Bump stocks are an item that faciliate an action, bump firing. Banning the bump stocks won't stop bump firing. It realistically won't even lead to meaningful reduction in bump firing because there are so many other ways to do it. You make the argument that shooters would want to put more bullets down range faster, but then why is there only one high profile mass shooting that involved the use of one? I'm pretty neutral on the banning of bump stocks simply because they're a goofy little accessory that doesn't really do anything for anyone. But the ban they introduced was a piece of fear-based legislation meant to appease an outraged public. There's no data to justify it as a necessary public safety precaution.

[@ArmchairViolence]

This is less like banning drunk driving and more like banning people from driving while drinking Pepsi. A) Drinking Pepsi wouldn't make you drive worse, and B) do we not care about the other billion soft drinks??

[@institches2750]

Banning drunk driving doesn't place an unreasonable burden on innocent people. If you drive drunk, you ARE an active danger to the public. If you own a bump stock or other gadget, you're not doing anything wrong. It's just sitting there, being a felony. A better analogy would be banning alcohol to prevent drunk driving. Owning alcohol is now illegal, even if you would never drive after consuming it. It impacts WAY more people than drunk drivers, and it's a clumsy, mis-aimed policy at best.

[@IgorNV]

​@@CaPnBaLlBaG I don't agree that it's a "goofy little accessory". Guns aren't toys, and a gadget that increases rate-of-fire - even at a great cost of accuracy - isn't without its practical uses. Otherwise, automatic rifles wouldn't be a thing. Flipping between the "It's a tool for killing" and "It's just a wittle toy" arguments is unfortunately something not uncommon for me to encounter in discussions involving firearms. That just muddies the waters and makes honest discussions more difficult. But I agree that "Enforceability" does matter in this context, and I agree that it would make banning them make less sense. It would be impossible to ban bump firing, because of the amount of "bump-fireable" weapons in circulation. ...However, this *does* raise the question of why are there so many "bump-fireable" rifles around, when bolt-action ones would be sufficient for most of the *legal* uses for them, and the consequences of that... And then that sort of question gets treated as some sort of offensive sacrilege by some people - as if I just asked to rip their dicks off - and the discussion gets derailed very quickly. So I just avoid it, for my sanity's sake. In summary, this discussion is very complex.

[@CaPnBaLlBaG]

@@IgorNV I hate to break it to you man, but to a lot of people, guns are absolutely toys. That doesn't mean they're irresponsible with them, but to these people, utility isn't the reason they own/collect them. It's enjoyment. A hobby much like how some guys are just car guys. A bump stock is a for-fun thing. Anybody who tries to sell you on some kind of utility is either hard coping or is being straight up dishonest. As for semi-auto vs bolt action, you buy a semi-auto for the higher rate of fire. And without wasting either of our time digging into the logistics of why you'd need that, let's talk about how unfathomably unrealistic it is to try to get rid of them all. You can ban manufacture and sale fo them, people will still have pre-ban ones. It's a pointly question to ask because you're not realistically going to be able to take them from people anyway. So let's focus on what's realistic and pragmatic.

[@the_Brumeister]

Lost me at the finger joke.

[@LucastheBloodhound]

The way he said that he didn't own a gun just Made him feel small on the inside. I can tell. No hard feelings. I love your channel.

[@agaragar21]

your example is poor....the enclosed nature of a club will always afford more kills...than 400meters away from a large crowd that was moving and hunkering down in area where they could be safe The purpose behind a Machine-gun is a layer of fire...a wall if you will...that's its purpose and this mission is completely fulfilled by the bump stop...both are poor targeting mass casualty weapons with no discrimination ! Stop with the straw man arguments !

[@KazuyukiTaka]

Interesting video. I disagree that it works well as a political bargaining chip for either side, though. Pro-gun organizations already have what they want in the US. There's nothing for them to gain by agreeing to ban bump stocks, and the last thing they want is anything that could gain momentum to restrict guns, so they must oppose it. Similarly, anti-gun advocates have been unable to get anything meaningful done on legislating firearms effectively. Things like banning bump stocks serve to set precedent for more extensive firearm restriction down the line, which is ultimately what they want. Now, I'm Canadian, and think US gun culture is insane; however, I get why there's a political fight over these superfluous things. Americans (or at least, their politicians) have already denied large steps in gun control. So there's nowhere to even start except the topics that barely change anything.

[@ArmchairViolence]

Dude, there are a ton of things for gun advocates to gain. -Take assault rifle ban off the table -Restrict ATF power -Eliminate red flag laws -Constitutional carry -Limit gun free zones -"Shall" vs "may" issue permits -Eliminate tax stamp requirements And those are just some of the more normal positions amongst advocates that I could come up with off the top of my head. More fiercely libertarian people want WAY more than that. I agree that gun control advocates have been politically stymied in recent years, but there are still a butt-ton of various gun control laws on the books that they could further lose.

