What keeps criminals from automatic weapons?

I'm not exactly sure why, but it feels kind of uplifting that there's a place on the internet where people actually come together and have discussions instead of hiding behind their screens and slinging mud.

Click to expand...

This is a special place. We try to take care of it and each other.

As for criminals having no need for full-autos, that makes sense. I guess countries where that's a common thing, are so broken down that criminals having them is the least of their problems.

Click to expand...

You raise a really valid point there. There ARE places in the world where war and social unrest has left the country littered with one prevalent kind of weapon. In the last few generations that's largely been the AK-47 and variants throughout Africa, the middle east, and other hotspots. In those unusual circumstances, there are relatively few of what we would think of common "sporting" or defensive arms, and THE common weapon is a military automatic assault rifle. As such, it IS used prevalently by criminals. And also by householders defending their families, and poachers, and hunters, and the police, and EVERYONE. It is just THE GUN. (Sebastian Junger wrote a book about it.)

Remember, just for the sake of irony, that in occupying some of these places, our troops allow one full-auto AK to be kept by the householder to defend his family.

monotonous_iterancy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Not a thing they will get what ever they want!! That is why they are criminal they will steal to get them or any thing else.

But in countries where nearly every household has at least one gun, and rifles at that, it doesn't seem to help them much when we invade them. Do people in third world countries not practice?

Click to expand...

We're not going house-to-house shooting people, though, or rounding them up. We're only after the insurgents.

They are not very common largely because of practicality. On the legal and illegal side there is very little stopping anyone except the costs. Not just the gun, $200 transfer tax etc. But ammo costs.

There are basically two things on a personal weapon level that automatics are good for; first is engaging one more than one target at close range down to contact distance (these parameters depend on the skill of the user). The other is in military formations and tactics.

For most everything else a semi-auto, or manually operated action is far more practical and effective.

The main reason there are more perceived in Mexico is partially media highlighting and partly from the fact that there have been concerted efforts to arm organized crime in Mexico by either state and or wider ranging international arms dealers. This is readily apparent from the types of weapons that are often recovered,

That brings me to a point that I was considering starting a thread for, and maybe it deserves it's own topic, but I'll mention it here.

Click to expand...

Actually that has been the focus of a couple of very good recent threads.

People commonly say that the 2nd amendment would make it nearly impossible for a foreign army to invade and hold territory. But in countries where nearly every household has at least one gun, and rifles at that, it doesn't seem to help them much when we invade them. Do people in third world countries not practice?

Click to expand...

Several answer to that one. For one, NO, poor rural folks in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., do no go hit the range and blow through ammo the way us "rich" Americans can afford to. Neither can some minute percentage of them afford the kind of dedicated training and shooting competition practice that some minute portion of us "rich" Americans choose to do for recreation.

HOWEVER, that doesn't matter terribly much. The bigger issue is a disorganized, scattered, technology-less, relatively communications-less, poor, fairly immobile populace (generally representing less than the population of one of our states) facing, largely unawares, a modern mechanized and massively air-supported military force with a level of training and organization unprecidented in the history of the world.

Now, that's not to say that the American citizenry would fare a whole lot better were we to be attacked, undefended, by the equivalent force of our own Army and Marine Corps. Any real critical analysis will show that the armed-populace-as-last-defense is a very tenuous one, and one that would suffer far more defeat than victory, and such statements are probably not terribly realistic.

Read into some of those other threads for some reasons why it STILL MATTERS.

It seems like the defensive value of armed citizens is a little exaggerated. Back in the 80s in Afghanistan, the people fighting the Soviets were getting huge trouble from attack choppers, to say the least, until we gave them stinger missiles.

Click to expand...

Reading the history of Afghanistan and the Mujahideen is very interesting, and terrible, and inspiring, and appalling, and... Suffice to say, the story of the Russians (or the Americans a couple decades later) invading and pacifying the region is not in any way similar to -- for example -- an account of, say, the British Army invading Virgina or New Jersey. It is more equivalent to the Kentucky National Guard suiting up to go win the hearts and minds of several warring Alien species who make their homes on and under the surface of Mars. It isn't just an enemy force to be fought, but an intensely difficult world. It isn't ONE enemy to fight, but a series of town, city, regional, and national factions, the populations of which shift back and forth and make and break alliances, and some are on your side, sort of, today but not tomorrow, and where utterly incomprehensible ideals are sacred, while aspects of the "inherent goodness of man" are completely unknown.

Basically, there are no parallels which can be drawn that make the picture clear to a "western" thinker.

Sam1911 said:

...The bigger issue is a disorganized, scattered, technology-less, relatively communications-less, poor, fairly immobile populace

Click to expand...

And the antithesis of this is what is meant by "well regulated" by the founding fathers. As someone pointed out elsewhere, "well regulated" means like a fine running clock is well regulated. Not that it's restricted by regulations.

Pure economics.

The marginal benefit of machine guns over normal guns? Almost none.

Lets pretend machine guns were freely available but taxed at $500 premium.

Why would you buy something that expensive when you are more than likely going to throw it away after you shot someone?

$500 isn't far off from what a robbery will net anyways.

Originally Posted by monotonous_iterancy
... Why don't criminals have automatic weapons and the like? If criminals don't follow laws, then what's stopping them?....

