PedroPaisan
48969
1472
41
Jan 2, 2025 6:06 AM
PedroPaisan
48969
1472
41
NathanielHammond
Careful you don't let the state monopolize violence
Ranb40
This is NOT MAGA approved. Trump wants red flag laws without the due process that is required in MN and other states which have these laws. https://dps.mn.gov/about-dps/programs-and-legislative-requirements/extreme-risk-protection-orders
TheJudgeHasItBackwards
I really hope being on the losing ticket doesn't derail Walz's career. He's not perfect, but he's the politician I have been most excited about since Bernie.
staceyjorgenson31415
🫡
Darjanator
I applaud the effort, but Americans will literally do anything except ban the actual deadly part of the gun, which is the gun.
DontSayRepeat
This is why I'm moving the Minnesota, well not specifically but another reason
ElbowDeepInAGoblin
But -trans- triggers are okay?? ...Freakin' woke librettos...
Subsound
Its funny because it's bigoted and stupid
lightfoot2
Fair enough. I strongly support gun ownership yet also support states' rights to regulate it. Hopefully this helps their state.
Kantoken
But you still allow guns. Guns that fire bullets. Bullets that kill people. And everyone can get a gun. Congrats for making it a little bit more difficult to kill people.
BeefiusMaximus1
I'm not sure a governor can change federal law. Yes we know how guns work. And I'm sure whining isn't helping either, yet here we are. If we could harness the power of imgur crybabies we could power the earth for a billion years.
jsdigman6
If republicans could read they would be mad
KAPTKipper
A large magazine would work better
EternalStudent07
Terrible name, but it's not like I expected better. Should be a transition trigger, or change trigger. Can't remember my electronics well enough now, but whatever clock signal doubling technique they used for the double or quad pumped things (edge vs. level?).
nasukkin
The problem with these state laws is that they are state laws.
Look at the San Bernardino, California shooters. They wanted to do a shooting. California's gun laws outright stopped them from obtaining firearms. Their solution was to drive to Nevada, buy guns there, and drive home to do their deeds. No interstate security = no protection against guns. I mean, look at which state has the lowest rate of gun crimes--Hawaii--and try to figure out why.
TheBlueMuppet
Binary triggers are how you cheat at OSU!
SuperfluousMeh
We coulda had him. We got vance instead
xj4low
Vance has been missing since the election. He isn't even doing his roll in Congress, which requires being there to vote or help get his new boss's cabinet approved by talking to people.
Djones06236
Ok, so I'm not the only one who's questioned exactly where he's gone to. The dude disappeared.
Obisake
To be fair President Musk has been in the news more than Trump since the election.
xj4low
I can only imagine how that must anger Trump.
parabolic000
They put a binary trigger mod in Starfield and I thought it was nuts and impractical for a space opera shooter game. That it's a real thing that actual people want to put on their guns is absolutely nuts to me.
2graves
It's great on the... Eon? In Star Field. What a cool pistol. But real things yeah no
BishlamekGurpgork
I mean, making a pistol burst fire is essentially what anybody buying a binary trigger wants, and it's a better solution. It's just less legal.
TheGreatAtomsk
isn't that the game with square shotgun shells?
abtei
awesome.
now, have (enough) people to actually enforce it.
RememberBeingSuper
Cigarettes. You want to save millions of lives? Ban Cigarettes.
SerialChickenLover
It’s going to take a few more dead CEOs and attempts on Trump’s life to move the needle on meaningful gun control.
thedarkcanuck
Well skoden
pandajack
Americans are pro non-binary?
ServaDoctrina
Tim is a good guy, but he can't save your messed up country by himself. Y'all need to grassroot shit so that the likes of Biden & Trump can never become POTUS again.
keelindsey
Biden only ran last time because the Democrats were completely unable to put forward someone who might actually convince Democrats to vote. He did great things for this country in his 4 years, and it's not his fault mental decline got to him. He's an old man. He didn't want to be president. If we want a better president, we need to get out there and VOTE next time. More than 30% of this country just shrugged and stayed home, rather than doing their part to stop fascism.
ServaDoctrina
Biden is bought and paid for by the ultra rich and the Zionists and forever doing their bidding. He never cared about the working class or the middle class, or Palestinians. And neither did most of the DNC. Your real enemy is the two party system and the ultra rich.
BeefiusMaximus1
Why say things when nobody is going to agree with you? Just like to hear yourself talk?
