TTAG Daily Digest: Bump Stock Giveaway, Pissing off the NRA and the Futility of Gun Control

Georgia state senator Michael Williams is giving away a bump fire stock.

There’s no such thing as bad publicity . . . GOP candidate for Georgia governor holds bump stock giveaway

A Republican candidate for Georgia governor said Monday he opposes any ban on bump stocks and will give away one of the devices.

“The tragedy in Las Vegas broke my heart, but any talk of banning or regulating bump stocks is merely cheap political lip service from career politicians. In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence,” state Sen. Michael Williams said in a statement.

“Many firearms experts determined the Las Vegas shooter’s use of a bump stock actually prevented more casualties and injuries due to its inconsistency, inaccuracy, and lack of control. There is zero evidence that banning bump stocks would prevent any gun violence deaths,” Williams continued.

The new gun control hotness: waiting periods on gun purchases (see our quote of the day) . . . Hundreds Shot Dead Every Year Because States Don’t Have Waiting Periods

Waiting periods save lives. A legally mandated delay imposed by some states making would-be gun owners pause before actually getting a firearm lowers rates of murder and suicide.

While this nexus may seem as logical as night following day, a new study released this week actually proves it. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Harvard Business School researchers Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin found waiting period laws reduce homicides in which a gun is used by 17 percent.

Because you can never restrict gun ownership enough or make it too difficult or expensive in California . . . San Jose: New gun control measure could require locking up firearms at home

The idea, under consideration Tuesday, stems from sweeping measures proposed last year by San Jose city councilmen Ash Kalra — now a state assemblyman — and Raul Peralez. In addition to requiring gun owners to lock up their weapons when they’re not home, they’d need to place them in a lock box in unattended cars, report theft within 48 hours and ammunition vendors would need to keep records of sales.

But new state legislation last year covered many of those gun control policies, except locking up firearms when an owner isn’t home. The San Jose City Council on Tuesday will debate that policy, which some experts say could be difficult to enforce. And now Peralez — joined by Councilman Chappie Jones — wants to go further. They want gun owners to secure firearms inside the house even when they’re home.

The Democrats pissed off the NRA in 1994 and are afraid to do it again.

Lessons learned . . . Democrats Pissed Off the NRA in 1994—And They’re Still Haunted by It.

“The biggest gaping hole in the ’94 ban was that it didn’t get the guns away from anybody,” said Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “All it said was no new guns. So if you were willing to spend enough money, you probably could have gotten them.”

Another explanation for why few, if any, lawmakers have broached the idea of reintroducing an assault weapons ban, however, is that many are politically frightened to do so. The lessons Democrats derived from the passage of the 1994 ban is that it is politically poisonous. Some of this has been mythologized by gun rights groups, who benefit from the perception that they can sway elections. But a chunk was internalized by lawmakersthemselves.

Larry Pratt recognizes a proposed bump stock ban as the beginning of a push for more gun control laws.

Because it’s the camel’s nose under the tent . . . Why gun experts don’t support banning – or buying – ‘bump stocks’

Larry Pratt, emeritus director of Gun Owners of America in Springfield, Va., notes that the Las Vegas mass shooting “is a very unusual situation in many ways, because the bump-stock, this is the first time anybody has ever heard of it being used this way, so to say [banning the device] will solve our crime problems is a bit much.”

In his view, such a push would fit into what he sees as a familiar pattern, where gun control advocates ask for small concessions and then increase their demands – a slippery slope toward more regulations. “I’m not interested in the details about, ‘Oh, this is a particularly vulnerable point and we ought to address it’; no, what they are looking for is any way they can get momentum,” says Mr. Pratt.

Illinois engineering student says the problem is people, not guns.

Evidence of intelligence in an institution of higher education . . . No guns, no liberty

In the end a gun is a tool, just like a pen, an axe or a rake. We would never think to place blame on the pen for what the author has written, the ax for what the lumberjack has chopped down or the rake for leaves the gardener has piled. Why, then, should we blame the firearm for the actions of the one who wields it? With the absence of a finger to pull the trigger, a gun is useless.