[@KazuyukiTaka]

@ArmchairViolence I didn't mean there was literally nothing more they want, but that there was nothing of comparative value to gain by conceding on bump stocks. The changes you mention here are massive by comparison.

[@LittleJimmy835]

An argument that I hate that always arises with the gun debate is when people say, "Making things illegal doesn't work because criminals will just get guns anyway!" By that logic laws there's no purpose to laws in general. Why make murder illegal when killers will kill anyway? Why make theft illegal when thieves will steal anyway? Yes if gun/gun paraphernalia is banned, criminals will still have access to them. But the point of making something illegal isn't that it will magically make the thing you banned disappear. The point of making something illegal is you give the authorities power to investigate and prosecute people who break the law. Making murder illegal doesn't mean killings magically stop, but it means the cops can throw murderers in jail, and it reduces the murder rate because people don't want to go to jail. And take note: I'm not even saying whether we *should* ban anything, I'm just saying that that particular argument is nonsense, and when you say it, you sound like a child who doesn't understand why laws exist.

[@ArmchairViolence]

Problems of enforcement are certainly a concern when making a new law. And the argument that gun people make is not that it's pointless to make a law you can't 100% enforce, it's that you create a power imbalance between normal people and criminals. If you make a very effective and easy to acquire weapon illegal, all the law-abiding citizens voluntarily disarm themselves while all the criminals keep it. This gives the criminals MORE power than if the ban was never passed. The new law might give you another charge to throw at the criminal after the crime has been committed, but that can come across and rather cold comfort to the victims who might believe that they would have never been victimized if they hadn't been following that new law. Now, I don't necessarily think that this is an issue with bump stocks specifically, because it's such a sucky weapon. But, if you DO believe that bump stocks are super effective, then the argument could be made that a law against them strips a lot of power away from law-abiding citizens while barely hampering criminals at all. Giving criminals an advantage when doing crimes.

[@LittleJimmy835]

@@ArmchairViolence I agree, but that is a related but distinctly different argument. You've made a valid argument as to why a ban is a bad idea. But I've often heard people, often coming from more libertarian/sovereign citizens circles, just straight up say, "laws are stupid why even have them", which I find baffling.

[@thinkharder9332]

, "Making things illegal doesn't work because criminals will just get guns anyway!" By that logic laws there's no purpose to laws in general. -Difference is laws against victimizing acts mean you can jail the person. A victimless act means people who've harmed no one can be jailed. And criminals still get access. Why make murder illegal when killers will kill anyway? -Because there's a victim and you can actually prevent harm by removing that killer from the general population, where as incarcerating someone who's harmed no one IS the harm itself. The point of making something illegal is you give the authorities power to investigate and prosecute people who break the law. -Criminals were already breaking the law by having them. The concept of a prohibited possessor already exists, there's zero reason to push bans under this pretense. A ban meanwhile disenfranchises the common people who try to comply, but criminal elements still retain them. Issue being the populace that tries to comply is left defenseless vs a criminal element which isn't. This issue does not result in a lower homicide rate as we see with Mexico, which has very strict gun laws, only one legal gun store that only sells to people with military approval, yet gangs run around with everything from soviet rockets and machine guns to even armored cars. Mexico has both a higher homicide rate and a higher gun homicide rate than the US.

[@anomonyous]

False equivalence, achieved through immense stupidity. You have no idea how moronic your comment is. You claim that people who make those statements sound childish and don't understand the basics of lawmaking, after yourself completely misrepresenting that very thing, showing your own ignorance. Your argument overlooks crucial distinctions between laws banning murder and those regulating firearms, creating a false equivalence. Banning murder targets the act itself, which is universally condemned and inherently illegal due to its direct harm to individuals. On the other hand, regulating firearms focuses on managing access to a tool that can be used for various purposes, including self-defense, hunting, and recreation. Equating the two is not only intellectually lazy but also fails to acknowledge the complexities surrounding gun ownership and the constitutional rights involved. Moreover, dismissing concerns about the effectiveness of gun control laws by oversimplifying the issue undermines the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to address gun violence. If you still don't get it, banning an act of violence serves the purpose of making that act persecutable. Banning an item or tool that could possibly be used to commit a criminal offence, as well as a multitude of non-violent actions, achieves nothing but to make such items more difficult to get for the law-abiding populace. As people who do not follow the law will find a way to get those tools, or other tools to achieve the same criminal act anyway.

[@josefarrington]

6:00 Can those people sustain a firing rate that is faster than the Vegas shooter for ~10 min/1135 rounds?? Clearly not! So the Bump Stock does increase the lethality of the semi-auto weapon that is is combined with it.

[@echofoxtrotwhiskey1595]

Yeah they can. It’s not hard.

