Youtube Bans Bump-stock Gun Mod Videos

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,602
While The Telegraph is reporting that Youtube has banned bump-stock modification videos, these are still not hard to find as shown below. Maybe this is all still in the process of happening. Thanks cageymaru.

Check out the video.

The video sharing site deleted content explaining how to make guns fire more rapidly using a device called a "bump stock" following the news that Stephen Paddock had converted his weapon in this way.

"We have long had a policy against harmful and dangerous content," a spokesman for YouTube said. "In the wake of the recent tragedy in Las Vegas, we have taken a closer look at videos that demonstrate how to convert firearms to make them fire more quickly and we've expanded our existing policy to prohibit these videos."
 
When I was in middle school we used to wear those chains from our wallets to our front belt loop and the school officials banned them because they 'could' be used as dangerous weapons. When a kid stood up and said why aren't you banning pencils they are sharp as a knife and I could stick one through your neck or eyeball through your head easier and faster than using a fashion accessory to kill someone, the administrators responded as if no one had said anything and ended the assembly.

Censorship like this comes from delivering the perception of morality that they want you to believe they have. Meanwhile you can look up videos on how to illegally buy drugs/guns/ect on the web, video tutorials on how to easily illegally pirate virtually anything ever created, Step by step directions how to destroy someones life, Videos on how to bypass locks, security measures, and other means to nefarious ends ad infinite.

Bump stocks didn't even kill anyone, a person, with a means and motivation committed this crime. If he were lining up all his shots without faux-auto fire he may have actually killed even more people. Making this argument into blaming bumpstocks for the carnage is really irresponsible.
 
At the end of the day it is a Private site so they can choose what they will and will not allow, it is similar to bitching about what Kyle allows or not here on HardOCP.

Or do you guys feel that Alphabet should let Youtube to have videos about how to build bombs explicitly? i mean, a bomb is a tool, and it actually has many actual uses besides being used against people.
 
Parja said:
Their platform, their rules. If you don't like it, you're welcome to start your own video sharing site.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is the rest of the hosted video sites either get bought up by these guys or put out of business.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbr1
like this
Parja said:
Their platform, their rules. If you don't like it, you're welcome to start your own video sharing site.
Click to expand...

It's like the ISP's. Once you get so big, there is no competition. "If you don't like your ISP, you're welcome to start your own". Yes. You can. Just not feasible. Once you get to a certain size, you can control what people see and hear. Welcome to the media these days.

I don't disagree with you at all. Their platform, their rules. It's just getting to the point where there is no way to compete with some of these giants. Their reach is too great. Any competition is considered bad or something. Especially if it's open to guns, drugs, other taboo things.
 
Ur_Mom said:
It's like the ISP's. Once you get so big, there is no competition. "If you don't like your ISP, you're welcome to start your own". Yes. You can. Just not feasible. Once you get to a certain size, you can control what people see and hear. Welcome to the media these days.

I don't disagree with you at all. Their platform, their rules. It's just getting to the point where there is no way to compete with some of these giants. Their reach is too great. Any competition is considered bad or something. Especially if it's open to guns, drugs, other taboo things.
Click to expand...
I agree as well, the problem i see happening is that its so big and popular that once they control the content people who come there to "educate" themselves no longer get facts because the company (depending on their agenda) will post / remove anything that goes with / against it. You are now subjected to "selective truth".
I see this as a knee jerk reaction....i will be honest with you i did look up a video about bumpfire stocks. I am a military vet and have heard of bumpfire stocks but never saw one in action until I looked it up.
 
I have been moving away form google products just because they do crap like this. Now if we could just have someone make a good phone other than an iPhone or an Android phone that would be amazing.
 
"Bumpfire" is a dangerous activity to make semi-auto firearms simulate full-auto. It is a technique that uses the recoil of the rifle and careful placing of the trigger finger to quickly actuate the trigger. These stocks replace the shoulder technique, making it easier to accomplish.

It is dangerous because full-auto firearms have safety mechanisms in place to prevent on out of battery discharge. Semi-auto firearms lack these mechanisms, so there is an increased chance of a cartridge detonating before it is fully supported by the chamber, turning the cartridge and rifle into shrapnel inches away from your face.

I recommend to anyone not to attempt bump fire, nor to purchase a bump fire stock to modify their firearms, as the risk outweighs the reward.


That being said, banning the stocks, or deleting videos because one person used it in a "mass shooting" is pointless.

