Machine guns have been very tightly regulated since 1934...


PDA






Paincakesx
December 28, 2012, 09:41 PM
And are used very rarely in crime. There have been 2 homicides in the past 78 years that were committed by a legally owned NFA weapon.

Therefore, couldn't one argue that in this case the restriction of NFA weapons has resulted in their rarity in crime?

Not an anti by any means and from my post history you can probably guess that I'm absolutely against any AWB or new gun control legislation. Just an interesting argument I heard. Playing devil's advocate I suppose.

Any rebuttals?

If you enjoyed reading about "Machine guns have been very tightly regulated since 1934..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MErl
December 28, 2012, 09:42 PM
you included your own rebuttal : Legally owned

KLL
December 28, 2012, 09:52 PM
Relative numbers, for one. I have no idea what percentage of all firearms automatic weapons represent, but it has to be an extremely small percentage.

Also, the statistic that only 2 have been used in homicides is probably not correct. It is likely they have, or at least could have, been used in many homicides that were never solved, or the weapon was not found or identified.

But mostly, I think it goes with what Merl pointed out, is that they were legally owned. Those who would commit murder are rarely the ones that would spend the time and money (and hassle) to register their automatic weapon. Criminals usually (and I say that assuming, I do not have statistics) use weapons they do not legally own.

klyph
December 28, 2012, 10:19 PM
If every legal firearm cost $10,000 and illegal firearms cost $200, of course the amount of crimes committed with legal firearms would be minuscule. How many hit and runs are committed with Ferrari Enzos? Surely no one would argue to eliminate hit and runs by pricing all motor vehicles on par with an Enzo? Yet that's exactly the path of your logic.

hso
December 28, 2012, 10:20 PM
I'll point out that machine guns aren't well suited to use in crimes except in the brief period of the gangsters since they were expensive and difficult to conceal. Even then most criminals used handguns and shotguns because of their economy and common use. Machine guns were mostly glamor items in use by a very few, but they made for great headlines.

Look at what is used by criminals over time. Handguns and shotguns lead the violent crime statistics with rifles of any and every type trailing them. What is more shocking is that there are more homicides committed with bladed instruments and hands/feet than all the rifles during a year.

The fact is that antis simply cherry pick the information they want to use to manipulate the public and expect us to be too stupid or lazy to actually look the facts up (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=692027) to see what is used to commit violent crimes or to insist on root causes be studies and real solutions be developed.

jerkface11
December 28, 2012, 10:21 PM
Only 2 REGISTERED machineguns have been used in crimes. Loads of illegal ones have been.

animator
December 28, 2012, 10:25 PM
Only 2 REGISTERED machineguns have been used in crimes. Loads of illegal ones have been.
The West Hollywood shootout comes to mind, since the shooters both had multiple Full-auto weapons, and none of them were legally registered. But since no one was killed aside from the shooters themselves, I guess it does not count as a homicide, and is therefore not counted in the statistic for one (or both) of the reasons I mentioned...

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 28, 2012, 10:26 PM
There is actually a third homicide committed by an Asian man with a MAC 10 and a silencer. Two murders and one self defense case is all I know of.

MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 10:32 PM
I have no idea what percentage of all firearms automatic weapons represent

If memory serves, there are about 175,000 transferable machine guns in the registry. They account for about 0.06% of firearms in the USA.

barnbwt
December 28, 2012, 11:06 PM
Anyone got an estimate on how many illegally owned NFA items have been used in crime over the years? As a fraction of violent crime (or "gun crime" if you want to validate those bogus stats) compared to legally owned guns, or even ilegally owned non-NFA guns?

What?! You mean the NFA didn't stop the machinegun violence?:eek: (not that there was ever that much to begin with, as mentioned earlier)

BTW, apparently NYC had a(nother) crazy person shove a bystander in front of a train. One of the articles I read mentioned that a similar incident in 99 prompted the city to tighten monitoring of the city's mentally ill, to prevent such future tragedies from ever occurring :rolleyes:

TCB

MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 11:38 PM
Anyone got an estimate on how many illegally owned NFA items have been used in crime over the years?

Lots of SBR, SBS and AOW. Not so much in the realm of DD, Supressors or MG.

No, I don't have exact figures. Honestly, I suspect federal gun charges are not often bothered with when the alleged perpetrator is facing charges like murder, so there probably isn't a reliable source for this data..

Regardless, common handguns still account for the overwhelming majority of gun violence (roughly 90% year after year)

barnbwt
December 29, 2012, 12:00 AM
Yeah, I figured the easy "mods" like chopping stocks and barrels would be the most common. I also figured there is no tally on that category since it is probably so small. My point (mostly rhetorical) is that the tiny subset of a subset that is legally owned NFA firearms are far less likely than their illegal counterparts to be used in crimes, just as ilegally owned "normal" guns are more likely to be used in crimes than those legally owned. The reason having nothing to do with the laws regulating them, or the severity of penalties; merely that the more regulated a legal product is, the more expensive and guarded it becomes. Meanwhile, crooks continue to use the same things they've always used to do wrong.

