Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
POWERFUL US GUN lobbyists the NRA says that “additional regulations” should be imposed on devices used to convert the Las Vegas shooter’s rifles into rapid-fire weapons, breaking with its usual outright opposition to gun control efforts.
The National Rifle Association has called on US authorities to “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law”, NRA leaders Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox said in a statement.
The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
The statement could be seen as a key shift by the powerful pro-gun group, which has vehemently opposed any efforts at gun control.
The White House also announced it was ‘open’ to congressional debate about the so-called bump stocks, spring-loaded devices which keep the weapon firing using its own recoil, shooting hundreds of rounds per minute.
“Members of both parties and multiple organisations are planning to take a look at bump stocks,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters.
We welcome that and would like to be part of that conversation.
The announcements could give cover to republican lawmakers, many of whom receive campaign finance support from the hugely influential gun lobby, to back current legislation that would ban the sale or possession of such devices.
“It opens up opportunities,” senate republican John Cornyn said.
Cornyn, the chamber’s number two republican, also said he asked Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley to hold a hearing on bump stocks, and that Grassley ‘seemed amenable’ to the idea.
Several republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, have said they support looking into the issue, with some saying they could back efforts to restrict or ban the devices.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said the bump stock “defies the spirit of the law against automatic weapons”.
Despite its rare endorsement of a gun device restriction, the NRA insisted in its statement that its goal firmly remained the protection and strengthening of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks,” LaPierre and Cox said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Here’s a stat which will put things in sober perspective…..
Number of Americans killed in every war since the inception of their country in 1776: 1.2 million
Number of Americans killed in gun related incidents on home soil since 1968: 1.5 million
@The Risen:
How many of those gun-related deaths were suicides?
@Thought for Food: and there you go again. What difference does that make? Bottom line is that if there fewer guns in circulation, there’d be fewer gun-related deaths. Whether those deaths are suicides or the killing of others doesn’t change that.
@Jumperoo:
It absolutely matters.
The implication is that these 1.5 million people would not have died if guns were banned. Stats show that the US has an almost identical suicide rate to other developed countries, only suicide by gun is the most common option.
This tells us that, most likely, those that committed suicide with guns would have committed suicide in another manner anyway. Ergo those people would be dead regardless of gun legislation.
As suicide makes up the majority of US gun deaths, that makes the stats posted and the intended point disingenuous.
@Thought for Food: On average about 63% who would have done themselves in one way or another so blaming their deaths on guns is ignoring the fact that they would have used other means if guns weren’t available.
@Thought for Food: all right then. If you know ‘the majority’ of gun deaths were suicides, please answer your own question, and tell us how many of them were. For arguments sake, lets say out of 1.5 million, 1 million were suicides. That still leaves 500,000 people dead after being shot by somebody else. What are your thoughts on this?
@Jumperoo: What are your thoughts on crimes committed by people wearing track suit and hoodies. Could we reduce the crime rates by controlling supply of hoodies? /S
@Thought for Food:
“Stats show”,….this another “fact” you just pulled out of your ass?
Also, I cannot believe you so brain washed by your gun fetish that you consider suicides by gun to be irrelevant.
Seriously? Cop on.
@Patrick Cat #2: probably couldn’t reduce the overall crime rate. But you could definitely reduce the number of crimes committed by people in hoodies if you made it more difficult to own a hoodie in the first place, so that fewer people wore them. Silly question, to be honest….
@Patrick Cat #2: Last time I checked a hoodie wasn’t a lethal firearm
@Cian Nolan: it’s about the motive lads, indeed it matters not what you wear, because something else will find its way, was my point
@The Risen: keeps the population down and saves them spending money on another/additional foreign war/invasion to get a similar desired effect.
@Patrick Cat #2: You should look up the term “false equivalence”, and then think about how it applies to your comments
@Thought for Food: well then how about full background checks and mental health testing being a minimum requirement for any gun purchase anywhere in America? Seems simple but it’s guaranteed to impact both suicide and homicide. It’s far too easy to kill yourself if you own a gun. A bad minute and you’re gone. Most other methods would allow for a change of mind.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: do you live in America
@Patrick Cat #2: Well your point was f*cking stupid and made of straw
@Ladude: do you, troll?