Yes, guns are dangerous in the hands of a few. Then again, so is any other item that could be used to do another harm, including something as seemingly innocent as peanut butter. Should we restrict every allergen that might harm another if not handled responsibly? The many should not suffer for the issues of the few.

Despite gun confiscation, firearms ownership skyrockets in Australia.

It’s almost as if gun control laws don’t work . . . Gun Ownership Skyrockets In Australia

Interestingly, a feature published over the weekend in The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australians now own more guns than they did before the country’s mass confiscation.

The Herald’s report is based on a piece posted at theconversation.com that states, “The proud claim that Australia may have ‘solved the gun problem’ might only be a temporary illusion. In recent years, arms dealers have imported more guns than ever before. And last year we crossed a symbolic threshold: For the first time in 20 years, Australia’s national arsenal of private guns is larger than it was before the Port Arthur massacre.”

Americans From Responsible Solutions changes its name to Giffords...for some reason.

If at first you don’t succeed, re-brand and re-package the same tired message . . . After Las Vegas, gun-control group seizing moment to push for tighter regulations

One of the country’s leading gun-control groups is changing its name Tuesday from Americans for Responsible Solutions to Giffords, the name of the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head in 2011 and founded the group two years later after 20 Connecticut first-graders were killed.

Gun-control advocates say the name change is part of a larger effort to reframe the gun debate in the wake of the recent Las Vegas mass shooting. By focusing on former Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords as a symbol of “courage,” they are hoping to draw in more people to fight for stronger firearms laws.

ATF Association says ATF can't ban bump fire stocks.

ATF Assn. to bump stock ban bill author: ATF Doesn’t Have the Legal Authority to Regulate Bump Fire Stocks

The Bump Slide, and a number of other similar after market accessories that increase the rate at which a shooter can pull the trigger, are purposefully engineered to avoid regulation under Federal law. These accessories DO NOT cause the firearm to shoot more than one shot by the single function of a trigger pull. There is a trigger pull for each shot caused by these accessories and that is why ATF does not have the legal authority to regulate them. The notion that ATF chose not to regulate an item it had the authority to regulate is completely false. The law is very clear and it does not currently allow ATF to regulate such accessories.

 

comments

  1. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Interestingly, a feature published over the weekend in The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australians now own more guns than they did before the country’s mass confiscation.”

    That’s a righteous trajectory of freedom for Australia.

    Now start putting pressure on your politicians to expand those rights, Australians…

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      MDUGA – MAKE DOWN UNDER GREAT AGAIN !!!!

    2. avatar the bastard from Ballarat says:

      its what they call in AUssie “a Claytons right”
      yeh…you can ‘own’ guns but only on the strictest and most onerous conditions imaginable….and….yr shooters license can be cancelled any-time for any reason…..
      also: you cannot use fire-arms for self-defence purposes….so…really!….you might just as well not own them, period!

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        An Australian should always remember the three S solution to that tyranny. No criminals life is equal value to that of their victim and if they fail to continue victimizing folks society benefits in multiple ways.

      2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Or….you should own them and encourage everyone else you know to do so, as well, even under such onerous conditions as you cite, and not abandon your liberty and forfeit your dignity.

        Then, let the rising tide of peaceful gunowners bear witness to their own ubiquitous nonviolence and begin to apply ever greater leverage on their elected representatives. Like the mighty, determined, power of a flood’s hydrostatic force, that growing gunownership rate could smash through that freedom infringing dike of gun regulations and make Australia great again.

      3. avatar gunr says:

        So, you cannot use a firearm for self defense! Time to remember the old saying, “better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

  2. avatar fiundagner says:

    Peanut butter, just like guns, is actually highly regulated item that is banned from many public schools because of the fear of allergens. They are punishing the many for the quote-unquote safety of The few

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Maybe if you didn’t raise your kid in a bubble, they wouldn’t grow up allergic to everything? This is what happens when you let feminazis raise children, you get a generation incapable of functioning in the real world.