ServaDoctrina
Why be rude to strangers when you can choose to not be?
keelindsey
That being said, Walz and Ocasio-Cortez would be -fantastic- in 2028. Assuming we are allowed to vote still by then.
AncientArtefact
'Merica - where you celebrate your 'progress' - when all you did was stop things getting even worse.
Nikolai5
Are they seriously talking about background checks after one of their own is killed vs thousands of kids?
wandermanspacebot
One of their own? Who is "them" here?
Nikolai5
Anything they get through will be because Mr CEO was killed. Why did nothing happen after Columbine? Them as in the people in power.
wandermanspacebot
That's such a simplistic take that I'm not even sure what to tell you.
Nikolai5
Only in America are simple problems deemed "too complicated", free healthcare? Too complicated. Gun control? too complicated. Worker's rights? Too complicated. It's simplistic because it is simple, the country is just incredibly corrupt.
Stefnos
it's simeple.... mr CEO is dead... and now they are doing something.. that something being makeing it easier for police to just arrest people who might target CEO's by makeing it an act of terrorisme insted of just normal murder.. the fact is the rich people in controll of it all just dont give a fuck
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
Background checks = great, red flag laws= great, feature/hardware bans = rearranging deck chairs on the titanic at great expense. Legislation that keeps bad actors from getting any guns at all saves lives, pretty much everything else is pointless theater.
martineb72
Yeah, but binaries are just inherently unsafe for the user and people around them. This isn't like a bump stock or guns that 'look' unsafe, because they look like guns only military use(even though they aren't any more dangerous as any other gun,ie AR). Binaries jam often, and it is easy to forget they are binary and your second shot goes someplace you didn't plan on.
QueenOfTheFey
Do you have proof of this? Like evidence that it hasnt worked in the past? I'm genuinely interested.
kbeast007
Do some good reading on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. It basically said certain weapons such as AR-15s could only have 3 out of 5 of certain components. People found work around and the components restricted could seem very arbitrary. It's a good place to start to read and form your own opinion.
QueenOfTheFey
I'm gonna need a bit more direction with this, the only things I can find support the weapons ban or are inconclusive to the causation, while acknowledging there was a reduction in deaths? Has it not worked in other countries? My countries planning on banning a bunch of kinds of guns so I'm just wondering.
https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/abstract/2019/01000/changes_in_us_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx
varonicaED
We have some minor evidence it does in the US, when AR-15's were banned there was a drop in deaths however the drop wasn't enough to make a definitive claim. It was only a ban on sales so there were still plenty of them around. To get more reliable data you would need to remove them entirely from the equation, ie: confiscate them, not a popular move I would suggest. But Australia is an example of removal leading to a drop in firearm homicides.
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
Yup. ARs are banned by both name and feature in many states including my own. There are currently at least 3 50-state legal firearms commercially available that are in every meaningful, functional way ARs. They take AR magazines, use AR bolts, triggers, gas blocks and barrels, work the same way, they for all intents *are* ARs. But they're not affected by the bans. At all. See also "sawed-off" shotguns. And "10-round" magazines that are 30-round magazines with a rivet popped in. All legal. (1/2)
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
I don't say this for fun, I say this because I want fewer innocent people getting shot: Bans don't work. People figure out ways to route around them and the money and time spent creating the bans is literally wasted. On top of that, "your child is hostage to a nut carrying a lever-action rifle" is not better news than "your child is hostage to a nut with an AR." All guns are dangerous. We can legislate to keep all guns away from people who shouldn't have them or we can keep doing this. (2/2)
QueenOfTheFey
I get the sentiment absolutely, but I was really hoping for proof. My country has major gun restrictions, and they're planning more, and I support that, but I'd like to see actual proof they work or dont. Cuz otherwise it's just based on vibes? And Americans are pretty famous for the "it works other places, but it wont work here" especially with gun stuff, and now that's gotten a bit contagious among our idiots. And I can't exactly argue with them, if the facts support that.
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
Huh? The proof that bans don't work is that you can legally get ahold of the banned items. The purpose of a ban is to prevent that. If it doesn't, that's de facto proof that it doesn't work.
