- Question
- Should we have gun control?
- Position1 of 3›
- Gun ownership should be controlled
- Argument‹6 of 6
A bump stock ban is needed
Bump stocks, which effectively turn a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon, should be prohibited.
The argument
On October 1st, 2017, Stephen Paddock committed a mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas using a bump stock mechanism. If he had not had access to a bump stock, he would not have been able to kill anywhere near as many people in the time it took for armed units to respond. Bump stocks should be banned to reduce the loss of life in mass shootings.
Context
Bump stocks are essentially a "horizontal pogo stick" which allows users to shoot a semi-automatic weapon like an automatic weapon by bouncing the trigger off a stationary finger to replicate a rapid-fire mechanism. It allows shooters to fire many more rounds per minute.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Banning bump stocks will have almost no effect on the lethality or frequency of mass shootings in America. Firstly, they are not even that functional. They often lead to the weapon jamming or misfiring, and significantly reduce the accuracy of the weapon. In fact, not using a bump stock would probably lead to more deaths in the event of a mass shooting. Secondly, if someone has decided to kill a lot of people in a mass shooting, the lack of availability of bump stocks will not change their mind. There will be just as many mass shootings, involving just as many killers, who will kill exactly the same number of victims, if not more.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P3] Banning bump stocks would not mitigate the loss of life in mass shooting incidents.
Framing
- The state has the right to mitigate access to things that could be harmful.
Further reading
William Tyler Gilbert, Calling a Spade, A Spade: Infirmities Facing Bump Stock Regulation under the National Firearms Act, 107 Ky. L.J. 705 (2019).