      1. avatar Evey259 says:

        You heard it here first, folks: feminism causes allergies.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          L. O. L. I don’t care who you are, that shit right there is funny.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Count me as allergic to feminist and all other progtards.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Well, being beaten with a large dildo by an anti-gun feminist protester does give me hives.

          OTOH, that might be a side effect of getting that close to people who tend not to shower…

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Well, feminism is cancer.

          But the comment has far more to do with the coddling involved in raising children in a modern female dominated society. Notice how childhood allergies were barely a thing back in the 40s and 50s.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          “Notice how childhood allergies were barely a thing back in the 40s and 50s.”

          I have noticed that as well.

          Having said that, I don’t think anyone really knows why there appears to be more children who are hyper-allergic to common allergens such as peanuts.

          One hypothesis: compared to the 1940s and 1950s, women these days use a lot more formula rather than breast milk and the proliferation of hyper-allergies is an artifact of so many children growing up on formula rather than breast milk. If that turns out to be true, it has nothing to do with feminists coddling their children. (Is the move to replace breast milk with formula a result of feminists? That would be an interesting question.)

  3. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Unless I’m missing something, the “waiting period saves lives” piece is another bit of “correlation not causation” drivel being marked under the label of “Proof”

    Australia…interesting bit there.

  4. avatar Mad Max says:

    What does a waiting period do for those of us (probably all POTG) that already have firearms?

    I could see if someone that never owned guns suddenly rushed to buy a gun after some type of stressful life event.

    For the rest of us, it’s just plain infringement.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… It’s not like there might be a situation where you need a gun quick, fast, and in a hurry… Oh… Wait…

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419400/deadly-consequences-draconian-gun-laws-charles-c-w-cooke

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Then again, I think a restraining order should automatically be recognized as a carry permit for the person such order is supposed to be protecting.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Which would be relevant if you owned a gun to carry. The reality is that adding more meaningless government paperwork to a right that often needs to be exercised in seconds is retarded.

    2. avatar SouthAl says:

      A waiting period after a stressful life event (or even without the event) for someone who does not currently own a gun is just as infringing as the other example. Some might argue even more so, since it could infringe on their safety more due to not already owning a gun.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        I was thinking of someone who just lost their wife & kids in a auto accident or to some form of illness and suddenly wants to buy a gun.

        I figure, if he wants to commit suicide, he’ll find a way regardless.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If .gov has authority to impose a 10-day waiting period for purchase of firearms, it has the authority to impose a 10-year waiting period, or 100-year. This obvious fact is not lost on those who wish a “common sense” solution of, say, a 3-hour waiting period. Just confirm that authority, then see how long it takes to escalate. Every time a gangbanger is whacked in Chicago, we’ll have a move to double the waiting period, never mind that the shooter was both too young to purchase a gun, and a convicted felon.

  5. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Harvard Business School researchers ” . . . GET PAID TO SH_T SOMEONE OUT A SPECIFIC ANSWER.

    IF AN ANSWER IS SH_T OUT, IT’S SH_T.

    F the ivy league tools.

    F the evil POS (D).

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    WAITING PERIODS ARE 1)JUST YOUR GOVERNMENT’S ATTEMPT TO PREVENT YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO RUN THEM OUT OF D.C. WITH SPEED, SUPRISE, AND VIOLENCE OF ACTION, IF THEY DON’T LEAVE PEACEABLY, and of their own volition, WHEN REPLACED UNDER PARAGRAPH 2ND OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; and

    2) YOUR AHOLE NEIGHBORS WHO NEEDED A JOB (your [We The People] “government” [who the F do the MF think they are, anyway?]) DISTRUSTING YOU, HATING YOU, AND LINING YOU UP FOR SOME OF THEIR TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION.

