Its not helpful to say "the left" or "the right".

The important bit is that each item here is a legal issue.

* Bump-stocks, yes or no?

* Trigger-mods, yes or no? (Especially the ones with burst and/or automatic fire modes).

* Magazines, what size should we ban? Is 10 bullets enough? 30 bullets? 100 bullets?

* Should bullets be regulated in general? We regulate larger-capacity bullets (ex: 155mm artillery shells aren't exactly sold in the streets, nor are 30mm autocannons). So where do we draw the line there?

Its not like mortars and grenade launchers are commonly available at gun stores. We have drawn the line and cutoff many kinds of weapons from normal use within this country. If we draw the line a bit more towards background-checks and removing the "automatic-weapons" (bump-stocks and trigger mods) from legality, that probably will help our country out.

I think all of those should be legal. Fully automatic weapons are already legal, they’re just insanely expensive (~$15K for a full auto machine gun) and require a bunch of NFA paperwork to take legal possession.

There are legitimate uses for light trigger actions to minimize disturbance from the finger pull. It isn't hard to bump fire such a gun if you hold it loosely. It would be nice to see the full auto mods to handguns made illegal and manufacturers were forced to modify their designs to impede them. There isn't a legitimate use for mag dumping such a weapon.

Auto sears are illegal. Possessing one is a felony with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. No legal civilian-owned full-auto firearm has been made since the 1986 ban.[1]

There's really no way to make a semi-auto firearm that impedes full auto modification. Full auto is the default behavior. It's the trigger disconnector that makes a handgun semi-auto. That said, full auto isn't very useful. It's inaccurate and eats up ammo quickly, necessitating reloads.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#...

>Full auto is the default behavior. It's the trigger disconnector that makes a handgun semi-auto.

This isn't true for any modern rifle or pistol design- the absence of the disconnector just means the gun stop working (hammer follow). You need additional parts to ensure that the gun works properly in full-auto; this is accomplished by a secondary trigger (the 'auto sear') that trips the hammer/striker after the bolt closes.

>There's really no way to make a semi-auto firearm that impedes full auto modification.

The only designs that work this way are all already classified as machine guns in the US, so they aren't made/sold there any more.

Hammer follow can easily cause a gun to go full auto.[1] Yes it's not as reliable as a sear designed for full auto, but it can work surprisingly well on blowback actions.

The original comment was about handguns specifically, and was likely a reference to auto sears on Glocks. The combination of striker-fired and reciprocating slide makes it very easy to trip the sear at the right time, giving you better reliability than simply disabling the disconnector. This tweet has a useful diagram showing how Glock auto sears work.[2]

The ATF did restrict the manufacture of new guns that fire from an open bolt (since they are trivially made full-auto), but old open bolt guns aren't classified as machine guns.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc2xpGQ_8w8&t=250s (just FYI this guy swears when his gun accidentally goes full auto)

2. https://twitter.com/keegan_hamilton/status/15074309018771292...

On the other hand, we should be so lucky if more mass-shooters try to use full auto. There are very few situations where that would result in more deaths rather than less.

The Las Vegas bump-stock shooting was one of the deadliest in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

The fully-automatic question comes up because of pragmatism and practicality. The guy used 1000+ bullets to fire upon a crowd. You physically cannot do that if you only had semiautomatic.

I wonder if this might have been more deadly if he had fired fewer shots but deliberately aimed each of them at a person. The percentage of wounded survivors in that shooting was atypical.

That's true, and that's what I was thinking of when I said "few" instead of "none."

Luckily very few mass shooters have plans that are so well thought out.

These aren't the choice you'd use for a planned mass shooting. The problem is gang bangers killing more innocent bystanders with the latest gun fashion.

After three such incidents involving children in Minneapolis in a short period last (?) year I mused on how it would maybe be a good idea for someone to start a nonprofit that brings gang members to gun ranges to train them. I think we'd all rather they kill each other than bystanders.