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

you included your own rebuttal : Legally owned

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.

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.

Only 2 REGISTERED machineguns have been used in crimes. Loads of illegal ones have been.

jerkface11 said:

Only 2 REGISTERED machineguns have been used in crimes. Loads of illegal ones have been.

Click to expand...

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...

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.

I have no idea what percentage of all firearms automatic weapons represent

Click to expand...

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.

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? (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

TCB

Anyone got an estimate on how many illegally owned NFA items have been used in crime over the years?

Click to expand...

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)

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

hso said:

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.

Click to expand...

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....

30 Million X $200= 60 Billion into government coffers,
How else they going to keep from falling off the fiscal cliff??

...and we're back to the ''did spoons make Rosie O'donnel fat?'' argument. that didn't take long.

"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.

Onmilo said:

30 Million X $200= 60 Billion into government coffers,
How else they going to keep from falling off the fiscal cliff??

Click to expand...

$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.

For the Lurkers

Machine guns are one thing... submachine guns yet another.

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.

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.

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.

Q: What percentage of law abiding gun owners commit violent crimes?

A: 0.00%

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Full-auto just isn't suited for most crimes. It's as simple as that.

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.

Click to expand...

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

But since no one was killed aside from the shooters themselves, I guess it does not count as a homicide

Click to expand...

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

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.