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
I mean, it does matter a bit what kind of weapon technology is available to civilians. Here in Germany any 18-year-old can buy a high-tech crossbow with enough draw to hunt rhinos. Meaning adults can easily obtain a lethal and accurate weapon, just not one that fires projectile after projectile in short succession. Or one that is easy to conceal, for that matter. Unsurprisingly, there have been very few crossbow murders and zero crossbow massacres.
nichfra
However there has been at least one school shooting with a crossbow in Germany.
Obviously your point still stands though as the result was one person injured and no deaths.
pixelsnader
Well, that's only if you're counting this millennium.
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
Fair point. I imagine there were a number of crossbow massacres in the middle ages that typically involved multiple crossbowmen.
pixelsnader
'Fun' fact; even though bows, knives, spears and rocks have been weapons for much longer in history, firearms are responsible for the most deaths overall.
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
Partially because the world population has increased so dramatically in the modern era. Pre-gunpowder Europe had a population of 70 million people. By the time World War 1 rolled around there were already 500 million.
BloodyDisappointment
It will not stop. The only things that will make it stop is, moving away from a mass manufacturing of guns, and move towards a custom order situation, where every single gun part and bullet is tracked and traceable.
DocNitro
So, all guns are now required to be non-binary? In b4 gun nuts freaking out....
mrthewhitee
"THEY'RE TRANS-ING OUR GUNS!!!"
abtei
what about car freaks that put balls on their trucks? thats gender affirming care.
ElbowDeepInAGoblin
Intrusive thought: Drag queen shooting range hour
lbargomancer
Not quite the same thing, but I recall seeing an LGBT+ group somewhere that was doing 2nd Amendment advocacy and range days.
pixelsnader
Drag queen shooting or drag queen shooting? That makes a big difference.
DocNitro
To be honest, especially in the 'Gun Nut' states, I would not be surprised if the 'Libs' also owned guns - but not waving them around every waking moment. Might be a fun surprise if some MAGAt tried something stupid...
Chromentor
Good. A would be mass shooter might rethink his future deed if there is a risk of getting tired in his trigger finger.
Multipew
Dunno why you got down voted. Yes this fiddling around in the margins of gun control does effectively nothing to make society safer.
djarcas
:(
HeresYourSauce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_trigger
A binary trigger (or pull and release trigger) is a type of device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. A binary trigger works by firing one shot upon pulling the trigger and then firing a subsequent shot upon release of the trigger.
cousteau
This seems extremely stupid and not at all the "let's restrict guns" effort they make it sound like. Just "let's restrict a small subset of guns that shouldn't exist at all in the first place".
GitchyGitchyOohLaLa
It's a foothold. Keep the madness at bay. Outlawing, and standing up to, the extreme is the present.
SpartaWolf117
because insecure gun owners keep expecting the 'woke' mafia to jump around every corner to take their guns out of their hands
spaghettiThunderbolt
Because the left has made it abundantly clear that they're aiming for full confiscation? "Why do gun owners constantly think we're trying to take their guns? All we're trying to do is take their guns at every opportunity!"
thedemondowntheblock
So your anti-trump? Cause like he dosen’t even try to pass laws. He had made it very clear he treats guns like he treats any woman in a ten mile radius, grab first, ask questions fifth, question legality never
spaghettiThunderbolt
Very anti-Trump, yes. On top of being a gigantic piece of shit, I have an aversion to convicted felons.
CallThisAUsername
Fuck your guns. And fuck you, too, you insecure little murder fetishist.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Wow, what a compelling argument! I'm glad you didn't devolve into personal attacks or outright false statements about my personality, that would've been silly!
CallThisAUsername
I would use precise, measured arguments if I had any respect for you... But that is not the case. And so, fuck off.
ArchaeoJones
I'm sure you have actual evidence of that? Because as a gun owning lefty, I know you're full of shit.
spaghettiThunderbolt
The very concept of "assault weapons" (AKA "guns that are black and look scary"), pushes for unconstitutional licensing requirements, not to mention the liberal superhero Robert Francis "Hell Yes We're Taking Your AR-15" O'Rourke. Hell, California literally has a (blatantly unconstitutional) Commisar-Approved handgun list. Congratulations on being a proud temporary gun owner, by the way.
ArchaeoJones
Ah, so you're just an idiot then. Got it.
7andaswitchblade
Ok dumb question then, is it possible to shoot just 1 round?
themobileappisbroken
Load only a single round into the weapon.
pixelsnader
You can just put your finger in the shoot hole. Then the second bullet doesn't come out.