Of course, with the current mindset of society, I imagine had Google/Youtube been around in 1994, they would have deleted any videos that dealt with commercial fertilizer.
 
DPI said:
Yeah it totally backfired for Australia. Gun reform twenty years ago -> No more mass shootings.
Click to expand...

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/australias-gun-control-model-useless-us

Sure, there have been no mass shootings in Australia since it enacted gun control, but that hardly proves anything by itself. A 2011 study published in Justice Policy Journal compared the trends in mass shootings before and after 1996, when gun control was enacted, in Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand is Australia’s neighbor and is very similar to it socioeconomically, but unlike Australia, it retained the legal availability of guns that were banned and confiscated in Australia in 1996. It thus served as a useful control group to observe whatever effects gun control had on mass shootings.

The authors of the study found that, after taking into account difference in population size, Australia and New Zealand did not have statistically different trends in mass shootings before or after 1996. Indeed, New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997, “despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”
Click to expand...

That being said, it is both within their right to do so and also troubling, again, that they are now the arbiters of what is considered allowable and or "correct".
 
oldmanbal said:
....If he were lining up all his shots without faux-auto fire he may have actually killed even more people...
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Based on evidence found in the room he had calculated where his shots would land. Spraying groups of fish in the barrel got more hits at the expense of kill shots.
 
Master_shake_ said:
the only one in Australia history.
Click to expand...

Not true. In Australia there were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the gun reform and ZERO since.

(mass shooting considered to be 4 or more individuals)

I live in NZ and gaining access to firearms is NOT an easy process. No one here actually wants guns though, so there is that cultural difference also. The only time someone needs a gun is if they are a hunter. In our highest population areas such as Auckland there is zero need for gun ownership.

 
Last edited:
Parja said:
Their platform, their rules. If you don't like it, you're welcome to start your own video sharing site.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this, and it also doesn't invalidate my point. Companies have too, way too much power now.
 
It isn't exactly clear why the ban in AUS seemed to work to stop mass murders since it is obvious there are other means to accomplish that goal. Other places have not had the same success. Many of the previous events in AUS were with less than 10 victims and was a family thing.

Wouldn't own a bump stock myself nor would I ban the things. As others have pointed out Youtube is a private company/site - they can do what they want with it.
 
Spidey329 said:
Pretty much. The nature of the Bump Stock is that it's a novelty.
Click to expand...

Yea, but they are pretty cool the first few times. Then, you start getting pissy about wasting so much ammo. I like full auto as much as the next guy, but it's not very cost effective nor accurate. It's just fun for a few times, then you put it away. There is a place outside of Vegas where you can shoot some real full auto and actual machine guns. I want to try that. Bump stocks? Meh. Waste of money.
 
mr_zen256 said:
Not true. In Australia there were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the gun reform and ZERO since.

(mass shooting considered to be 4 or more individuals)

I live in NZ and gaining access to firearms is NOT an easy process. No one here actually wants guns though, so there is that cultural difference also. The only time someone needs a gun is if they are a hunter. In our highest population areas such as Auckland there is zero need for gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Well fuck, if you're going to call 4 or more "mass" might as well just drop it to 3 to pad the statistics. Because if that's the case, then Chicago, IL might as well be Iraq.

Serious question, how many shooting deaths have there been in Australia since the ban, that were not suicides? If it's more than 0, then the "if it saves just one life" kneejerk reaction people have is meaningless.

In this instance, it's the first time someone has used a bump stock for something like this, so banning them is effectively moot. Youtube banning the videos? Their site, their rules. If you can't round up and keep guns off of an island, there's zero chance of such a policy making a difference in the US. Even going beyond the gun issue, there have been trucks run through crowds, no one around the globe has banned trucks yet. Lots of mass stabbing incidents, yet only a few idiots have been screaming to ban knives(good luck banning a sharpened piece of metal), bombings all over the globe yet no one is outraged and demanding to ban fertilizer(among many other common items). Hell, you couldn't even ban gunpowder and have that accomplish anything since black powder is cheap and easy to make.

As far as "need for gun ownership", call me when the crime rate is zero and a 100 pound woman never needs to defend herself against a 200 pound man, because then I'll agree with you.
 
