Reactionism
Rubber bands may soon be illegal, as may ponytail elastics, bicycle inner tubes and bungee cords. Any of these could be used to “modify” a semi-automatic firearm to enable it to “bump fire” at a rapid rate.
Bump fire was apparently used, or at least intended to be used, in the Las Vegas mass shooting on October 1, 2017. According to numerous sources, a number the firearms of mass murderer, Stephen Paddock, were outfitted with bump fire stocks such as those offered by SlideFire. These stocks enable the recoil of a semi-automatic (single trigger pull, single shot) rifle to rapidly effect the next trigger pull, creating a high rate of fire that approaches full-automatic (single trigger pull, multiple shots) rates.
The heinous nature of the Las Vegas shooting, and the esoteric nature of bump fire devices, along with the lack of perceived need for bump fire – it is chiefly a recreational mode of fire to get the thrill of simulated automatic fire – has even staunch supporters of constitutional rights like Ben Shapiro, and Republicans like Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Representative Bill Flores (R-TX) suggesting that bump fire devices be made illegal.
One should note that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has cleared bump fire devices such as that offered by SlideFire. That ruling should not be overturned by bureaucratic whim because of the evil efforts of one person. However, it could be changed legislatively, and it did not take long for reactionism to initiate that process. By October 4, 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein (D- CA), a longtime proponent of gun control already had a bill to outlaw bump fire devices. The bill, dubbed the ‘‘Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act’’. The bill states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,”
It is clear in this language that, if passed, SlideFire and competitors would be out of the business of producing bump fire stocks. But SlideFire did not invent bump firing. Bump firing has been around for a long time and can be accomplished by skilled shooters on many semi-automatic firearms without any accessories. Bump fire can also be accomplished by any shooter on many semi-automatic firearms with some elastic tension pulling forward on the trigger. You can see an example of bump fire using a “hair tier-backer” on YouTube.
Elastic tension for bump fire can be achieved with a rubber band, a ponytail elastic, a section cut from a bicycle inner tube, elastic from a bungee cord, perhaps even elastic from your underwear. Since the Feinstein bill states that it will be illegal to “transfer or possess… any… accessory that… functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle,” rubber bands and these other elastic materials will be a federal crime to possess.
If this sounds ridiculous, it is. It is ridiculous – worthy of ridicule – to attempt to make illegal the use of, or possession of, bump fire accessories that can be made from household materials (not to mention that more sophisticated devices like those offered by SlideFire could be 3D printed at home). There is nothing in the Feinstein legislation that would have stopped Stephen Paddock from setting his rifles up to bump fire. All that Feinstein’s legislation would have done is save Paddock the thousand dollars or so that he spent to outfit his rifles with commercial bump fire devices.
-------------------------------------
UPDATE:
On October 5, 2017, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called on House Speaker Paul Ryan to bring legislation to the floor that bans bump stocks, or devices used to increase the discharge rate of a firearm. During an exchange with CBS News' Nancy Cordes, Pelosi suggested that Republicans might feel such a ban would be a "slippery slope" for other gun bills. "So what?" she said, adding, "I certainly hope so."
On October 8, 2017, Diane Feinstein appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation. In the interview which covered the Las Vegas shooting and Feinstein’s legislative efforts afterward, Senator Feinstein was asked, “Could there have been any law passed that would've stopped him?” In response, Feinstein said, “No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.” See the video at 1:54.
--------------------------------------
Consider also that Paddock used bipods on some of his guns for shooting stability, and may have used mounts to attach firearms to camera tripods for stability. Will these accessories now be deemed needless and become illegal? What about rifle scopes? Scopes certainly increase the effectiveness of shooters selecting targets at a distance. Should they all be banned? No one would reasonably say they should. Certainly not those constitutional stalwarts who have suddenly become weak-kneed at the thought of bump fire.
So what can be done when criminals use legal devices for crimes? Don’t ban the devices; rather increase the penalties for the criminal use of the devices. Just as armed robbery carries increased penalties over robbery without a weapon, penalties should be increased for anyone committing a crime using, or in possession of, a bump fire device or accessory. This still would not have made a difference in the Las Vegas shooting because Stephen Paddock took the coward’s way out and killed himself. But, the Feinstein legislation would not have stopped him either.
Some will still falter and say that there is no need for anyone to have a bump fire device. “Need,” beyond food, water and shelter, is always debatable. But it has been well said that in America, we don’t have a Bill of Needs, we have a Bill of Rights. American’s should never cede the rights that were promised to posterity, especially based on the evil acts of individuals.
The Trace is an anti-gun, propaganda site. You can check that out for yourself. They seek to drive emotional reactionism as a tactic to attack Second Amendment rights.
Most gun owners are very safety conscious. Essentially all gun owning parents love their children and want to keep them safe. Just like in vehicle wrecks, poisoning, or during sports, children sometimes accidentally die, and sometimes its due to negligence.
There are already laws about criminal negligence. If applicable, they should be applied. However, this article is driving for all guns in private homes to be placed under lock and key. Such laws would effectively eliminate a person's right to self-defense in the home using their own firearm. It's a straight-up attack on natural rights and the Second Amendment.
This is a classic example of Reactionism heading toward unconstitutional action. As is often the case, this man's reactionism is driven by the murder of a loved one, and as is also often the case, the cowardly murderer killed himself rather than being brought to justice in a court where he could be confronted by the grieving family.
There is no doubt, that this man's anger and frustration are understandable and that he deserves sympathy.
What he does not deserve, however, is a special status in the determination of others' constitutional rights.
Andy Parker has turned his anger into a mission, and since he cannot make that mission be to convict his daughter's murderer, he has made it a mission to take the rights of law-abiding people. He wants a misguided justification for a senseless, evil act. And the media is complicit.