HeresYourSauce
No, no I'm curious too.
GitchyGitchyOohLaLa
Never thought would ever hear someone say they were bi curious & it was about guns?! Learn something new everyday.
METROlD
Yes. Plug the barrel like a cartoon character. That will stop the second round.
Dontstopbelever2000ismyfavoritesoap
Yeah, pull the trigger 1/2 times
EvPointMaster
Super Luigi 64 in 0.5x trigger presses
hellsgunslinger
Not an expert but seeing as they fire a second round upon releasing the trigger, no. The only way would be to hold the trigger down and not let it reset which is insanely dangerous since as soon as you release the trigger it would fire a second round.
7andaswitchblade
Thanks for the info everyone, don't know much about guns so I appreciate the real answers, and the funny ones too
hellsgunslinger
Gotta have humor in life. Specially nowadays 🤙
TheDildoOfConsequences
I'm a European without a gun so I don't know a lot, but I'm pretty sure that these triggers are like bump stocks, i.e. they have no purpose but to spray bullets indiscriminately at crowds of unarmed people, and thereby own the libs.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Yup. If the selector is on semi, it will fire one round. If you're in binary and fire one round without releasing the trigger, you can switch the selector to semi or safe and it will not fire an additional round.
nesurame
that sounds like its really complicated for a scenario where you need to make a split second decision
myotheralt
Don't put the gun on rapid fire if you are going into that sort of situation.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Not really, it's not something you'd use in that kind of scenario. A binary trigger is a fun thing when you have money to burn (on ammo), but not the money to burn ($10k+) for a fully automatic firearm. It's a range toy. The rifles I use for home defense and work are semi-automatic, because it's just more practical.
JohnEdwa
In those situations it's not a problem, you'll quickly pull the trigger like you would normally, and what you were pointing the gun at now just has two holes in it instead of one. It becomes a problem when people are taking their time on the range and such, as it's easy to forget that the next shot goes off when you release especially if something goes wrong or disturbs your concentration.
flarflarf
in case you're curious, binary triggers are triggers that fire the weapon when you pull them AND when you let them out.
Timetoupdatemyusername
Cuz non-binary triggers are woke!!!
ProppaGanda
Excuse me but what the fuck
Cabreza
So this is what the bump stock morons switched to after those were banned? Guess it's a good thing the supreme court unbanned those recently . /s
Kiares
That sounds like the stupidest trigger ever.
joepineapplesindrag
Dude. That's insane.
DontSayRepeat
I had one of those on my Tippmann paintball gun, I thought I was hot shit when I got that
johnxbear
Works great for paintball. Real guns not so much.
williamvanauger
Why would that ever be a thing you need to do?
Fentex
That's fing insane.
FreshBundleOfStick
Ah I see, the Tigris
bippityboppitybuttsex
They are dead man's switches for rifles... they are really fucking stupid.
2graves
Yeah super fun in Star Field. Absolutely not necessary in real life
Firestar002
Gears of War as well.
zanaria
That sounds like an incredibly stupid idea to me. Very easy to lose control of a weapon like that...
FetteredJuvenescence
As a gun person, who fully supports SCOTUS's interpretation that the second amendment does entitle all Americans to own guns: I still think binary triggers are a terrible idea and no one should ever get one. So yeah, this is fine.
unluckyandbored
Like bump stocks, they're another way to get around the ban on fully automatic weapons.
themobileappisbroken
Firstly. I didn't even know that was a thing.
Secondly. There is absolutely no possible reason why anyone would need such a weapon.
hellsgunslinger
As a person who has been around guns basically my entire life, owns and collects guns, and knows a lot of "gun people", binary triggers are stupid. No one I know would ever get one. They're impractical for pretty much everything other than wasting money on ammo. I couldn't care less if they banned them or added them to the NFA list.
Sidewaysgts
As a so called gun person myself - this sentiment exactly. Some people really just want stupid things because they feel it’s their right to be able to have stupid things.
kopper41222
Same. Really stupid they even exist tbh.
joepineapplesindrag
Username checks out
ElbowDeepInTheElbowDeepBandwagon
What they said☝️👍
16bitStarbuck
Shove your guns up your ass. Way up there.
hellsgunslinger
You know, even though you got some downvotes, I respect your opinion on the matter.
