Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the skirting-existing-laws dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

Before Stephen Paddock opened fire at a country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip last October, killing 58 and wounding hundreds, most Americans probably hadn't heard of bump-fire stocks--add-ons that lets a semiautomatic rifle fire as quickly as a machine gun. Until that mass shooting, they were a novelty known only among firing-range enthusiasts and Cool Gun YouTube.

Within months of Las Vegas, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation[1] to outlaw the devices, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, announced plans to ban them through regulation.[2]

But gun control advocates warn bump stocks are just one part of a much bigger problem. A flood of new gun technologies is pushing the envelope on what a civilian can legally own, skirting laws that have kept the most dangerous weapons off the street for decades.

[...] Weapons like machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and subsequent amendments. To own one of those weapons, a civilian has to go through a lengthy approval process and pay a special tax. The job of deciding whether a gun falls under NFA's restrictions falls to ATF.

Gun manufacturers have used the law's technicalities to create guns that are just as powerful, and deadly, as restricted weapons but without the added tax and strict regulations.

Take the SAINT, by Springfield Armory. It's an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine and a 7.5-inch barrel. That's shorter than the legal rifle length under federal law. But instead of a shoulder stock, the SAINT has a "stabilizing brace" or "forearm brace"--a device designed to attach to a shooter's forearm for one-handed firing rather than resting against their shoulder. By ATF's definition, the SAINT is a pistol, not a rifle, because it isn't meant to be fired from the shoulder. So anyone who can pass a federal background check can buy one online for $989.

[...] Stabilizing braces aren't the only new gun tech to skirt around the National Firearms Act. Franklin Armory's Binary Trigger System fires two rounds with every shot--one when the trigger is depressed and one when it's released, doubling the rate of fire. Like bump stocks and stabilizing braces, binary triggers aren't currently regulated under the National Firearms Act.

In one YouTube video, a man uses a binary trigger to fire a 30-round magazine in less than five seconds. In another, a binary trigger beats out a fully-automatic weapon.

[1] Bogus link in TFA. Fixed in TFS.
[2] Content is behind scripts.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:39AM (18 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:39AM (#697514) Journal

    Ho-hum. Nobody gets killed in the UK? Nobody gets raped? And, immigration isn't a problem? Let's keep in mind that crime committed by people who belong to MS-13 and other immigrant gangs are included in our general crime statistics. Your own statistics are going up, because of immigration.

    If we could all live in nice homogenous societies, crime would be considerably lower. Here in the melting pot. we EXPECT crime to be higher than someplace like China, or Mongolia, or England. Every culture on earth clashes with every other culture here.

    So, what's your excuse for your rising crime rates? Are you ready yet to blame the Muslim invasion?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=4, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Overrated=2, Total=11
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:50AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @11:50AM (#697519)

    He's not saying that no violent crime exists, just that it is so much lower than we have here in the US that your only retort is to purposely misconstrue his comment. And nice "immigrant boogie man" straw man. Isn't there a Trump JOI video you should be watching?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:04PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 24 2018, @12:04PM (#697525) Journal

      Misconstrue? Really? Various people from Europe and the UK try to paint the US as a bunch of savages, because we have higher crime statistics than they do. They ignore, or try to ignore, the fact that ALL OF THE US has crime statistics similar to ALL OF EUROPE. If we can cherry pick statistics from one small state or another, that state's statistics look as good as the best of European states.

      And, again, within a relatively small region with a homogenous population, crime statistics are pretty low. That is a fact of life.

      When the Europeans and the British get their act together, and bring all of European crime statistics significantly lower than US crime statistics, then we can talk.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:16PM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:16PM (#697714) Journal

        Misconstrue? Really? Various people from Europe and the UK try to paint the US as a bunch of savages, because we have higher crime statistics than they do.

        Don't think they are trying, Runaway; they are succeeding, in spades, because of these things called "facts". You Hillbilly Savage, you!

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 24 2018, @08:04PM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday June 24 2018, @08:04PM (#697680) Journal

      He's not saying that no violent crime exists, just that it is so much lower than we have here in the US

      So what? There are differences in history and culture all over the world. And crime rates vary totally unrelated to "culture". (Unless, of course, you, like He, insist that the crime rates is the definition of culture.

      The brutality of British rule over history, at home and abroad, has raised a culture of subservient people, afraid to challenge the government. The US is just the opposite.