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: nope don’t troll, but do you live in America? Thought so
@Ladude: Why would that matter?
@David On Tour: well for the last few months Europe has been having its own issues with terrorism, and it seems the people more concerned with what’s happening in america are less concerned with the many murders happening here in Europe. Intresting huh?
@Ladude: Not interesting at all. European terrorist attacks tend to be carried out by terrorists, in particular, religious fanatics, using whatever weaponry (including motor vehicles, knives, home made bombs etc) they can use to further their particular cause.
Mass shootings in America tend to be carried out by disaffected individuals (generally not classed as terrorists) using widely available, legally held firearms. It’s fair to say that without such firearms, most of the US atrocities would likely never have happened.
Can you explain why anyone outside the military would need the type of weaponry used at Las Vegas?
@Ladude: I’m pretty sure the comments sections for those attacks is just as active. Also, gun homicide kills more people annually in America than terrorists do here despite there being double the population here
@Dave O Keeffe: Shush … look over there …. and leave the poor troll alone
@David On Tour: So you don’t think that terrorism in Europe is interesting, I mean its a very complex matter. So why is it that you’re more concerned with america and its gun laws , once again do you live in america ?
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: Cool
@Dave O Keeffe: Sugar kills more than both annually but yet we still give it out for free in starbucks. Do you think we should ban sugar ?
@Ladude: I didn’t say anything about banning guns, in fact I’ve never said I want to ban guns. Also the sugar in Starbucks isn’t free.
@Thought for Food:
“This tells us that, most likely, those that committed suicide with guns would have committed suicide in another manner anyway. Ergo those people would be dead regardless of gun legislation.”
Not quite.
You’re forgetting a couple of things:
1. Suicides are many times intended as suicide attempts, and not actual suicides.
2. The method with which one attempt suicide often determines if you live or die.
In studies performed at Harvard (and elsewhere), they could see no statistically significant differences between gun-owning households and households not owning guns.
Rather, it came down to the simple fact that those attempting suicide using guns oftentimes succeeded, whereas in cases where guns were not involved, the suicidal person would survive or change their mid through the attempt.
@Brian Ward:
See my comment to Thought for Food.
Your logic, while it may seem intact, does not take into account the importance of method, which directly impacts the death rate among people becoming suicidal.
@Ladude: Islamic terrorism in Europe and random US shooters with a personal grudge are entirely different cases.
People from Ireland and the UK were at the Las Vegas concert and may well have been casualties. The insanity of US gun ownership doesn’t just affect Americans.
And you’ve forgotten to answer my question: can you explain why anyone outside the military would need the type of weaponry used at Las Vegas?
@Cian Nolan: when was the last time you checked on that? Seems odd that whether or not a hoodie is a lethal firearm is something you would need to check..
@Patrick Cat #2:
Your hoodie question is both fairly dumb and misguided. Two flies, one stone. Yay.
A hoodie rarely contributes to means, motive or opportunity, whereas a weapon falls directly in the means category.
@Ladude:
From commenter’s location to European terrorism to sugar, while avoiding the article’s topic and the OP’s comment.
Short bus much?
@Thought for Food:
Or better still, how many of those people were criminals shot while carrying out a crime, shot either by law enforcement or people defending themselves or others?
Jesus who writes these headlines? The NRA haven’t called for a curb on assault weapons, it has asked for a review of the legality of bump stocks which is a smart move by them. Bump stocks are legal and OK’d by the ATF in all states as they are not part of the mechanism of the gun itself. The NRA knows this and as a result look as though they are doing something good while actually doing nothing to get rid of bump stocks. It has nothing to do with curbing assault weapons or semi automatic rifles so the headline is complete bollocks.
@Brian Ward:
Not to mention the term “assault weapon” is a leafy one with no real definition. You could call any gun an “assault weapon”.
@Thought for Food: Not entirely true. Assault weapons are a category of firearm that meet a number of criteria such as rate of fire, capacity and calibre. When the NRA discuss assault weapons they are discussing a specific segment of the firearms market and no pistols, shotguns or hunting rifles.
