[Open Carry]

I saw this tonight on the History Channel:

"Since 1934, only one legally-owned machine gun has been used in a murder, and a law enforcement officer committed that crime."

Anyone know what incident they are referencing?

[deej]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

[rkba_net]

This is simply not correct... although not very common title II weapons owners do commit an occasional crime with their weapons... the case mentioned above was of a Ohio police officer that used a personally owned MAC11 in a contract killing about 15 or so years ago...

[priv8ter]

Welcome to The High Road rkba_net...

I'm sure were willing to believe you, because I don't want to put out false data when trying to argue with folks, just wondering what your proof is to make a statement like that.

greg

[Delmar]

Me 2

[schizrade]

Yeah, unless you provide some compelling evidence of the claim I tend to trust the history channel. They have proven to be pretty unbiased and accurate AFAIC.

[rayra]

Me 3.
If you've got to back up a statement like that with the data.

[Henry Bowman]

The original statement related to murder commited with full auto. The second comment said "commit crimes with."

A registed owner of a full auto, etc. cannot even take it from from one state to the next (as I understand it), even if she lives on the state line between two rural, relatively free states, without either filling out and submitting some paperwork -- or committing a crime.

rcba_net: If you rise to meet the challenge of coming up with proof to back up your statement, please only cite to crimes committed that created some danger. I'll give you a start: 2 or 3 years ago, a couple of Spokane, WA cops (see a pattern here?) who privately owned a full auto were out shooting (IIRC alcohol was involved) and ignored Rule 4. What was beyond their target was an occupied house which caught several slugs

[DMK]

"Since 1934, only one legally-owned machine gun has been used in a murder, and a law enforcement officer committed that crime." Doesn't this statement actually reinforce the NFA and gun control in general? Basically it's saying: "Gun control is effective because we've had only one murder since this law was enacted."

Also what does the fact that the murder was committed by a cop have to do with anything? The weapons are restricted to police just like anybody else, just are cheaper for them. ie. They still need special approval from the CLEO, just don't have to pay for the $200 tax stamp and can buy cheaper post '86 weapons.

[Mulliga]

Doesn't this statement actually reinforce the NFA and gun control in general? Basically it's saying: "Gun control is effective because we've had only one murder since this law was enacted."

No. First, only legally-owned machine guns are counted. Obviously, nearly all machine guns used in crime since 1934 were/are illegal - but restrictive licensing and registration didn't stop the criminals from getting them, did it?

Also, note that even with this sterling record of safety, in 1986 an infamous ban on registering new machine guns was passed - no matter how "safe" law-abiding gun owners are, the antis will always see the need to take the guns eventually.