      Did you somehow forget "The Troubles"?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:05PM (12 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:05PM (#697599)

    Every culture on earth clashes with every other culture here.

    And Canada. Why can't we expect violent crime it to be the same as it is in Canada, per capita of course.

    Are you ready yet to blame the Muslim invasion?

    In Canada Muslim's make up 3.2% of the population, vs 1.1% in the United Sates. So... no.

    If we could all live in nice homogenous societies, crime would be considerably lower. Here in the melting pot. we EXPECT crime to be higher than someplace like China, or Mongolia, or England.

    Again, Canada is actually substantially MORE ethnically fractured than the USA. Crime rates do not correlated with ethic diversity. Your hypothesis simply doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#/media/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon%27s_analysis.png [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:19PM (11 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 24 2018, @04:19PM (#697608) Journal

      You're leaning a little toward the silly side with that. Canada doesn't have a border with Mexico. No, you can't expect the US and Canada to be an awful lot alike. Additionally, the US set the example in the Indian wars, which turned most Canadian's stomachs. Canada reached more reasonable agreements with their native population than the US did. Canada also gave up slavery long before the US did. I suppose if I tried, I could find more reasons why Canada is less violent than the US. Despite that we are close cousins, we aren't the same country. Our development went along entirely different lines.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @06:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @06:14PM (#697643)

        Ugh, youve lost this round stop already. Only other people who want to buy into the US bullshit will support you on this.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @07:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @07:22PM (#697669)

        quit embarrasing the majority of us americans. you speak only for yourself. one person. thats it. opine away, but we know you only speak for yourself.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:03PM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:03PM (#697706) Journal

        Canada also doesn't have any population. Its one of the least densely populated places on earth.
        And Canada actually has a land mass larger then the US.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density [wikipedia.org]

        A mere 7 million immigrants amounts to 21% of Canada's population.
        The US has 46 million immigrants which is 14% of the US population.

        Of ALL the immigrants in the world the US hosts 19.8% while Canada hosts 3.2%

        That's right, 20% of the world wants to come to the US.
        In spite of the welcome mat Canada brags about, nobody want's to go there.

        The US has more illegal immigrants (excess of 11 million) than Canada has Total Immigrants.
        There are 40,000 illegal immigration arrests [thehill.com] per month along the Mexican border, to say nothing of the number slipping through.

        The US had done way more than its fair share. Canada: Will you accept these people?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population [wikipedia.org]

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday June 25 2018, @01:27AM

          by vux984 (5045) on Monday June 25 2018, @01:27AM (#697880)

          Canada also doesn't have any population. Its one of the least densely populated places on earth

          90% of the population is within a couple hundred miles of the the US border. Massive uninhabited areas in mountain ranges, boreal forests, and arctic tundra are simply not relevant to this conversation. Plus we're talking per capita; so absolute population isn't relevant. Incidents per capita is what matters.

          A mere 7 million immigrants amounts to 21% of Canada's population.
          The US has 46 million immigrants which is 14% of the US population.

          Exactly; per capita, or as a percentage of population immigrants are a MUCH bigger influence on Canada than the US. Assuming an even distribution, a city with 100,000 people in Canada has 21,000 immigrants. The same city in the US only has 14,000 immigrants.

          Of ALL the immigrants in the world the US hosts 19.8% while Canada hosts 3.2%

          Now you are back to absolutes. Per capita, Canada is accepting more immigrants.See the example above.

          In spite of the welcome mat Canada brags about, nobody want's to go there.

          Even if we accepted that as true, what difference does it make? The post was alleging violent crime due to the lack of a homogenous population. Canada has a less homogenous population by your own statistics.

          The US had done way more than its fair share. Canada: Will you accept these people?

          Again, per capita Canada has done way more than the USA. The USA has 10x the population, 10x the infrastructure. That means it has 10x the capacity to absorb immigrants. Sure Canada has raw space, but you can't put immigrants on an arctic island; they need to be absorbed and integrated into commuities. So per capita is what matters.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:20PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @09:20PM (#697716)

        Runaway, vous ne savez rien du Québec! Vous êtes l'idiot américain typique de Trump-soutenant! Vous serez refusé l'entrée au Canada!

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 25 2018, @12:13AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @12:13AM (#697838) Journal

          Pourquoi jouer votre jeu stupide? Été là, fait cela, a vissé certaines de vos femmes, a volé quelques-unes de vos chèvres, et vous les francophones n'avez aucune idée. N'essayez pas d'agir tous les Canadiens, tout d'un coup.