    EYE-FV<K them

    1. avatar Rick Hess says:

      Damn Joe, you’re shouting is giving me a headache, and I quit reading after your second diatribe at screaming levels.

      1. avatar ORCON says:

        Sometimes he forgets to take his meds. :

    2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Joe R you usually make my head hurt with your capitals, but you’re right on here.

      1. avatar RJB says:

        Joe IS right on !!!!! That’s the problem, too many people just don’t get it and fail to educate themselves. Just believe what the pretty media people tell you.

  7. avatar Atty says:

    Great, another candidate who pays lip service to the Second Amendment and shirks to cowardice when he takes office. :\ Let’s hope not.

  8. well if I lived in Georgia I would vote for that guy. and the first thing I would ask him to do is look into that stupid study that proves waiting periods are so good. like the elderly couple who was bothered by a gang that went to the police only to find they could not do anything about it. so the husband goes to get a gun only to find out there is a 5 day waiting period, so he complies and waits, on the third day of the waiting period the gang makes the wife watch in horror while they kill her husband. this was a letter to a gun magazine written by the wife (WIDOW) back in the 80s or 90s , so what did the waiting period prevent? how did it save lives? this is just communist propaganda spread by the sick communist society we have in this country. and we need to do something about it. they want to chip away little by little so they take away all the guns and then the power leaves the people and falls right into the new communist government.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    The Demons didn’t get bitch-slapped in ’94 because they pissed off the NRA. They got bitch-slapped because they pissed off us.

    I was there. And I loved it.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      I hope we have enough sense to bitch-slap those of either party who are supporting gun control now next year.

  10. avatar ORCON says:

    Is Gabby Giffords still shitting in a diaper or do they have her house broken yet? Asking for a friend.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      That is NOT an argument we want to bring out. I hope people reel that in when they post.

      1. avatar ORCON says:

        We? Just how many people are you duly appointed to represent over there in Oregon?

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      While Eric has a point that somebody’s physical aftereffects of injuries aren’t suitable political fodder, ORCON is perfectly free to point out that running a country in accordance with the whims of a brain damaged woman is unthinkable, and she should just be ignored.

      1. avatar ORCON says:

        Sorry for being crass but thanks for understanding my point.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        While I am very sorry about her injuries, it was time long ago for her to simply STFU. She is being used (trained to perform simple tricks) by her POS husband to raise money and gain power, has no idea what is being addressed. If that is not correct, let’s see an interview with her in his absence.

        1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          This is the same antics that Sarah Brady did with her husband when he was wheelchair bound after the attempted assignation of President Reagan. Every time she wheeled him out for display it really ticked me off. They claimed that he was in constant pain from his head wound but it didn’t keep his wife from parading the poor guy around for gun control sympathy. Disgusting. I had to restrain my language while writing this.

  11. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Democratic party equals to fake news.

  12. avatar No one of consequence says:

    “Giffords.”

    Good job guys. Comes across with lots of self-aggrandizement, self-importance and a name that now means nothing to anyone not already engaged in the struggle over firearms.

    Well, maybe not nothing. It kind of sounds like the name of the family owned hardware store in the next town that stocks gun screws in the fasteners aisle. So there’s that at least, I guess.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      Is it just me or is that picture of that gal very 3rd reich-ish?

      I mean, clenched fist held up, solemn vow look, almost scowl…

      Politicians of any stripe give me chills…and so do the people who support them…scary stuff.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        From more recent events I would have said more Antifa-ish looking.

        Which, when you think on it is nazi-ish. Only restyled.

  13. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “…found waiting period laws reduce homicides in which a gun is used by 17 percent.”

    So they studied several states with large populations in which absolutely no other factors, except the implementation of waiting periods for firearm purchases, changed at all over a couple decades? Because that’s the only way you get to make that conclusion. Anything else is, best case, just correlation from a small and inconsistent data set, not causation.