When you have 20 guns and a pisston of ammo and shooing on 20-30k people accuracy is not a concern it is getting rounds to the target area to hurt/kill as many as possible.

it has only been a week since the tragedy in vegas people are still hurting and in the hospital a the very least a open discussion/review of exist laws needs to happen. if any deficiency are found they should be corrected. the aim is to make the terrorists task of hurting/killing Americans harder.
 
Last edited:
Gun control does work or at least help, it's just the NRA and its paid for promoters say it doesn't cos...you know...money.

It's nothing to do with anything else, just cold hard money. The NRA doesn't give a shit about the second amendment, gun owners or anyone else as long as they keep buying guns.
 
maxius said:
When you have 20 guns and a pisston of ammo and shooing on 20-30k people accuracy is not a concern it is getting rounds to the target area to hurt/kill as many as possible.

it has only been a week since the tragedy in vegas people are still hurting and in the hospital a the very least a open discussion/review of exist laws needs to happen. if any deficiency are found they should be corrected. the aim is to make the terrorists task of hurting/killing Americans harder.
Click to expand...
Except this was one dude, having 2, 20, or 200 guns doesn't make a difference since he could only fire 2 at most. Obviously the nutjob was just spraying bullets, but he could have done that without a bumpstock as well, or a shoelace(there is actually a shoelace registered with the ATF as an NFA item).
 
daglesj said:
Gun control does work or at least help, it's just the NRA and its paid for promoters say it doesn't cos...you know...money.

It's nothing to do with anything else, just cold hard money. The NRA doesn't give a shit about the second amendment, gun owners or anyone else as long as they keep buying guns.
Click to expand...
Then why do the areas in the US with the most strict gun control, have the must gun related problems?
 
Merc1138 said:
Except this was one dude, having 2, 20, or 200 guns doesn't make a difference since he could only fire 2 at most. Obviously the nutjob was just spraying bullets, but he could have done that without a bumpstock as well, or a shoelace(there is actually a shoelace registered with the ATF as an NFA item).
Click to expand...

It easily makes a big difference, it enabled him to throw 20 magazines worth of ammo down before he ever had to reload.
 
Merc1138 said:
Then why do the areas in the US with the most strict gun control, have the must gun related problems?
Click to expand...

Maybe the problems came before control?

I live in Miami, not in the country where people hunt for sport. During the 80's and 90's drug wars took over the streets.
People had full auto sub machine guns and the police had pistols and rifles. They (corporations and the government) introduced the 10-20-LIFE rule and the violence cleared over time.

So yes, the problem in most cases was there before the control.
 
Merc1138 said:
Then why do the areas in the US with the most strict gun control, have the must gun related problems?
Click to expand...
What are you defining as "gun related problems", more than just crazy ass mass shootings? or just general "there's a lot of gang members and they all have guns" type of issue?
 
99.99% of us will never have to worry about it. This truly is a tiny minority of people who are being allowed to slowly ruin it for the rest.
 
reminds me i should thank the govt for banning the sale of over the counter sudafed. before that was banned we had a huge meth problem but that is all gone now. thanks govt!
 
daglesj said:
Gun control does work or at least help, it's just the NRA and its paid for promoters say it doesn't cos...you know...money.

It's nothing to do with anything else, just cold hard money. The NRA doesn't give a shit about the second amendment, gun owners or anyone else as long as they keep buying guns.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm pro guns, but they drive people to "stock up" unnecessarily based on the fear of losing them.
If a solider can wreck shop with just the rifle and pistol on his person, then why do people need an armory worth of guns.

I'm fine with every household being able to own one of each type of defense weapon within reason.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Yeah it totally backfired for Australia. Gun reform twenty years ago -> No more mass shootings.
Click to expand...

Everyone brings up Australia, but we have a shitload more guns, a large industry built around recreational shooting, and a few other considerations to deal with....including the Constitution.

But it's easier to say Australia did it and toss shame around I guess.
 
WorldExclusive said:
I'm fine with every household being able to own one of each type of weapon within reason.
An AR, 45 and 590 and I'm good to go.
Click to expand...
The issue is that it takes nothing more than a small bolt action .22LR rifle. Has happened before in the UK. Since that is the case what will you be left with after they get rid of those? Not much. The .0045% (per year) that cause all the issues and the media hysteria are going to keep up.

As far as these diabolical madmen and not the common criminal. I wonder what it is about our society that seems to produce them. Regardless of the fact they are a tiny minority - we still seem to have more than many other countries. Is an interesting sociological question I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top