i think banning bumpstocks is quite enough also for the big bullets article if you really think a 45 round is small take a look at 500 magnum and 50 bmg now those are big rounds

I can't believe that basically everyone, including the NRA, is on board with banning bump stocks, and the New York Times is writing articles suggesting that doing so would be ineffective. In order to make their argument, the authors focus narrowly on fatalities, instead of considering the number of people who were wounded in their assessment of the damage done, and ignore the fact that this shooting was the first to involve a bump stock, and may set the standard for future mass shootings. When you consider the wounded, this shooting was an order of magnitude bigger than the next biggest one (99 in Orlando to 558 in Las Vegas). There are other factors that contribute to the size of damage done (elevated shooting position, density of the crowd, multiple weapons used), but let’s take the step that we can to diminish scale of future mass shooting, and ban bump stocks.

The ban they are proposing isn't just on the particular device its on every firearm that is ¨semiautomatic¨. Let´s say you have a standard Ar-15, if you can shoot that firearm pretty fast then that is considered a bump stock. Bump stock- any device (or human body part) that ca make the firearm shoot faster. It´s stupid, it´s like their going to ban you finger.

The graph says that over 50% of Americans support all of the most effective solutions. Congress, where are you?

I have significant worry about many of the policies on the board because they are by nature arbitrary or hinge on selective enforcement. You may trust the government to be wise, just, or at least agree with you--now--but what happens when someone else is in office, and wields that power? In more real terms: things you trusted Barack Obama's judgement on previously are now in the hands of Donald Trump. Nobody wants that! We need to stick with laws that are written with a clear and unambiguous spirit, and are difficult to abuse or willfully misinterpret, because people have long proven that they will take whatever leeway is given them.

i have been a hunter for over 65 years having been raised on a farm. if anyone can make a semi-auto firearm fire like an automatic, then i guess no one should object to prohibiting bump stocks.

Excuse me. I reversed the coordinates for the first point: it should be (-1, 3).

Once again urban liberals can't conceal their complete ignorance of firearms as the technique of "bump firing" has been around since semi-autos were invented in 1885. Any pistol or rifle can simulate a machine gun using just your finger and nothing else by simply holding the gun in a certain way, and if that is too challenging, one can use the belt loop in your pants to achieve the same results. I strongly suggest people look up world famous, Jerry Miculek, who uses just his finger in a normal manner and beats Bump Stock's rate of fire. Amazing

Every year, twice as many people die from suicide than homicide. We should fear ourselves more than we fear others.

In the 1980s/1990s, the concern was rifles that didn’t have a stock or had one that could be minimized.

Already the news surrounding Vegas and bumpstocks and other gun control measures has died down. This is very disturbing. What can we citizens do to keep the momentum? Why aren't there marches in D.C., just as are done for other things that are a threat to our freedoms? Should we not have the right to freedom of movement without fear for our lives, or freedom of assembly (at concerts, parades, etc.) without fear for our own lives??

So how many people have to be saved to do something? Could Congress and the NRA please let us know? Every single person who has lost someone due to a gunshot will say just one. Just one is enough.

"Yet gun policy experts say a ban would probably have a negligible effect on mass shooting deaths." So if it saves one life it's not worth it to ban a device nobody needs in the first place? This is classic regulation-avoidance strategy: the proposed measure won't solve the entire problem perfectly, so let's just do nothing instead.