@Jimmy Ireland:
That’s actually not true.
The “assault weapon” categorisation is based on arbitrary features rather than anything relating to performance.
If you have a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, adjustable stock and front grip it’s an “assault weapon”. Remove the front grip and it’s no longer an “assault weapon” in some states. Remove the front grip and adjustable stock and it’s no longer an “assault weapon” in any state.
The best example is the AR-15 and the Mini-14. The Mini-14 fires the exact same round as the AR, has a detachable magazine and is semi-automatic. Because it uses a ‘traditional’ stock design, however, it’s almost never classed as an “assault weapon” even though it has the exact same capabilities as an AR.
Basically, the “assault weapon” category is meaningless fluff.
@Brian Ward:
They’re quite clever little minxes. The NRA, not the headline writers.
Steering the agenda away from the actual weapons and making about an appliance.
…cuz that’s going to make all the difference.
@Thought for Food: You’re meaningless fluff, Jason. before you start I know the script, you are just just trying to start a meaningful discussion blah, blah blah
The only hope the US has remaining is to ban bullets at this stage.They just won’t accept the fact Guns kill people.
@David Huston:
It’s actually not difficult to make bullets yourself. A few components and ingredients, the right tools and you can pump out hundreds or thousands of rounds.
If you ban bullets, you only hurt law abiding citizens while people who wish to commit crimes will get their hands on illegally produced bullets.
@Thought for Food: We’ve all heard that nonsensical argument before, whether you apply it to guns or bullets it’s all the one. The point is that Americans are all arming themselves to the teeth in fear of each other and when it boils down to a situation where someone with a gun would come in fairly handy against an armed criminal, i.e columbine, sandyhook, Orlando, Las Vegas….. There is never anyone with a gun around to save the day, is there?
@Michael Evans:
American government figures have shown that between 100,000 and 3,000,000 crimes every year are stopped or deterred due to civilian gun ownership.
Most of these mass attacks occur in places where civilians are not allowed to have guns.
@Thought for Food: I’m a law abiding citizen. How would this hurt me?
@Thought for Food: Be interesting to know how many of those crimes were going to be carried out using a legally held gun? Would also be interested to know if those figures are actually factual or twisted to suit the gun lobby, as they normally are? Still haven’t managed to stop a mass shooting yer though, have they? Remember, everyone who owns a gun may start out perfectly sane but at some stage something happens to turn that person into a deranged person who is out for revenge and when they have a stock of guns in their cupboard, that can so easily turn into the next mass shooting. A student who is being bullied, a worker who has just been fired, someone who is offended at seeing 2 men kissing, etc, etc. The next one is only a matter of time.
@Thought for Food:
Where are these figures? You cant just type whatever comes in to your little brain and post it as facts. Where is your reference?
Even if true, its a pathetic excuse to gloss over what happened the other day.
It seems like what happened in Vegas is going to stay in Vegas and nothing is ever going to change.
America is a fukked up country.
@Thought for Food: An article which might be of interest to you http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
@David Huston: “Guns kill People” The evil minded guns…I thought it’s the people that kill people
@Michael Evans: Actually an African migrant went on a shooting rampage in Tennessee a couple of weeks ago. An usher in the church tackles him and held and used his own legally held gun to hold the gunman till police arrived.
https://pamelageller.com/2017/09/church-shooting-sudanese-migrant.html/
Here’s the CNN link but strangely enough they don’t mention the bit about the usher retrieving his gun to subdue the gunman.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/24/us/tennessee-church-shooting/index.html
@Mike: Pamela Geller? We all know your view now. No wonder you use an alias, you coward
@Thought for Food: Same with Nukes. you just need a few components, ingredients, and the right tools. In fact, thats all you need to make anything
@Colm Buckley: I provided an MSM link and the Pamela Geller link too as too many of you snowflakes refuse to look at anything outside the MSM. The trouble as I explained is that the MSM are selectively reporting these stories. Most outlets did not report that a member of the congregation that was attacked used his own gun to subdue the assailant.
But please tell me why you disapprove of me using the Pamela Geller link? Is it that you disagree with her politics? Is the reporting factually incorrect? I don’t agree with all of her politics either BTW. Maybe I’ll just link to InfoWars in the future, just melt you altogether.
