What keeps criminals from automatic weapons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
915
That thread on what the limit to the 2nd amendment should be has got me thinking. Why don't criminals have automatic weapons and the like? If criminals don't follow laws, then what's stopping them? In Mexico, guns are highly regulated, yet the police have issues dealing with the gangs there just because of the sheer firepower they have.

I was thinking about letting civilians have tanks and such. I think that the real problem with it, is that local communities have no way of quickly dealing with them if they misused it. Years ago, some nutjob stole a tank, thankfully it was unloaded, but the police couldn't really do anything until he got stuck. But why are criminals limited by the ceiling of firepower if they truly don't follow laws? What keeps them in check?
 
If criminals don't follow laws, then what's stopping them?
Nothing. If they know how to convert a semi-auto into a machine gun, they'll do it and nothing would stop them.

The thing is, the vast majority of criminals are not smart enough to know how to convert a semi-auto into a machine gun, and legal machine guns are locked up securely enough that they are not going to be easily acquired by thieves.
 
and legal machine guns are locked up securely enough that they are not going to be easily acquired by thieves.

But isn't that an argument for gun control? Aren't you basically saying that heavily regulating machine guns, and reducing the number of them in civilian hands is keeping them from being used in crimes?
 
much like asking their favorite ammo---what came with the (stolen) gun.

not many full auto's that are stolen go to street level. 'bosses' will keep them as trophies; street shooters have the "hi-capacity" plastic guns to play with.
 
Why don't criminals have automatic weapons and the like?
Because they're not nearly as easy to get as the media would have you believe.
I was at a local shop / police supply house the other day when a dazzling young urbanite waltzed in and wanted to buy an automatic weapon. When he was informed of the requirements, costs, and time frame to take ownership, he was flabbergasted - he honestly thought they were pulling his leg (I guess MSNBC failed to mention that).
'Course, when he found out what was really required to own one, he immediately walked out.

If criminals don't follow laws, then what's stopping them?
As in the above story, current laws.
'Course, if you're talking 'bout 'em just breaking the law in order to obtain one, what good is yet another law going to do?

In Mexico, guns are highly regulated, yet the police have issues dealing with the gangs there just because of the sheer firepower they have.
It's one of those dirty little secrets both the Mexican and our government wish you don't know / find out about.
With the unlimited drug money available, there have been a number of reports of Mexican military members going AWOL, but not before drug lords have instructed them not to do so until they have access to a stash of military weapons they can carry with 'em (transport drivers, etc).
There are more stolen military weapons (many provided by the U.S. government) in drug cartel hands than either government or the media want to admit.
 
But isn't that an argument for gun control?
No, it's an argument for common sense.
Aren't you basically saying that...
Nope. I have "normal firearms" that are not as highly regulated as NFA toys are, and they are locked up just as securely. There wasn't any heavy regulation or any legislation reducing the numbers of them in civilian hands that caused me to lock them up to that level of security.
 
Plus, if you're a criminal, nice guns are worth too much money to keep. You've all seen the guns at police auctions right? A bunch of .22s mostly. Any gun will serve a criminal well. Let's say a burglar robs a house and finds a nice Kimber or a Colt Python. He's not going to hang on to that, he's gonna sell that and buy drugs or pay rent or gamble it away or whatever criminals do with their money. He can't afford to keep cash tied up in an expensive gun. That crappy old H&R 22 or 32 or Rohm or whatever will serve your criminal enterprise just as well. If you had a full auto, there would always be some sort of higher up gangster willing to buy it, and he'd sell it to some even higher up criminal, until it ended up being owned by some big time biker or cartel type.

Criminals do crime for the money (perverts notwithstanding). A nice gun is cash.
 
No, it's an argument for common sense.