Random question on equally obscure guns; any stats on the "highly unregulated" world of black powder guns out there?

TCB

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 02:43 AM
Look at what is used by criminals over time. Handguns and shotguns lead the violent crime statistics with rifles of any and every type trailing them. What is more shocking is that there are more homicides committed with bladed instruments and hands/feet than all the rifles during a year.



But how do you know that's not because machine guns were not available/more available? Are they not suited to crime? Seems like they would be suited to mass shootings.

I'm not arguing with your stats on homicides in general, but seems like machine guns could be more effective than AR's if more available.

I do not in any way support a AW ban btw.

So in general, killing efficiency is NOT my main point when defending ARs....

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 02:56 AM
30 Million X $200= 60 Billion into government coffers,
How else they going to keep from falling off the fiscal cliff??

BHP FAN
December 29, 2012, 02:58 AM
...and we're back to the ''did spoons make Rosie O'donnel fat?'' argument. that didn't take long.

JohnBT
December 29, 2012, 09:06 AM
"Are they not suited to crime? Seems like they would be suited to mass shootings."

There is little, if any, profit to be made by killing people. And that is what most crime is about - profit.

michaelbsc
December 29, 2012, 09:34 AM
30 Million X $200= 60 Billion into government coffers,
How else they going to keep from falling off the fiscal cliff??

$60B is nothing. And don't think they won't make the stamp pricier to boot when they get around to really passing laws instead of today's grandstanding. Remember it's about control. $200 today isn't the same as it was in 1934.

Baba Louie
December 29, 2012, 10:03 AM
Machine guns are one thing... submachine guns yet another. :D

If we are to extrapolate and read between the lines, apparently the US govt knows that the Mexican Drug Cartels would eschew their illegaly procured fully automatic weaponry, RPG devices and hand grenades in favor of US purchased, from licensed FFLs mind you, neutered semi-automatic rifle versions of famous assault rifles to commit their heinous crimes of control to further their drug emporiums in 90% of their activities. Or so it was reported and believed by all who listened to the media a while back. It was OUR fault. Investigation STILL underway.:rolleyes:

I would guess that at least 1 in 4 non gun owning Americans today think that the evil bushmaster rifle(s) used in the recent spate of madmen murdering unarmed movie goers, shoppers and students think they are in fact fully automatic weapons, given their ignorance on the subject matter and the duplicity of the media and the anti crowds tactics of vague and footloose semantics. Heck some politicians who supposedly write the bills they propose do not know a barrel shroud from a folding stock as incredulous as that truly is. Kafkaesque perhaps. Leadership at its finest... not. :scrutiny:

Back to the OPs point... Yes, Law abiding citizens who have the desire, money and have passed the onorous background check and live in States that allow NFA items rarely use them in crimes, if ever. A mere micro-blip on the crime screen. A non issue at most.

Let us play Devils Advocate for a moment. For argument sake, a "Ban" is passed requiring NFA compliance for the devices in question, anything semiautomatic that is fed by "clips" that hold more than (pick a number) say 7 rounds. An amnesty period of 30-60 days is allowed for registration and processing of applications along with a meager $200 transfer tax each device and "clip", followed by a minimum 6 month waiting period for background checks. All in the name of stopping crimes of the recent nature.

Imagine how many "Law-abiding" citizens would break the law after going through all that? Minimal if any. They are law abiding. The other 99% (OK, pick a number that suits you) who are now outlaws because they refuse to comply? 99% of these will also not take someones life without need or necessity, because basically they too are law abiding and respectful of life and don't really want to spend their lives in prison.

But the criminals and the mentally unstable who get their hands on a weapon, up to and including a gallon of gasoline and a match, can still wreak havoc on the unarmed law abiding populace. So what, exactly, have we solved for the children? (rhetorical preaching to choir question, we all know the answer) Well, Uncle Sam now has a registry, a little money to spend and more employees to keep track of it all. How did that fare in Canada as of late? (again, we all know the answer)

At this moment 12-29-12, 7:01pst, there are 495 members and 1719 guest on board. This post is for the guests. Join us. Please. Even for spirited debate should you disagree. Maybe especially for spirited, intelligent debate.

klyph
December 29, 2012, 11:16 AM
Q: What percentage of law abiding gun owners commit violent crimes?

A: 0.00%

jmorris
December 29, 2012, 11:26 AM
I'll point out that machine guns aren't well suited to use in crimes except in the brief period of the gangsters since they were expensive and difficult to conceal.