[@gentlemandemon]

I realize I'm in the minority saying this, but I'd honestly prefer the end goal of the gun control debate to be to restrict access of semi-automatic weapons. From the miriad of ways to artificially increase the rate of fire to the lower skill floor to use them, I think it's the better compromise to allow people to still have access for self defense without the same public danger that guns have been in the US. Similar to how they do in the UK.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The UK allows semi-autos. But self-defense with firearms is almost verboten as the legal floor for using lethal force is very high. You get the worst of both worlds.

[@echofoxtrotwhiskey1595]

@@ChucksSEADnDEADNot semi automatic handguns or rifles.

[@echofoxtrotwhiskey1595]

Ever since the Bruen decision, you’re never going to get a semi automatic *ANYTHING* ban.

[@josefarrington]

5:00 The Vegas shooter was able to kill/injure significantly more people than the Pulse nightclub shooter, BECAUSE he had a Bump Stock. So Bump stocks, DO increase the lethality of the semi-auto weapon that is is combined with it. If the Vegas shooter had the guns of the Pulse night club shooter and no Bump stock, he would no be able to kill/injure the number of people that he killed.

[@thinkharder9332]

The Vegas shooter was able to kill/injure significantly more people than the Pulse nightclub shooter, -Not really, it's a difference of 8. BECAUSE he had a Bump Stock. -It's because the victims couldn't easily flee. The reason Pulse was so deadly was because people couldn't get away, similarly a person perched on a high story firing down on a large audience where said venue cannot let people rapidly flee is what makes it deadly. If the Vegas shooter had the guns of the Pulse night club shooter and no Bump stock, he would no be able to kill/injure the number of people that he killed. -Not really. For one, images leaked from the room show not every rifle had a bump stock, and several with bump stocks were not near the window. The vegas shooter injured far more than he killed, and 400 of those injuries were due to the rush of people, only half the injuries were from gunfire. Second, it's more deadly if there's a higher ratio of deaths/injuries in casualties. The Pulse shooter was equally likely to kill or injure, the Vegas one injuries were 16 times as common.

[@josefarrington]

@@thinkharder9332 "-Not really, it's a difference of 8." difference of 12. 60 to 48 is not a significant difference to you?? "a person perched on a high story firing down on a large audience where said venue cannot let people rapidly flee is what makes it deadly." And also been able to spray 1,049 rounds in ~10mins. There are plenty of constrained places in other developed countries but there is not the freedom of some lunatic to be able to get a semi-auto and/or bumstock and spray bullets on people. That's why the homicide rate is lower and mass shootings are a rarity. "...he would no be able to kill/injure the number of people that he killed. -Not really. For one, images leaked from the room show not every rifle had a bump stock, and several with bump stocks were not near the window." He fired 12 BURSTS. And the overweeningly majority of victim where shot by those bursts. He would not be able to fire as many bullets without a bumpstock. " Second, it's more deadly if there's a higher ratio of deaths/injuries in casualties." So according to your logic if someone uses a knife to kill everyone in a room of 3 people and causes 0 injuries; That event is more deadly than killing 10,000 and injure 100 in a stadium of 100000 using C4? So knifes are more deadly than C4???

[@thinkharder9332]

@@josefarrington difference of 12. 60 to 48 is not a significant difference to you?? -You're including the perpetrator and deaths from people present who passed years after. And also been able to spray 1,049 rounds in ~10mins. 100 rounds a minute is more than possible on semi. here are plenty of constrained places in other developed countries -Those counries had lower homicide rates to begin with even before legislation. There's also nations with strict gun laws that still have high homicides. This is exactly indicative of said gun laws being ineffectual. He fired 12 BURSTS. -OK? He would not be able to fire as many bullets without a bumpstock -Demonstrably false, 100 a minute, even 2 a second is not hard. Par time for a bill drill is 6 shots in

[@josefarrington]

@@thinkharder9332 "100 rounds a minute is more than possible on semi." + Not accurately while shooting into a hallway and from two windows. The ability to burst fire makes a difference given that at the begging the victims where clumped together. ....there are plenty of constrained places in other developed countries "-Those counries had lower homicide rates to begin with even before legislation. There's also nations with strict gun laws that still have high homicides. This is exactly indicative of said gun laws being ineffectual." + Those countries had a lower homicide rate because the supply of guns per capita was low even before they went further and got rid of more guns. He would not be able to fire as many bullets without a bumpstock "-Demonstrably false, 100 a minute, even 2 a second is not hard. Par time for a bill drill is 6 shots in

[@josefarrington]

"There's also nations with strict gun laws that still have high homicides.This is exactly indicative of said gun laws being ineffectual." The comparison of homicide rates has to be done between developed countries, because underdeveloped countries have higher crime rates and that increases the homicide rate. The US clearly has the highest homicide rate in the developed world. The clear reason is how easy it is for bad guys to get a firearm in the US vs other developed countries.