Nope. I have "normal firearms" that are not as highly regulated as NFA toys are, and they are locked up just as securely. There wasn't any heavy regulation or any legislation reducing the numbers of them in civilian hands that caused me to lock them up to that level of security.
It is an argument for gun control... the only kind of gun control that works, that which occurs on an individual responsibility level (keeping your gun secured when not in use, and therefore out of criminal hands).
 
... Why don't criminals have automatic weapons and the like? If criminals don't follow laws, then what's stopping them?....

I have to respectfully disagree with the others. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns because they have the best combination of power, conceal-ability, and cost.

The idea that a criminal is not smart enough to convert a semi to full auto is debatable. If there was a true need criminals would pay to have it done.
 
The answer is simple but first a little history:

At the time that the National Firearms Act was passed into law in 1934 machine guns were generally large heavy crew served weapons and the only “lightweight” hand held fully automatic weapon available was the Thompson sub-machine gun. These were very expensive at $200 each (about $3,000 in 2012 dollars if adjusted for inflation) so during the Great Depression very few people could afford one. In fact most people had never even seen one outside of the movies.

A few gangsters used them in high profile crimes like the Valentine’s day massacre and Hollywood and the news media blew things way out of proportion. There were probably more Thompson guns in Hollywood than Chicago and the number of Thompsons actually used in crimes was probably less than ten. Congress and the Roosevelt administration reacted to collectively outlaw Thompson guns and various other concealable “gangster weapons” such as shortened rifles and shotguns as well as ALL handguns though handguns were removed from the bill due to public pressure before it passed into law.

To answer your question, the simple reason that the machine gun ban worked is because very few civilians had one at the time the law went into effect. They were not common household item to millions of Americans like the AR-15 and a plethora of other "assault weapons" are now. It is easy to ban something that is so new to the market that almost nobody has but semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are so common now that most hunters and shooters own at least one. The horse is out of the barn on this one.
 
^ But if Thompsons were really so uncommon, then why did police departments also arm themselves with sub-machine guns? Were shortened rifles and shotguns serious problems at the time? I remember seeing something on the history channel or somewhere about gangsters using them.
 
But if Thompsons were really so uncommon, then why did police departments also arm themselves with sub-machine guns?

Thompson guns were very rare in PRIVATE hands. In fact Auto Ordnance, the distributor of the Thompson gun voluntarily suspended all sales to individuals some years before the ban and adopted the slogan "On the side of law and order". After that the guns were only sold only to Police Departments and Federal agencies.
 
But you'd have to buy each individual round and register it right? That seems like too much work for anyone who isn't a multi-millionare with a team of secretaries who's job is to fill out the paperwork.
 
If machine guns were the problem, then maybe we'd all worry. However, the current crop of criminals don't use them (much), try to ge them (much), or know HOW to make them, and apparently, the controls that are in place ARE keeping them (for the most part) out of their hands. They can, and occasionally DO get their hands on real or converted guns, but they are not trained or effective with them. In reality, where are they going to "practice" without drawing attention? ItT is even good that they don't know that a GOOD man with a bolt or semi-auto is MORE effective than a hack with a machinegun.
 
But you'd have to buy each individual round and register it right? That seems like too much work for anyone who isn't a multi-millionare with a team of secretaries who's job is to fill out the paperwork.

You would have to be a multi-millionare anyway to buy a new tank. The Army paid over SIX MILLION DOLLARS each for new Abrams tanks, and that was in 1996 dollars.
 