@WinSomeLoseSome: Don’t forget skills and knowhow.
@Mike: what’s your real name
@Mike: Yeah, that story was widely reported, it was on here too.
@Thought for Food: you don’t “hurt” people by depriving them of guns or bullets. Unless you are frothingly insane. Battlefield weapons are for battlefields, not suburbs, shopping malls, schools and creches, public transport or private dwellings, universities or country music festivals. We don’t even allow our ordinary police access to firearms, and it’s a bloody good thing too.
@Mike The fool shot himself and then the usher retrieved his gun from his car. Not exactly the same thing as an armed hero coming to the rescue now is it?
@Thought for Food:
Can you please point me to those figures?
The vast majority of academic studies seem to show it to be inconclusive, that it can be determined whether gun ownership actually reduces crime rates. The causal relationship is not credibly demonstrated.
Hence, if you have a reliable source, I’d love to read up.
Cheers.
@Dog Eat Fog:
…that it can’t*
Typo in the right place…
It’s just clever marketing by the NRA: they know it will get attention (as it has here) while they try to advance their agenda in other ways.
‘But in the same statement, the NRA claimed gun control laws would not stop further attacks, and called on Congress to pass a law that would make it easier for owners to carry weapons across state lines – a measure that would gut local restrictions on gun carrying and might make it legal for tourists to carry their firearms on the New York City subway.’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/republicans-guns-bump-stocks-las-vegas-shooting
@Brendan O’Brien: I wonder have they dropped their campaign to get the ban on silencers lifted?
@Jane:
Why would they?
@Jane: I don’t think they have, last I heard it’s going ahead.
@Thought for Food: you don’t see a problem with silencers being widely available?
@Jane:
No, why should I?
@Thought for Food: people hear gunshots, call police. Police get there as soon as possible. People don’t hear gunshots, don’t call police, police arrive at a contaminated crime scene. It’s not rocket science
@Dave O Keeffe:
Suppressors don’t make guns silent.
@Thought for Food: which is not what was mentioned in the comments
@Thought for Food: suppressor is just another word for silencer. There are two reasons why they should be banned. 1. they don’t make guns silent but they do change the sound enough for it to be mistaken and ignored in an urban environment. 2. They reduce flash significantly allowing a shooter to conceal their position better.
Bit late for this don’t you think!!!
@Linda Hughes: Yeah, why bother doing anything that might saves lives?
@Honeybadger197: these bump stocks have sold out of stores in the immediate aftermath of last weekend’s shootings. The genie is out of the bottle.
@Honeybadger197: Should we ban kitchen knifes too?
@Patrick Cat #2:
Don’t forget trucks, planes and pressure cookers.
@Patrick Cat #2: No, we should ban deliberately facetious comments though. Good day sir.
@Dermot Lane: Maybe for that batch. Anything that reduces the killing capacity of civilian firearms is welcome.
@Honeybadger197: Hold on good Sir, we shall not ban comments revealing fallacies in illogical constructs hereby posted for they have sprinkle of wittiness!
@Patrick Cat #2: eh I think you will find there are regulations around weapon carrying like swords and machete and blades weapons so your question is actually pretty idiotic
@Dave Hammond: Which part of it doesn’t matter what people kill with it is the motive that matters you have difficulty understanding? If somebody is dedicated to causing a carnage they will find the way, weather it’s by DIY explosive or by a vehicle or automatic rifle
Shows how much journalists know about weapons in ireland. This isnt a curb on assault weapons at all. Its a curb on the use of an accessory device, fitted to a weapon, that allows a semi automatic assault weapon to act in a fully automatic manner. (you cannot buy fully automatics weapons without a federal licence and then only ones manufactured prior to 1986). NRA is trying to be seen to do something to take the heat off them to do bigger things.
@Ros Aodha: exactly right ,the headline is completely incorrect , couldn’t be more wrong , needs to be amended
It’s actually brilliantly diabolical of them. They exchange something relatively worthless to them (bump stocks) for what they really want (interstate concealed carry) and make themselves look reasonable doing it.