      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday June 25 2018, @01:46AM (4 children)

        by vux984 (5045) on Monday June 25 2018, @01:46AM (#697890)

        You're leaning a little toward the silly side with that. Canada doesn't have a border with Mexico.

        Didn't you ask us to accept the violence was the result of a muslim invasion? Are muslims from Mexico? No. So that's got nothing to do with that.

        Canada reached more reasonable agreements with their native population than the US did. Canada also gave up slavery long before the US did. I suppose if I tried, I could find more reasons why Canada is less violent than the US. Despite that we are close cousins, we aren't the same country. Our development went along entirely different lines.

        Agreed. That's basically my argument here. That its clearly not muslims in particular, and its not ethnic or religious diversity in general either. Despite the US sharing a border with mexico and migrants; Canada has a higher muslim density and is generally more ethnically and religiously diverse than the US -- and it HASN'T led to similar levels of violence. So its something else.

        What that is, I don't know. I think America is culturally more insular and even xenophobic. I don't know why. Perhaps American exceptionalism is part of the problem. Canadians don't have that.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 25 2018, @01:56AM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @01:56AM (#697893) Journal

          The Muslim invasion is taking place in Europe. Europe's violence is partly or mostly due to the Muslim invasion. On this continent, we don't have a lot of Muslims. Instead, we have the descendants of the Azteca running amok. They know how to take a bad situation, and make it far worse than it needs to be.

          But, don't worry - if/when Canada reaches 10% Muslim population, then Canada will be as violent as the worst cities in Europe. There are several critical stages in a Muslim invasion, all based on percentage of population.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Monday June 25 2018, @05:14AM (2 children)

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @05:14AM (#697969)

            I'm sure many of those Muslims would say that the Muslim Invasion(tm) is partly or mostly due to The West's recent invasions of the Middle East.

            The bigger issue we have right now is that a flow of refugees was joined by a flood of economic migrants, the smugglers of which have developed a routine that forces southern Europe to rescue boatfuls of migrants that get halfway across the Mediterranean and then declare a maritime emergency. That's a far bigger political hot potato than random attacks on the public.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 25 2018, @07:12AM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @07:12AM (#697997) Journal

              So - Europe simply doesn't hear those maritime emergencies. Problem solved. After a half dozen of those boats sink with all hands on board, the other side begins to understand that we don't feel any obligation to "rescue" them. The boats stop.

              • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday June 25 2018, @09:39AM

                by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 25 2018, @09:39AM (#698046)

                Several voices have raised the issue that we're encouraging more migration by responding to distress calls. But The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea states:

                Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost, to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him, and after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call.

                The States' current President would probably take the approach of disagreeing with the convention and withdrawing from it, but in this case the USA hasn't actually ratified it yet (along with the likes of Turkey, Peru and Uzbekistan).

                ---

                Existing EU policy is that refugees must present themselves at the first EU country they reach and be processed there: there is no centralised policy. This worked well enough while the numbers of migrants was relatively low, and the north African coast consisted of mostly stable governments. Now that Libya has been mired in a civil war for over five years, it is an open door for people smugglers, and the southern countries that have been dealing with the huge flow of migrants are getting fed up at the northern states that are doing relatively little to help. (Imagine each state in the US had to deal with migrants and refugees out of its own budget: how happy would Texas and Arizona be about that?)

                Italy's new government was elected on a manifesto that included dealing with migrants: they've taken over 16,000 "saved" from the sea so far this year, more than any other EU country (to my knowledge). They recently insisted that a ship with ~600 migrants should go to the island of Malta instead because it was the "nearest port"(see here) [bbc.co.uk]. Eventually Spain agreed to take the ship in, in addition to their 12,000+ arrivals this year.

                What's needed is a new policy approach, for all the EU's countries to share the problem and find a solution together, be it in the form of a unified border force, pooled funding and distribution of migrants, or otherwise. Circa 2016, Germany had accepted economic migrants (coming by land via Turkey and eastern Europe) with open arms. This route is now effectively closed, but Chancellor Merkel got a lot of stick from others in her government, and her coalition allies are threatening to bring down her government if she doesn't close Germany's border to new migrants (see here) [bbc.co.uk]. Given that knife sticking out of her back, it's unlikely that a pan-EU policy can be successfully agreed upon.