Most machine guns if not select fire themselves, have semiauto counter parts. Like the M16/AR15. Like jerkface11 said lots of illegal ones and as kylph pointed out no law abiding owner would commit a crime, by definition.

velobard
December 29, 2012, 12:04 PM
If every legal firearm cost $10,000 and illegal firearms cost $200, of course the amount of crimes committed with legal firearms would be minuscule. How many hit and runs are committed with Ferrari Enzos? Surely no one would argue to eliminate hit and runs by pricing all motor vehicles on par with an Enzo? Yet that's exactly the path of your logic.
We went for over 50 years after the NFA before the Hughes Amendment introduced a temporal rift in the price of full-auto firearms. Not a single machine gun was used in a crime during that time.

Skribs
December 29, 2012, 01:13 PM
Full-auto just isn't suited for most crimes. It's as simple as that.

barnbwt
December 29, 2012, 06:45 PM
We went for over 50 years after the NFA before the Hughes Amendment introduced a temporal rift in the price of full-auto firearms. Not a single machine gun was used in a crime during that time.

Very good point; I'll have to tuck that away. I also have to wonder, why did gangsters (already on the lam) stop using these weapons just because they were now forbidden? Were they simply scared into hiding by the massively increased police powers accompanying this legislation? Or did they simply turn to more available (and probably more effective) means of mayhem like pistols?


Oh, and it isn't just a "temporal rift in price" that amendment created; NFA-elgible firearms development and innovation has undoubtedly collapsed since then (most obviously for civilian use.) It's the same as if Uncle Sam had deemed smokeless powder too dangerous for the unwashed back at the turn of the century, and we were all stuck with Blunderbusses and SAA's. If we allow banning or even restriction of entire classes of firearms, that's exactly where we'll be when something inevitably supercedes gunpowder.

TCB

tulsamal
December 29, 2012, 07:00 PM
But since no one was killed aside from the shooters themselves, I guess it does not count as a homicide

Not true. The FBI counts it as a homicide when a police officer kills somebody. Even if it was a justified shoot. A legal homicide is different than an illegal one but they are both homicides. One human intentionally killing another.

Gregg

VA27
December 29, 2012, 07:10 PM
Barnbwt, the gangsters didn't stop USING full autos, they just couldn't walk into a store and BUY them anymore.

The pesky paperwork (fingerprints and such) and the tax (which, at $200, was about the price of the gun itself, though the money didn't mean anything to a guy who STEALS for a living) along with the wait time for the paperwork to go through the system was just too much of a hassle. So, to get around this inconvience, and being criminals, they simply raided Police Stations and National Guard Armories for their needs.

All the Act did was what any previous or future ban did or will do, punish the law abiding for the acts of the criminal.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 08:00 PM
The Barrow and Dillinger gangs became so adept at robbing National Guard Armories the facilities had to be moved to more rural and hardened facilities to protect weapons from thieves.
Gun Bans have NEVER stopped crime. They have only opened the door to Tyranny and absolute control.

klyph
December 29, 2012, 08:27 PM
Are you saying that there were 50 years of no machine gun crime at all, or 50 years of no legally owned machine gun crime?

Carl N. Brown
December 29, 2012, 08:54 PM
There was little crime use of registered machineguns 1934 to 1986.

The Hughes Amendment froze the number of legal machineguns by closing the NFA registry to new or imported machineguns.

The antigunners' answer to the fact that legal registered guns were not a crime problem was to freeze the NFA registry to machineguns 19 May 1986.

If allowed to put semi-auto rifles under the NFA, expect them to do the same.

Learn from history. Reasonable regulation to prohibitionist mentalities is prohibition.

9MMare
December 30, 2012, 12:44 AM
Full-auto just isn't suited for most crimes. It's as simple as that.

Ok. But then I hate to point out the obvious....it certainly is suited to 'other motives'.

This is has been a really interesting thread. Didnt realize how/why machine guns were taken off the streets.

Before my time :D

barnbwt
December 30, 2012, 09:31 PM
Barnbwt, the gangsters didn't stop USING full autos, they just couldn't walk into a store and BUY them anymore.

I was under the impression MGs made up a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes, before, and fewer after (since those guns became more valuable to sell, rather than use). The only difference was MGs make for much more high-profile headlines.

Ok. But then I hate to point out the obvious....it certainly is suited to 'other motives'.

Full Auto is (correct me if I'm wrong here NFA-owners and FA-trained military guys) mostly useful for suppressing and indirect fire. Even low power rounds like 223 and pistol rounds have enough recoil to make aiming difficult (not reflected accurately in video games ;)), and the very fast rate of fire of all these guns means a significant portion of ammo will either miss its intended target or be used excessively on its target.