Because people are generally lazy by nature. This overlaps into both the criminal and non criminal element for the most part.
It's similar to asking how come drug dealers really don't know tha purity of the drugs they injust or sell. People want these things done for them, they have little initiative to read or study how something works and go and make a part or construct a simple testing aparatus to test the drugs they sell.
They prefer to have someone else tell or show them what to do.
If made more difficult, they probablly would not know which way the bullets go in the magazine. They have no interest in how something works, only that it does.
This is good in a way because it limits what they can destroy. If they wanted to actually work, they probablly would not be shooting and selling drugs to people. The lazyness carries over to every aspect of their exhistance.
Having grown up in some bad places, I can tellyou that many have no social security number drivers license, and have never paid taxes. This while owning a half dozen homes in other peoples names, and vechicles from rent a car agencies under other peoples credit cards.
Criminals are looking for the easy way to make a lot of money, if it requires work, they will pay someone to do it or buy their way in or out of it. You can sell a bad guy a m14 for 5000 dollars easily. if he wants it and you have it, he will pay for it, money means nothing to guys who make ten to twenty thousand dollars a week.
If they want a machine gun, they will ask around and pay whatever it cost, "if they are on that level" otherwise they will deal with whatever they can get the easiest. Very few know the difference nor care. Most never shot the guns they have, they have people who do that for them.That's where Mercs and ex special forces guys "gone bad" make a lot of money. They can get things done for these guys for a very large amount of money. They always hire out for stuff that really needs an expert. Most that I met don't know crap about weapons, they are lucky if their gun even fires.
Guys like this crazy person who killed these poor innocent people are a rarity, he just bought what was available to him, and having a fair amount of intelligence, probablly practiced out in the woods some place, until he reached an acceptable level of marksmanship. In his eyes.
I am sure he did not fully know how many people he would or could actually be able to kill. He just had a plan and followed it.
He had a pretty good knowledge of how people react in this type of situaion, "probablly did his research" and was very analytical in his execution.
I would have thought someone would have resisted, but I should know better. If he was able to get a machine gun without drawing attention to himself, he may have tried. But he stayed under the radar juat enough to accomplish what he set out to do. Which pisses me off to no end.
 
Apparently, if they can smuggle $10 billion dollars worth of drugs into the U.S every year from Columbia, Mexico, and other countrys, they can smuggle fully operational AK-47's too.

How about a "Buy one truckload of dope and get a free AK-47" sale??

The gang bangers are already using full-auto AK's in many large U.S. citys.

rc
 
What keeps them? Mechanical aptitude or wanting to avoid getting busted just for HAVING it. Let's face it: it's technically harder to make a firearm semi-automatic than fully automatic. It's not at all difficult to attach a trigger directly to the sear. Most bolt-action rifles are this way. However, it's generally not desirable to manufacture a fully-automatic firearm this way because you get uncontrollable rates of fire, as well as being unable to function semi-auto. As a result, they use a variety of different mechanisms to both reduce the rate of fire and allow for both semi and fully automatic fire.

The likelihood of encountering these ghetto-rigged full-autos is thus very low. They are immediately distinguishable from proper machine guns by their uncontrollable rates of fire and inability to function in semi-auto. They would attract all the wrong attention, very fast.
 
Guys, I think you're all missing the very biggest factor: NEED!

They don't NEED them.

Most criminals are not "gun guys" like us and don't drool over the intricacies of the coolest hardware. They steal or obtain tools to do the "jobs" they do. What real good is an M-16 to a mugger? Or an M-60 to a psyco rapist or murderer? Or even a MAC-11/9 to a petty hold-up man? There's just no value in it. A MUCH simpler, MUCH easier to get, MUCH more concealable item will do the job they've set out to do, and that's all they need and all they care about.

An argument can be made that gang violence sometimes does have a spot for submachine guns, as intimidation/status weapons when fighting rival gangs. That does actually happen. The fact that it rarely makes a whole lot of waves on the news should tell you just how big a deal that is.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Sam. Have you guys ever actually fired a fully automatic assault rifle? What a joke. Wanna look silly with a barrel pointed skyward?

Give me a good semi-auto any day.

I'm guessing the next big thing in criminal hardware may be IEDs.
 
Why don't criminals have automatic weapons and the like?

1. Because those of us who own them are law abiding citizens who don't use them in crimes, and take extra measures to keep them from being stolen.

2. Our military armories are such that it is difficult to break into them as what happens in Mexico.

3.It takes some doing to get a full auto, and our criminals don't think long-term. :evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top