TacoPoweredHelicopter
What if..... There is like..... Alot of feral hogs.... And they are charging your property?
cosonfused
BUT MAH FREEDOM!!!!!!
brassmule
They're a helluva lotta fun though. Gonna ban belt loops, too, or failure to clean your SKS bolt?
themobileappisbroken
There are a lot of things that are fun which are banned and rightly so.
Just because something is fun doesn't mean you should be permitted to do it.
brassmule
Well, for the record: cleaning the bolt on my SKS is not fun so that's why I don't do it!
themobileappisbroken
There are a lot of things that aren't fun which need to be done and rightly so.
Just because something isn't fun doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Solkanarmy
most of us think that second thing that about all guns tbh
canadianreserve
All gun owners agree as well, which is why most of us support gun control. Most modifications that change the designed operation are unsafe.
OliverKlozoff1269
30-50 wild hogs a good enough reason?
flarflarf
that was my favorite day on twitter
[deleted]
[deleted]
ExecutiveProducerWolfDyck
So you can miss twice every time?
firefighter26
I took it as long hanging fruit along the path to bigger bans and better regulations.
flarflarf
no argument there. I feel like this kind of shit is just people not being able to accept that they cant have full-auto machine guns and spending a bunch of time and effort trying to rules lawyer themselves into or near one.
DoctorSniffles
Bump stocks were another great example of this. Why they so thirsty for that full auto?
spaghettiThunderbolt
Because it's fun as hell?
DoctorSniffles
To do the ol spray and pray? I guess I dont get the appeal.
FascisTyrant
This. I own binary triggers because they're fun as hell. They're hard to shoot accurately, and if I was going to go postal, I sure as shit wouldn't use one. Banning them in the name of reducing gun violence is fucking Retarded, with a capital R.
flarflarf
its fun as hell when someone else is paying for the ammo. Like yeah its fun but $15/mag? absolutely not.
StillNotYouTube
I think automatics should be easier to own legally, (it's nearly impossible right now) but these binary triggers clearly violate the current semi-auto law.
Wolfshead009
It IS possible to own fully automatic weapons. It does require a much deeper background check and the weapons are very expensive, but that helps explain why they are NOT used to commit crimes.
VinnieJonesDiary
Why???? For what purpose? Why would any private individual need an automatic weapon?
Kiares
Need =! Desire. I own a lot of firearms, several NFA. Full rocking auto is fun to do on the range once in a while, but it's not practical and holy fuck isn't inefficient for a cost standpoint.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Because it's fun, and you don't get much clearer than "shall not be infringed." Or the whole part about the necessity of being able to raise a militia which is equipped to the level of a regular military that some people like to twist to invalidate the "shall not be infringed" part.
sleepinggreenidea
...and yet for 217y, despite it "not getting clearer", SCOTUS interpreted 2A as a collective rather than individual right. Why? B/c "infringed" didn't mean what it means now, & "keep and bear arms" has a particular meaning that doesn't match w/ how Heller re-interpreted it. Heller overturned more than 2 centuries of precedent while bald-facedly saying it didn't. Furthermore, the militia in 1789 did not have parity with regular armies, nor was it meant to - you're adding that to the Constitution.
Froggie243
"Muh rights" is a shit argument for why you want a expensive toy
obijan
Isn't it amazing that when the supremely corrupt court basically said "we have a king now and corruption is kewl" none of the amosexuals stood up and fought "the tyranny". Make you wonder if it was BS all along???
MyVerySmarterUserName
Brain-dead gun nut syndrome made in the USA.
dentd
"Well regulated," seems pretty clear to me.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Yeah, in the context it means "equipped like a regular military."
Lichelf
Well-regulated doesn't mean it has the same weapons as a "regular military"
But ignoring that, are we talking tanks, jets, missiles, and maybe even nuclear weapons just like a regular military has?
Or is there some arbitrary reason those shouldn't be freely available too?
spaghettiThunderbolt
It absolutely does mean that. And I mean, given that back in the day privately owned artillery and warships were a thing... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
VinnieJonesDiary
I don't care about what some slave owners wrote on a bit of paper 250 years ago. You might as well appeal to the bible! Your dumbass constitution is utterly out of date and treating it like holy writ is one of the main reasons the US is in such a fucked up place.
I didn't ask "is it legal?" I asked why the fuck would anyone need an automatic weapon, the civilised world manages fine without them.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Because it's not a need, it's a want. Because it's fun.