This is a false premise. Criminals do have automatic weapons. Remember the Hollywood shootout? I think it is uncommon, though, because the hassle and expense of obtaining/modifying one and using one is not worth it. It's EXPENSIVE to shoot full auto! The vast majority of crimes are perpetrated by individuals against individuals. Why mess with a submachine gun when a handgun is much smaller, less expensive and easier to dispose of afterward, and just as effective?

I have come across the occasional full auto shoot out in the Utah desert. Usually, it's a guy like my nephew, a gun manufacturer, out with his family playing with his collection. But there have been a couple times where I came across a group of unsavory charcters blasting away at 600 rpm.

MI, Its far more a matter of luck and circumstances than law and management. Having spent more than a few years in NJDOC I can attest the majority of criminals are dumber than three truck loads of rocks, with an equal amount of arrogance to boot Which is why they have to put up with me. OTOH, we don't often get the smart ones ! They "dump the piece" on a stooge only too willing to do the time for some serious money.

More germane to your question, I've long heard most IMs say they wouldn't touch a full-auto weapon because the time served is longer and harder. IOW you do it all, no parole/early release and no "deal" with the fed prosecutor. But, with the current administration this effective policy may be changing. If so, look for full-auto weapons on the street. And make no mistake. The perps will bust caps; if only to make their bones in the gang. >MW

Sam1911 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with this 1000%

Here is why I think criminals do not have full automatic weapons...
because most guns that criminals are in possession of are stolen from law abiding tax paying gun enthusiasts whofor the most part do not own full automatic weapons because of one simple reason full automatic weapons are so highly federally restricted for the average person to own.
a stolen hand gun is much easier to conceal than an SKS or AK so they have little use for them criminals are not going to spend a lot of money on a firearm to commit a crime that they will probably ditch as soon as they do their dirty deed
I woild imagine even a illegal full auto weapon would be expensive to obtain and a average run of the mill thug could use that money for buying dope instead of a full auto weapon.

that is my theroy

It's also good to remember a couple other things here. By the time of NFA 34, the age of the "gun-totin' gangster" was over. NFA 34 started out as a complete ban on handguns. All of them, no exceptions, the works.

The compromise reached was to find and criminalize ownership of then obscure and "fringe" weapons. MG's & silencers, and "cut downs" as a group had political "traction' but largely because Hollywood had spent 5-6 years making the tools, not the acts the centerpiece.

There are places in the world where an AK retails for about US$25; some places, in our hemisphere where the going rate is US$40-45. Ok some of those were in Angola; others are former FARC--but, they work. People who move contraband by the pallet have no trouble finding space for a few arms--if the market wants to buy them, that is.

The argument that regulations are what keeps these arms out of criminal hands is also perverse--criminals care not one whit for laws. Also, there is not some great horde of g-men out there waiting for the first sign of full-auto fire.

Which means that all sort of people can go out and find a spot and blaze away, and nothing much happens. Which, like speeding or red-light running, with no negative stimuli to counter the illicit, it continues until it is noticed and then abated. That abatement being also somewhat dependent upon the will to prosecute, too.

We've had NFA for seventy-six years now. But, finding data on arrests for violations is complicated enough; finding actual convictions is even harder. Which is also the result o the Draconian penalties involved--so plea bargaining rather moots the Act.

Look at who has largely been docked for violations of GCA '68 and FOPA '86 and the AWB--largely importers and distributors over paperwork issues.

It is my contention that we could do away with NFA, GCA, and FOPA, and see no more change in society than the ten-year-overdue "sunset" of the AWB. That's how I see it; others differ.

SwissArmyDad said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL a chink? How about wide open gaping hole's

Maybe gun control does work.

I think the manufacture and licencing of auto weapons are strictly supervised by the government so they are very expensive to own. I'm sure many full auto weapons made it back from Vietnam but I doubt they were easy to bring back and the risk pretty high if you were caught. When I lived in new york every so often the police would raid a machine shop that was manufacturing auto weapons or parts to convert. Probably, almost the only way you could purchase an illegal one would be from an undercover cop or snitch working for the cops. Stolen from military bases? Not so easy.

Personally I wouldn't know where to get any gun if I couldn't purchase legally so gun control does work in keeping guns out of the hands of people without criminal intent.

Probably, almost the only way you could purchase an illegal one would be from an undercover cop or snitch working for the cops. Stolen from military bases? Not so easy.

Click to expand...

Or bought from a black market dealer or gunsmith. Smuggled in former military weapons from other countries. Stolen from various government agencies (happens more often than you believe). Or simply converted yourself with a drill, file, and an afternoon.

Personally I wouldn't know where to get any gun if I couldn't purchase legally so gun control does work in keeping guns out of the hands of people without criminal intent.

Click to expand...

He heh! That's exactly right! And there are some of us who earnestly believe that's the whole point of gun control. Not controlling criminals, disarming the good folks!

YA gun control does work to keep the law abiding citizen from obtaining full auto firearms but not one iota for a criminal who wishes to have one because they could care less about these ridicules laws to begin with.

How much faster or more deadly is a full auto m4 than the semi auto ar? My opinion is that it's not worth the extra money (to me), for full auto.... I can miss just as quick with a semi auto version doing spray and pray..... ymmv, my opionion only... I also fully support your right to go buy a full auto legally and pay the taxes, and feed the gun with copious amounts of ammo.