[MicroBalrog]

http://www.buytheworld.com/cat0-54-122.html

One final note of historical interest: since machine guns were first federally regulated in 1934, only one crime has been committed using a registered machine gun, in which a uniformed police officer committed a contract killing of a drug dealer. (((((Johnnie, please note that this is a good argument for gun registration. I do think it should stay in your description of Class III weapons, though. I have to get in a plug for rational national behavior whenever I can, you know.)))))


:banghead:

[Hkmp5sd]

And the 1986 ban on the manufacture and importation of new machineguns for civilians is a good argument against gun registration.

[JohnBT]

To draw any meaningful conclusions we need to know the number of crimes committed during the same period with unregistered machine guns.

John

[GSB]

All it means is that the government successfully limited the availability of a product they had no Constitutional authority to limit the availability of.

The public-safety argument has always been a red-herring. Liberty was never about being ensconced in womb-like safety for one's entire life, and our Natural Rights are not predicated on what is determined by an actuary to be "safe" or "risky".

[MicroBalrog]

To draw any meaningful conclusions we need to know the number of crimes committed during the same period with unregistered machine guns.

The use of MG's in crime has always been extremely rare, IIRC. But I have no stats.

[BHPshooter]

The public-safety argument has always been a red-herring. Liberty was never about being ensconced in womb-like safety for one's entire life, and our Natural Rights are not predicated on what is determined by an actuary to be "safe" or "risky".

I could not have said it better myself.

That "statistic" is thrown around everywhere: "Only one registered machinegun has been used in a crime since 1934."

What bothers me about it is that it encourages gun registration of all kinds, people! Wouldn't it be reasonable, given that statement, to say that we would experience similar "success" with a strict handgun registration system?

All it means is that the government successfully limited the availability of a product they had no Constitutional authority to limit the availability of.

Give the man a cigar. ;)

Wes

[Justin]

John BT nailed it on the head.

Though to be honest, I'd have to say that the use of machineguns (of any legality) in crime is so rare as to be statistically improbable.

Off the top of my head I can only think of three:

1) The North Hollywood bank robbery.

2) Some dimwit in Indiana who shot a cop with an illegally modified SKS about two and half years ago.

3) That cop on the east coast who shot his family and a neighbor with one of the department's MP5's, about a year or so ago. (Should be threads in the TFL archives, IIRC.)

[MicroBalrog]

Though to be honest, I'd have to say that the use of machineguns (of any legality) in crime is so rare as to be statistically improbable.

Not any less probably than before '34, AFAIK.

[Chipperman]

The guy in Northern NH that killed a cop and wounded several other people used a Full-auto HK, I think.

[snubby]

From reading the above, half the machine gun killings (2 out of 4) were by cops with legally possessed MGs. So one is therefore as likely to be murdered via a MG-wielding cop as by a criminal? Sounds like an argument against cops having MGs (not really, but such are statistics!).

[Archangel]

That "statistic" is thrown around everywhere: "Only one registered machinegun has been used in a crime since 1934."

What bothers me about it is that it encourages gun registration of all kinds, people!


Not really. Most guns used in crime, machine gun or otherwise, are already illegal, stolen, straw purchased, etc. Adding any additional restrictions (like registration) onto the legal purchase of a firearm would gave zero effect on all those illegal guns out there already, the ones that will be used in crimes.

The "only one registered machine gun" argument, rather than encouraging registration, simply highlights the fact that those of us willing to go through the proper legal channels to get guns are not the ones committing crimes. A registration program would just be a waste of government resources (take a look at MD's ballistic fingerprinting), not to mention an infringment of our rights and privacy.

[HBK]

Registration is nothing more than a prelude to confiscation. Just look at Australia.

[BHPshooter]

Not really. Most guns used in crime, machine gun or otherwise, are already illegal, stolen, straw purchased, etc. Adding any additional restrictions (like registration) onto the legal purchase of a firearm would gave zero effect on all those illegal guns out there already, the ones that will be used in crimes.

No, no, that's not what I meant. I'm sorry for the confusion.

What I did mean was that, for the sheeple, they would see that as an example of registration working to reduce crime. While you and I both know it to be bunk, I had a (supposedly) pro-gun buddy try to tell me, "See, since they've made you register machine guns, there's only been one crime committed with one."

What is wrong with it, which is what I meant to say, is that it's misleading. Because they don't give you the statistic for MGs used in crimes that aren't registered, a Sheeple may think, Wow, only one? That registration thing is a good idea. Some people (or Sheeple, rather) can't think outside the box illegal and unregistered guns in the world; One can still get MGs without going through lawful channels, etc.].

I hope this makes a little better sense.

Wes

[fallingblock]

"Registration is nothing more than a prelude to confiscation. Just look at Australia."
************************************************************
Even though full-auto firearms are still "permitted" in some U.S. states, the
registered ones will go when the gun-grabbers muster the numbers to pass the laws.

THAT is the purpose of registration...

and, yes, by all means look at Australia and our current experience with handgun confiscation on a national scale.

No criminals will be handing in their unregistered guns...particularly as the legislation provides no compensation for illegally-held handguns:rolleyes:

Here in John Howard's enlightened Australia, we are "reducing the number of guns in society". That's got to be a good thing, right?:fire:

[Feanaro]

Whether we are safer with firearms around is a moot point, though I think we are. Or I am anyways. Liberty is not about being safe, it is about being free. Freedom to do what you want, as long as it does not infringe on other's life or freedom, is what it is about. But it also require that you stand on your own two feet.

You make yourself safe, by hiring someone to guard you(By observing, avoiding and if need be by taking a life) or doing it yourself(By observing, avoiding and if need be by taking a life). You have to take care of yourself, no government "nanny state" is going to watch out for you. You are responsible for the way your run your life, not someone else.

In the end however freedom is much safer than the alternative(despotism), in the long run.