What keeps criminals from automatic weapons?

That is an enforcement issue mike. Bolger was on the run for 30 plus years, he didn't go into a store and buy a machine gun. He was a federally protected whitness, how can you make that leap, you can go buy anything you want if you don't mind breaking the law. That's not what we are about here.

No, what I mean is that since they do seem to keep full-autos out of criminal hands, which is what people are telling me, since people didn't have machine guns back when the law was made, then it wouldn't make sense to get rid of it and open up the market like we do with other things? I don't know. I'm a little confused.

Click to expand...

I think you've missed much of the point here. The laws DON'T keep ANYONE BUT GOOD GUYS from getting their hands on full-auto weapons.

However, the VAST majority of criminals don't use them -- even though they easily could if they wanted -- because they aren't very beneficial to their goals.

So NO, the laws do NOT help anyone.

leadcounsel said:

BTW, I AM in favor of allowing civilians to have full auto individual weapons and repealing the machine gun laws, 922, etc.

Click to expand...

I did a poll of our fellow forum members a little while back and was surprised by how many thought most weapons should be in law abiding hands. Close to a 1/3 thought tanks, LARS, SAM's should be allowed, and 1/2 thought full autos should be allowed.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=324356

Needless to say I was shocked that 8% thought citizens should be able to have WMD's.

The bottom line is that law abiding citizens who love and understand the intent and purpose of our Constitution, generally feel that they should be able to own any firearms they desire.

However, the VAST majority of criminals don't use them -- even though they easily could if they wanted -- because they aren't very beneficial to their goals.

Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect the major reason that criminals don't use automatic weapons much is the substitution effect. NFA weapons are, after all, relatively scarce. In this sense, gun control "works". But because of the substitution effect, that's as much as it ever can work, because criminals simply substitute another weapon; in this case, non-full-auto firearms. They work as well for criminal purposes, so making machine guns hard to get accomplishes little or nothing.

Ban large-capacity handguns, and small, highly concealable handguns will be substituted. Ban all handguns, and short-barreled shotguns are substituted. Lather, rinse, repeat.

ttolhurst said:

...Ban all handguns, and short-barreled shotguns are substituted...

Click to expand...

No problem. Make it illegal to saw off shotguns.

(Oh wait, it already is.)

No problem. Make it illegal to saw off shotguns.

(Oh wait, it already is.)

Click to expand...

It's only illegal if you don't have an approved Form 1 (if you're not a manufacturer w/ SOT), or if you don't file a Form 2 afterward (if you are a manufacturer w/ SOT).

The average criminal has no real need for a machine gun. Will it help him commit a robbery any better than a much more concealable and available handgun? No. So why go to the effort?

There are machine guns in criminal hands, but I would guess that they're primarily the territory of violent gangs and organized crime.

keeping easily (!) convertible cheap guns off the market sure does help.

( *duck*)

Most criminals want to get away with their crimes and will choose a concealable handgun that can be hidden under their clothing and operated with one hand.

I think the answer to the OP's question is simple.

If a product is available, it will be bought by both good and bad people. Bad people will unfortunately use these products for bad purposes.

conversely:

If a product is not available, it will not be bought by anyone. Bad people will use the next best product that meets their needs for their purposes.

If beta mags, standard (high) capacity mags were not available, as is the case in places with restrictions like CA, such products simply will not be in use with as much regularity.

I DO not agree with the idea that limiting access does nothing to limit usage.

I also DO not agree that someone is LESS of a threat because HE/SHE is only able to wreak havoc with 5 or 10rd magazines, or a semi-auto vs. full auto gun vs. handgun vs. shotgun.



Why don't normal (non organized/cartel) criminals use machine guns/full auto weapons?

Because they are restricted and expensive.

Would the same be said of "military style" weapons if they were restricted and expensive?

Yes, I think they absolutely would be seen less in crimes.

Would this limit the damage done by crazed, gun or knife-toting murdering cowards?

To some exent, yes, but even if they're only somewhat skilled in the use of their chosen weapon, the difference would be negligible, IMO.

...

Why don't normal (non organized/cartel) criminals use machine guns/full auto weapons?

Because they are restricted and expensive.

Click to expand...

Which ignores the fact that BOTH the restrictions and the extreme cost ONLY apply to the law-abiding.

The criminals will get what they want, for cheap, because the restrictions (that drive the costs) don't apply to them, and these things just are NOT hard to create/fabricate/modify.

The problem with your argument is that it suggests that gun control is effective, when it is NOT. That it accomplishes the touted aims, when it does not.

Which ignores the fact that BOTH the restrictions and the extreme cost ONLY apply to the law-abiding.

The criminals will get what they want, for cheap, because the restrictions (that drive the costs) don't apply to them, and these things just are NOT hard to create/fabricate/modify.

The problem with your argument is that it suggests that gun control is effective, when it is NOT. That it accomplishes the touted aims, when it does not.

Click to expand...

Question, and I ask this respectfully...Do you have a source of info where you're seeing crimes during which full auto weapons are used? I'm talking full auto AK's, AR's, UZI's, MP5's, Full-auto Glocks, etc.


I've got just a few friends in law inforcement, and at least in their experience, this isn't the case... (admittedly, they're just normal PD and might not be privvied to the same type of info you are)


I guess I just don't hear about these being used on an everyday basis.

In addition to this, even very, very pro-gun sources are using numbers that suggest that military style weapons whether full-auto or semi, are HARDLY ever used in crimes. (Which begs the question of why they're always in the crosshairs of anti's)


So, I guess, yes, I am saying that gun control DOES seem to remove certain items from general circulation, but what I DO not agree with, is that it effectively stops violence...