While understood for a long time, it’s interesting to see a lobby group in such clear terms dictating domestic policy.
more than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents, or by police intervention on average per year.
Here is the break down/ 31,537 people die from gun violence: 11,583 people are murdered. 18,783 people kill themselves.
71,386 people survive gun injuries:
51,249 people are injured in an attack.
3,627 people survive a suicide attempt. 15,815 people are shot accidentally.
694 people are shot by police intervention
@Stiofán De Priondárgas: that’s the CDC figures from 2014. Check out the FBI numbers for 2015,everything got worse basically. Also, one other stat that should always be included: roughly 50 toddlers (under 3yrs) shoot or are shot by someone every year. That’s more that the number of police shot and killed on the job each year.
“A machine gun with a silencer bump stock”
What a stupid tag line. That is not a machine gun and there’s no such thing as a silencer bump stock.
Who writes this rubbish?
@Thought for Food:
Looking at the photo, the rifle doesn’t even have a bump stock on it which is the topic of the article.
@Thought for Food: you sound like a fanatic gun nut yourself. Maybe not the best way to be portraying yourself in the current circumstances…
@Thought for Food: Maybe they thought the 30 round magazine could somehow squeeze in 200 rounds of 7.62
@Jumperoo:
As I’ve said on other articles, I want an honest debate about gun control. Articles like this that spread false information should be corrected if we’re to have a reasonable debate.
Would you not agree that a common factual basis of understanding is beneficial for honest and open discussions?
@Thought for Food: “Bump stocks,” is that some kind of “limited contact” banger racing or what? And what has the National Roads Authority got to do with it?
@Thought for Food: How’s the journal gun “expert” getting on today ?
@Thought for Food: We had honest debates. Your side lost.
@Philip Gerard:
Who’s “we”?
@Thought for Food: an honest debate is not possible with you. How many times have you presented information that was proven to be false?
When you consider 1 in 5 people will suffer from mental health issues at some stage in their lives, free access to weapons is a recipe for disaster…… the choice of weaponry is hardly the issue
@AP: Using your number, 1 in 5 around the world will suffer this. Tell me, why is this level of violence not common in other westernized nations? Also, the US healthcare system is not the best and the party that’s in the pockets of the gun lobby want to take healthcare away.
Like jamming aband aid on a gaping wound
What a waste of time, because this add-on device turns a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. But many States currently already allow for fully automatic weapons to be owned by private individuals, so the capability to kill hunderds in minutes is still on sale. This despicable exercise from the NRA is nothing more than a diversion. The NRA are an evil organisation who ensures that guns are everywhere in American society. And this business about ensuring that law abiding citizens need to be able to protect themselves is absolute guff. Paddock was a law abiding, (40 gun owner), citizen. Until he wasn’t.
LaPierre……….sounds Canadian.
Forget about gun control and just ban the sale of bullets.
@Evan Wakefield: it’s a lot easier to make bullets than guns in your own home. America will never ban gun ownership. The fact that they don’t make it incredibly hard to own one in the first place is mind boggling though.
@Evan Wakefield: great idea. Then they can still display their gun collections as nothing more than ornaments. “Trigger Happy” becomes a reference to the emotional state of your horse delighted to know you’re only firing blanks/just messin’.
The caption on this awful article is hilarious
Queastion,
When was the last time a good man with a gun
shot a bad man with a gun ?
@Johnny Merren: It actually happens quite a lot. Plenty of examples on YouTube. They make the news in the states but not here.
@Ace: What’s the ration of good guys shooting bad guys to bad guys shooting good good guys and/or bad guys?
yeah like you need an assault weapon for protection!!!!!!!! Stop hiding behind an amendment for your right to bear arms .. it is not in THE constitution .. its an amendment can be amended FFS
@Shane Cormican: Sadly, there’s not nearly enough votes to call a constitutional convention or a 2/3s majority willing in congress.
More people die from smoking than firearms ban tobacco
I’d say it’s pretty much safe to say now that Trump is definitely the luckiest person to have ever lived so far in the human race. From the day he was born into privilege to today when the NRA is holding his hand for him as walks down the stairs of this crisis.
Really is this an answer to monkeys beheind guns
have your say