  14. avatar joetast says:

    We don’t take away pens. What what. No. What about the poor Facebook suiciders, someone wrote something bad about their acne, and choice of clothes. And they offed themselves. No More Bully’s. ……….. Paddock is making a bunch of people riich.

  15. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The view from downunder. The purpose of the post Port-Arthur firearms laws was to encourage gun owners to leave the sport and to deter people from taking up the sport. In fact this stated aim was mentioned publicly many times.

    But this became the new normal and people started to take an interest and go through the process of obtaining a firearms license and acquiring firearms. The clubs and organizations which used to be dismissive of new members changed their approach and gave new members every kind of advice and assistance. The only dumb questions are the ones you don’t ask.

    The increase in the number of guns owns is also explained by the state of the firearms market. Previously guns could be sold privately between licensed persons and there was no registration. With the post-1996 laws there was registration and to purchase a firearm you had to apply for a permit-to-acquire. The transfer had to be done via a dealer. This made the market for used firearms almost non-existent so people instead would hold on to previous purchases that would have been on-sold when no longer required. So people owning a dozen or more firearms is not uncommon. But usually about half would be usable and the others in “project-pending” status.

  16. avatar FedUp says:

    So, we’re supposed to take Dana’s verbal ‘fist of truth’ as a physical threat, but Gabby’s literal upraised fist is the fist of compassion and friendliness?

  17. avatar dph says:

    What’s telling about the Gifford photo is the faces in the background.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      John Lewis and James Brown, I mean, Maxine Waters?

  18. avatar FedUp says:

    “In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence,”

    Michael Williams telling the truth, and standing by it?
    Maybe Mr LaPierre should try that tactic.

  19. avatar jwtaylor says:

    That “less than 10% of attempted suicides fail” number does not track with statistics released from ERs around the country, who report, on average, that 17% of self inflicted GSW’s to the head survive.
    I have had 3 patients attempt to commit suicide with a firearm. One shot himself in the temple with a 9mm pistol, in his driveway in his locked vehicle. He survived for about 2 hours, and it was 40 minutes before any medical care got to him. He died on the operating table. If we had gotten to him sooner, he would have lived. We got called when his daughter came out to go to school and saw the blood on the window. Shitty way to go, shitty thing to do.
    Another was a 12g under the chin. He survived long enough to die of the cancer he was attempting to escape. He never left the hospital, and died a longer, more miserable death.
    Another was a .243Win rifle to the temple. He survived losing an eye, and most of his nose and jaw. He died the day he was released from the hospital, as he intentionally walked out of the hospital and directly into traffic.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Come on, Jon, what’s the difference? 10%, 17%, who cares about a discrepancy of 60% or so when you’ve got a dishonest agenda to push?

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      Jon, what’s your take on the detective who got fired for arresting a nurse who followed orders from her employer and the written co-operation policy of the hospital and PD, in refusing to steal blood from a comatose patient?

      At first I thought it was incredibly stupid of a cop to harm the relationship between LE and EMS workers to exercise his authority, but then I learned he worked part-time as a paramedic (he was fired by the ambulance company before he was fired by the PD) and I just couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of an EMS worker arresting another EMS worker for protecting a patient’s rights.

      Now his lawyer is arguing that he got fired not for making an illegal arrest, but for being recorded and publicized while making an illegal arrest.
      http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/13/slc-detective-officially-appeals-firing-after-nurses-arrest/

  20. I wonder if the gun grabbers will ever come around full circle and start whining about Saturday Night Specials again.

  21. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    “…Americans for Responsible Solutions to Giffords…”
    i think we’re just going to have to wait it out. but it’s along the lines of a beatles reunion.

  22. avatar gunr says:

    Is that our friendly “Lady of nausea” senator from Komifornia, there in the photo with the red AK’s? The one in blue?

  23. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The ATF quoting the law? What is that mess? Someone’s gonna get themselves fired if they keep it up. We should really ask them to re-evaluate 7N5, but I don’t know if that matters any more due to the whole Russia ban thing.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email