• havokdj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s because legally speaking, it is not a machine gun.

    Disbarring effectiveness from the conversation (although bumpfire is hilariously innacurate compared to true fully automatic fire), bumpfire also requires a degree of skill to actually pull off, even with a bump stock, as you have to manipulate the firearm in a way that it actually can continuously fire, something that would be very difficult to do in a stressful situation.

    Bumpstocks also make semiautomatic fire much more difficult.

    I should clarify that I’m not defending bumpstocks, I’m just saying that banning bumpstocks was a farce, especially since you can still bumpfire without them due to the existence of physics.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would imagine bump stocks are actually less effective than regular aimed semiautomatic fire in just about every situation. That’s why bans like this are pointless. People don’t realize how fast a person can already shoot a semiautomatic rifle, while actually being able to properly aim at what they are trying to hit.