StillNotYouTube
For fun. You could make this "why would anyone need" argument for anything other than food and shelter. Surely you have something in your life you don't need, but you want?
FascisTyrant
Just quit, bro. Nobody here fucking gets it. They never will. Imgur has its head so fucking far up its collective ass on guns... And that's OK. If you go far enough left, you get your guns back again. ;)
Froggie243
Sure, but nobody's out here mass killing with a macrame kit. You're being dense on purpose.
StillNotYouTube
No one is out there mass killing with legally owned machine guns either.
cmanaway101
For fun?!? Jeez man, there's plenty of other hobbies, maybe try and lifted truck
28dayslaterwasawarning
I think dynamite should be easier to own too. Or how about a nuclear weapon. After all, if you're only going to take it out in the woods to play with it, you might as well go all out.....
28dayslaterwasawarning
/S
obijan
We are so sorry about your micropenis. Big boomstick much danger make you big man!
flarflarf
we regulate lots of things that are fun but dangerous. guns arent special in that regard.
VinnieJonesDiary
I've got lots of things like that, but none of them can be used to murder dozens of people in seconds.
And "but it's fun" is a piss poor argument for demanding something be easily available when it is extremely dangerous to others.
StillNotYouTube
Just look at how often legally owned machine guns have been used in crimes and you'll see that it's not a problem. Also what I said was not even close to demanding that they be easily available.
ThickMilky
Seconded
qroniq14
So basically anytime you decide to pull the trigger your are locked into to firing two shots. No matter what the background is of what you are shooting at? That’s fucking stupid and extremely dangerous.
baals
Cops love it!
FascisTyrant
Wong, actually. Every binary trigger I've owned, you can keep the trigged pulled back and move the firing selector to "safe", then release the trigger.
Calicious
No. All current binary triggers can cease operation after the first shot. That's a large part of the proof used to argue they're not technically being machine guns.
noReallyIamPrincessBob
That was my thought! Seems ridiculously dangerous.
PTKrieg
Depends on the model. I believe the most popular current model has a function to cancel the fire-on-release by flipping the selector back to regular fire mode.
miked854
That seems complicated. It would be simpler to give the trigger push weight and just hold the trigger in either position. The trigger would have to be like a ring or something I guess.
cousteau
To literally kill two birds in one trigger pull.
NomDeImguerre
Welcome to America
Direkt4
Mine is able to be canceled by setting the gun's safety on.
FascisTyrant
This person made a factual statement. They weren't endorsing any opinion. They got downvoted for it.
Imgur doesn't know fuck about guns.
Direkt4
Gets old, right?
[deleted]
[deleted]
tesseract4d2
As someone who both knows their way around guns and also believes in heavy regulation of them, this is the dumbest argument I've heard yet. I guess you don't ride in motorized vehicles? Or elevators? Or use the automatic doors at the store? All of those have mechanical safeties you rely on. Binary safeties are dumb for so many reasons, none of which you have addressed
Direkt4
If I have fired a round (and have the trigger still fully depressed) and then put the safety on, the gun will not fire a round as the trigger is reset. I take it you haven't used this particular binary trigger I'm speaking of.
[deleted]
[deleted]
obijan
Can you explain why on earth you want this? In case there is a second kid behind the one you shot?
Direkt4
I use it on my home defense firearm. The shots are actually far more controlled than you may think. If I'm pulling out my supressed SMG to defend my home (as opposed to the handguns I have handy) I'd like the option of a higher fire-rate.
obijan
It has to be suppressed because.... You want to be able to mow down a platoon of attackers without waking up the dog???
Direkt4
I also don't know why you're being so hostile towards me, I'm doing my best to engage in civil discourse with you, and answering your questions honestly and to the best of my ability.
obijan
I ask that because I cannot imagine a valid use case for this. Do you live in a warzone? Are you scared of a zombie apocalypse?
TheMilliner
As a gun owner, yes, binary triggers are incredibly stupid and dangerous, but NOT because they enable a more rapid fire rate. They’re dangerous because they make the gun inherently less safe by causing an assload of jamming issues. The amount of NDs you see from jams is staggering, and idiots with stupid shit like trigger cranks and binaries are a leading cause. A gun is dangerous no matter what, but binaries just make them unsafe for the user too.
Direkt4
My Scorpion runs smooth as tits with mine.
Gayforbae
I figured that the rspidness isn't really what makes it more dangerous, but the fact that you're locked into two shots every time you fire.