223 doesn't really have the range (or capacity in 30rnds) to be useful for indirect (barrage) fire. It is incredibly scary however, which is why supressing fire keeps peoples' heads down, and why civilians are so terrified of it. In reality, it is probably less effective than aimed semi-auto fire, especially in untrained hands, and is frankly no more dangerous (in trained hands) than straight SA. The St. Valentines Day Massacre would not have ended any differently had SA's, or even revolvers and bolt actions been used instead of Thompsons.

Civilians wouldn't be nearly as frightened by full-auto if we didn't have audio recorders. If everyone's only experience with the feature was actual experience, it would be regarded as "fun." :)

TCB

VA27
December 31, 2012, 12:07 AM
I was under the impression MGs made up a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes, before, and fewer after (since those guns became more valuable to sell, rather than use). The only difference was MGs make for much more high-profile headlines.

Back then you could walk into a gun shop or even a decently stocked hardware store, plunk down your cash and walk out with a Thompson or a Colt Monitor (the civilian version of the BAR). No forms to fill out, no questions asked.

The ban wasn't as much about keeping F/A guns out of the hands of the criminal element as it was about giving the general public the PERCEPTION that something was being done.

In that respect it worked in the same way as the 1994 A/W ban and just about as well.

In general, politics is not about DOING something to solve a problem as much as it is giving the IMPRESSION that something is being done.

Baba Louie
December 31, 2012, 12:21 PM
In general, politics is not about DOING something to solve a problem as much as it is giving the IMPRESSION that something is being done.Such as Prohibition. OR the Bonus March fiasco brought about by the Depression, itself brought about & extended by govt interference or control of economics? You mean like that?

Homer Cummings, FDR's Attorney General. Gold hoarding made illegal. NFA.

Control. It's all good. :scrutiny:

Freedom & Liberty. Risky uncertainty and that's bad for controllers who need to impress voters and campaign contributors they're DOING something. :rolleyes:

ExTank
December 31, 2012, 01:11 PM
Many gun control activists who know a thing or two point to the N.F.A. as successfull gun control.

They fail to grasp that since its passage, and up to 1986's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, no violent crime shad been committed with legally owned N.F.A. firearms. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)

Yet that didn't keep this piece of scum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban) from Midnight Riding an attachment to the F.O.P.A.

Which means that to gun-grabbers, even after successful gun control has been enacted and stood on its own record for 52 years, there's no such thing as "too much gun control."

The two violent crimes committed with legally owned machineguns came in 1988 and 1992, after the passage of the F.O.P.A. with it highly questionable (procedurally) Hughes Amendment. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)

To the antis, "compromise" means, "Shut up and do what you're told, you uppity, stupid peasant."

Never compromise with the antis.

On anything.

Don't surrender a single round of magazine capacity.

Don't surrender a single round of rate-of-fire.

Don't surrender a single material (plastics/plymenrs) used in the manufacture or construction of firearms.

Don't surrender a single cosmetic feature of those evil "assault weapons."

Don't surrender a single, solitary thing related to firearms to them, as they will cry, "Victory!" and come back again next year, and the year after that, and again and again until they get what they truly want: the repeal of the Second Amendment and the total disarmament of the American civilian population.

yokel
December 31, 2012, 02:57 PM
The principal intent of the Second Amendment was that people be able to defend themselves from invasion and the possibility of a government gone horribly wrong.

It'd be nearly impossible to do so if we were restricted the relatively meager firepower that the judges, politicians, and beauracrats see fit to allow us. No, you fight force with force, and to do so, you need the proper tools, e.g. heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and mortars.

barnbwt
January 1, 2013, 12:08 PM
Yet that didn't keep this piece of scum from Midnight Riding an attachment to the F.O.P.A.


Ah, New Jersey. Now it makes sense. Nothing good political comes from there ;).

Don't surrender a single round of magazine capacity.

Don't surrender a single round of rate-of-fire.

Don't surrender a single material (plastics/plymenrs) used in the manufacture or construction of firearms.

Don't surrender a single cosmetic feature of those evil "assault weapons."


Well, too late for those... Oh, and you forgot the most important item:
Don't submit to a single database registration--that's how they'll get ya

It'd be nearly impossible to do so if we were restricted the relatively meager firepower that the judges, politicians, and beauracrats see fit to allow us.
Huh. They guys who'd be "resisted against" don't want their subjects to have the means to do so? You're kidding, right?

TCB

yokel
January 1, 2013, 02:48 PM
Feelings of powerlessness and isolation lead to cynicism, which further subjects us to the very forces that control our lives. We begin to accept our enslavement as just the way things are and there’s nothing a person can do about it. By adopting an attitude that “this is just the way things are and can’t be changed,” we further enslave ourselves. And we fail to take action to change the system.

If you enjoyed reading about "Machine guns have been very tightly regulated since 1934..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!