Violence is human nature, IMO. If a person wishes to cause harm, they are going to seek out the most effective means of doing so. No law is going to legislate that out of existence.

I DO see historical evidence that anti "this weapon" or anti-"that weapon" does change the means by which such actions are perpetrated.

No machine guns? Semi autos, then.
No guns? Knives, then.
No concealable knives? Machetes, then.

And so-on... That's my opinion, anyways.

No, and that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Criminals DON'T choose these weapons -- even though they EASILY could.

They don't choose them because they aren't good for the jobs they're trying to do.

A black-market gunsmith can churn out converted AKs by the hundreds if a gang or crime boss wants to pay him a few bucks a piece to do them. A nut with a file and a drill can convert most semi-auto rifles to fire full-auto in an afternoon. It isn't hard.

But there's also no point. Guns that are large, long, bulky, hard to control, especially noisy and attract attention don't help criminals accomplish their goals.

(With a few, specific, exceptions. Gang-on-gang violence seems to be the one place where the intimidation factor of full-auto sub guns and assault rifles are desired, and guess what -- those that want them HAVE THEM.)

The problem with your argument is that it suggests that gun control is effective, when it is NOT. That it accomplishes the touted aims, when it does not.

Click to expand...

I think his comment was that gun control will make it harder for specific weapons to be used in crimes, but will not affect the overall damage inflicted. It's just like what is said whenever a high-cap ban is mentioned - if a criminal was limited to 10-round magazines, all he has to do is reload. It's the same comment I've made regarding a total ban on guns in Britain resulting in less gun deaths and more knife deaths - overall murders stay the same, even though guns commit less of them.

It's an important concept, because it highlights a point where gun control advocates like to gloss over. Yes, gun control might reduce the availability of guns for criminals (if its not available commercially, the only way to get them is to smuggle them - buying them legally or stealing them from a law-abiding owner will be much more difficult). However, some will still have access to guns, and all will have access to other weapons. A total gun ban would have done nothing to prevent the absolute worst attack in US History, that was done with box cutters.

The average criminal has no real need for a machine gun. Will it help him commit a robbery any better than a much more concealable and available handgun? No. So why go to the effort?

Click to expand...

Well, there are machine pistols. Your average gang member probably doesn't understand the disadvantages of them. However, most people probably wouldn't realize that it's a machine pistol (unless the thug fires a burst into the air), so it really wouldn't serve much of a purpose to have a full automatic weapon.

I think his comment was that gun control will make it harder for specific weapons to be used in crimes,

Click to expand...

And my argument is that it DOES NOT.

Well, there are machine pistols.

Click to expand...

Which won't accomplish most criminal aims one bit better, and quite possibly worse, than a similar semi-auto or revolver.

The one exception, again, is in gang warfare where subguns and cheap machine pistols do occasionally show up. For the specific task of intimidating/suppressing your gang rivals the guns make some sense -- so they do chose them, and have no problem at all getting them, despite the laws to the contrary we all THINK are so effective.

A couple of years back the cops in D.C. pulled over a car driven by a 14 year old suspected of gang activity. He had a MAC in the pocket of his hoodie.

Full auto guns have limited use which doesn't generally meet the needs of a thug. If they were as available as today's semi-auto black rifles, you'd see more of them, but if they knew how to use the full auto option, it wouldn't be the main use of the gun.

And my argument is that it DOES NOT.

Click to expand...

I think we'll have disagree on how it affects their access to the tools, but we both agree that it does not affect their ability to commit crimes. Since that is the more important factor, I think we agree.

not reading all the posts but I know that if criminals wanted machine guns, there are no laws that keep them from getting them. I volunteer at the county jail and have asked them about where they get their guns. Most of them won't answer but a few tell me they get them "off the street". None of them are supposed to have a gun, yet they did. They have also said that if you have enough money full autos are there, they are just expensive.

Remember the bank robery in Hollywood?

Remember the bank robery in Hollywood?

Click to expand...

Great example! Certianly no problem for Phillips and Mătăsăreanu to convert a few semi-auto rifles to fire full-auto. No law even slowed them down.

In that rare instance, they felt the automatic weapons would serve their needs, so they procured/fashioned some.

Notice how unusual that choice was, even though it was so very VERY simple to do.

I think we'll have disagree on how it affects their access to the tools, but we both agree that it does not affect their ability to commit crimes. Since that is the more important factor, I think we agree

Click to expand...

This is the conclusion I think I'm coming to as well, Skribs.

I think no matter what point of view you come from as a gun owner, if you possess even a smidge of thinking-man's(or woman's) intellegence you should be able to find a chink in the anti's arguement.


And thanks for explaining your idea's, Sam. I understand more where you're coming from.

Cool!

not reading all the posts but I know that if criminals wanted machine guns, there are no laws that keep them from getting them. I volunteer at the county jail and have asked them about where they get their guns. Most of them won't answer but a few tell me they get them "off the street". None of them are supposed to have a gun, yet they did. They have also said that if you have enough money full autos are there, they are just expensive.

Click to expand...

See, this is my "theory", but I don't have anything but heresay/conjecture to support it, thanks for posting up some anecdotal info.

Maybe it's too much to say that expense or availability is the ONLY reason that that full-auto's aren't used. (Though, i'd say it plays a BIG part)

As Sam was saying, it could very well be that it's simply not the best choice for the job at hand, for a lot of them, since even in states that allow full-auto weapons, they still aren't used in any large amount, as far as I know...

I'd definitly accept that.