Midioto
Generally being locked into one shot is pretty dangerous when you fire.
Tjitso
So the issue is that those guns jam easily, and that's something they want to prevent, to protect the user? Like, they want to make firing a gun safer? A gun law with any kind of restriction is being passed, and it's to make it safer for the user. Not to protect anyone else.
israelarenazis
Preventing negligent discharge does make the gun "safer" for everyone else. It's only making things safer for the user if they're stupid enough to point the gun at themselves in the first place. You're looking for things to get mad about, MN is on the right track.
Hevach
This makes them safer for everyone else, too. As said a couple levels up the tree even if it works the trigger locks you into taking a second shot without some careful actions, regardless of what the first one did or didn't do or any changes down range like people reacting to your first shot. It is, of course, still a gun and the people this protects the least is the person the gun owner *intends* to shoot, but only the gun no longer being a gun can do that.
TheMilliner
Bingo. It's INSANELY dangerous, and can and will actively both destroy the gun AND potentially severely injure the user (and others in close proximity) if the first round is a squib.
Basically, binary triggers are taking an extremely dangerous (but common) MALFUNCTION in full-auto rifles set to semi, and making them the whole gimmick, which is just stupid and dangerous on so many levels.
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
NDs?
NothingPrince
Ascendency firing. Not even fully as automatics will fire more than one round on a ND. These binary guns are fucked up.
cuddleskunk
"Negligent Discharge"...careless firing of a gun.
WhoIsFlabbergasted
Theea
"no date"; You use n.d. when you cannot find a publication date on the source you are trying to reference and cite
Gayforbae
Are you a bot?
pixelsnader
Nass Destrucshom.
GlowstickJedi
NDs nuts
madeejit
Neez Duts!
Truxus87
Hah, gotem
mohavewolfpup
The hell? Just buy a Lorcin if you need something that jams quickly /s
TheMilliner
I would have said a Jennings, Khar or a Walther, but that works too.
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
I never knew Wathers had that reputation. Aren't they pretty widespread service weapons?
quadraspaz1
If Walthers jam so readily I feel like we missed a great running gag with James Bond and his PPK. 7 jams per magazine
mohavewolfpup
Not familiar with those. Only remember Lorcin because my parents bought one and it jammed fairly quickly
YesThisIsTero
Wait what’s a trigger crank? Sounds like an old school machine gun crank.
Mindshard
That's exactly what it is. Makes it so you can fire ridiculously fast with your big ol' drum mag, but since it's not a machine gun on a tripod, you can't aim worth shit while cranking it. So you end up with a very dangerous gun, prone to jamming, but it's not full auto wink wink.
SumOneElse
It can be an ex-machinegun on a tripod. An internet acquaintance of mine has an M1917 ex-machinegun that had the original trigger mechanism replaced with a semi-auto one to make it civilian legal. Unlike an M4gery or an AK it's actually designed to be able to convert hundreds of dollars of ammo into noise and smoke in a fraction of a minute so it does function reliably and accurately.
straha242
Basically what it sounds like, a small device mounted near the trigger that pulls and releases the trigger several times per rotation of a crank. Which makes user operation much like an old timey gatling gun yeah.
Gayforbae
Thsts gotta be unweildy as fuck. Of course I've only used pistols really so thats what I'm imagining.
ProppaGanda
Jesus
JiffyPopPhantom
The more rapid fire rate is absolutely more fucking dangerous. The other issues you mentioned are too, but wtf? Don't say it isn't that's bullshit.
TheMilliner
Rapid fire isn't itself an inherently dangerous thing. It's only dangerous when a gun isn't specifically designed for it, then has a bunch of bubbas tacking on gimmicky nonsense to attempt to make it rapid fire. A gun is a gun, it's already dangerous, and a person can effectively rapid fire *almost* as quickly as they can work the trigger. What these gimmick items do (like trigger cranks) is just relieve finger stress.
A gun is already dangerous. Just because it's faster doesn't make it MORESO.
deckai
I understand the argument for increased failure-rate and how dangerous this can be to the user.
But why cannot it be both? If the last statement was true, why is burst-fire a thing? If you fire not at one specific target, but at a general area (like a crowd of people), double the fire rate (With less effort) seem to be more dangerous to me.
JiffyPopPhantom
Ahh I understand now. Sorry for being a dick. Thank you for the explanation!