Controlling all firearms like machine guns

[The Deer Hunter]

Hey guys

First of all I just want to say, I don't want to impose any restriction on anything. I'm not trying to change anybody's minds, I'm just looking for some insight and opinions.

IIRC, since the government started controlling machine guns, there have only been two murders with registered fully automatic firearms.

My question to you is; why shouldn't all firearms be controlled like machine guns?

And to be totally honest, I am surprised that anti guners don't ever bring that up. I beleive part of that may be because they don't know what they are talking about. If someone was to ask me why we shouldn't control all firearms like we do machine guns, I would be "out of ammo". I also don't expect many anti gunners to actually know anything about any type of firearm anyways.

 

[Auburn1992]

Well, I don't think it's only the reason that machine guns are controlled, I think it's that most machine guns cost more than $10,000.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

machine guns are so expensive because there are no new machine guns being imported for civilian use. the only machine guns out there that are legal to own for civilians are the ones that were around when the ban/machine gun legislation was enacted

 

[chris in va]

I think it's that most machine guns cost more than $10,000

You've got it the other way around. Machine guns legal for civilian use cost that much because of the ban. You really think that full auto AK costs more than a couple hundred bucks on the world market?

 

[crushbup]

Because then people would kill each other with knives and crowbars.

 

[Travis Bickle]

IIRC, since the government started controlling machine guns, there have only been two murders with registered fully automatic firearms.

My question to you is; why shouldn't all firearms be controlled like machine guns?

The reason no one is ever killed with full-auto weapons is not completely because of the regulations; it's also because, for most criminals, FA offers very little advantage over semi-auto weapons and DA revolvers.

If all other guns were regulated like FA weapons, it might actually cause an upswing in FA weapons in the hands of criminals, since many of them would figure that they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

 

[hso]

Criminals are "criminals" because they don't obey the law so what good would come of controlling all firearms as if they were machine guns if criminals wouldn't comply with the law?

REGISTERED machine guns have only been used in 2 killings. Big difference.

Machine guns don't represent good economic sense to criminals. These guys use cheap firearms and not what we would use.

AND the real reason is that you'd have to pay a $200 transfer tax, wait months for permission to purchase after an extensive background check, and only be allowed to have something made before May of 1986 just to purchase a .22 rifle. This would effectively put firearms beyond the economic reach of many Americans that don't live in blissful upper middle class naiveté. It is a classist and racist idea.

 

[SaMx]

You've got it the other way around. Machine guns legal for civilian use cost that much because of the ban. You really think that full auto AK costs more than a couple hundred bucks on the world market?

I think his point is that the reason there have only been two murders with legal machine guns is because they are so expensive. If you're a criminal, why would you spend ten thousand dollars on a legal full auto, when you can get a black market one for a small fraction of that?

that's also good argument against treating all guns like machine guns legally. Criminals out there do get their hands on full auto weapons, probably smuggled into the country or built here, just like with illegal drugs. There have been only two murders with legal machine guns, but how many have been committed with black market machine guns? Was the ban successful in that respect?

 

[Zoogster]

Many variables have limited the number of NFA machineguns used in crimes.

Before the internet most citizens were unaware the NFA process even existed, that they could legaly own a machinegun, that alone limited ownership during thier most affordable times (pre Hughes Amendment in 1986.) A significant percentage of those who did chose not to register themselves with the federal government during a period in our history where such things were viewed much more strongly than today. That further limited ownership, and the total number registered before the cutoff.

Those who use full auto machineguns in murders do not aquire NFA registered ones costing tens of thousands, they use illegal ones, either illegaly converted or imported from a location where they cost the same as those without the switch. If they are going to break the law risking life in prison with them anyways why would they bother going through the legal steps to pay for a much more expensive one tracked by the government?


The second reason they are seldom used in crimes is because the majority of criminals use handguns in crimes. The same reason "assault weapons" (the long arm defined ones during the AWB) were and are hardly used in crimes. Long arms make up a small total of all firearms used in crime.
Just like the majority of good citizens are more likely to defend themselves with a handgun than anything else.
Handguns are portable, convenient, and can be easily concealed.
Machineguns were rarely used in crime before the NFA ofr the same reason, and those few that made headlines were stolen primarily from police and military sources, sources unchanged by the NFA.
The Chicago gangsters often had contacts with corrupt LEO.

The Tommy Gun was a police gun, marketed to police departments across the nation. That is where most bad guys who had Thompsons obained them, from police armories.
That at a time when they could be ordered by mail from a catalog.

Another reason is because use of exotic weapons makes a crime stand out. If a criminal gang member wants to kill a rival they want thier murder to blend in with many other murders. I have even heard that logic used as to why RPGs and similar hardware some have access to choose not to use such items.
They simply do not want the additional attention and resulting manpower in solving such crimes.
They want to get away with thier crime, if it is a unique crime the amount of resources put into solving it will be much higher, and the interest to detectives much higher even many years later.
Who opens a case 20 years later to figure out what gang member killed the other gang member after being unable to solve the case before?
You can be sure if a full auto machinegun or an RPG or something was used it will attract more detectives to the cold case. It is unique, it stands out, it is more interesting.


The people who own legal select fire weapons pay a huge amount of money for them. Before the internet the majority of citizens did not even realize they had the option to go through the NFA process to obtain them, so that limited thier ownership dramaticly.
The more wealth a person has the lower thier chance of commiting violent crime (assuming thier wealth does not come from organized crime).
They simply have more to lose and less to gain. If an individual is wealthy they are also least likely to pose a risk to government for the same reason.
There is non wealthy people who own them who are simply really into guns, however the casual purchaser of them is a wealthy man. It is wealthy men who purchase many of them to lock in a safe and take to the range occasionaly.
Not because they are really into guns, but because they have that type of money to spend on any hobby that they become interested in pursuing.
That alone means those purchased through legal channels will not likely be involved in crime, at least at the hands of thier owners.


So really the argument by comparing them is essentialy that only the wealthy should have the RKBA so all legal firearms have statistics similar to NFA weapons.
Not to worry some places agree. They charge a lot in fees, licenses, taxes, sometimes annualy, and have a system that favors those from a certain class of society.
That is of course contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
It also would not work. There is not a large criminal demand for machineguns or most long arms. There is a large criminal demand for handguns. If handguns were similarly restricted the black market would simply meet the new demand just like it does with drugs.

Finaly, the intent of the founders was allowing the citizens to pose a threat to the government if it became tyrannical. Giving the government sweeping authority over what "shall not be infringed" defeats the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. You wouldn't require a homeowner to ask all potential burglars permission to install a home security system would you? Then describe the type and model of such system, and list where it will be stored to potential burglars? Require them to report any changes in the system, and inform the potential burglars when they move?
No that would defeat the purpose of the security system.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Because then people would kill each other with knives and crowbars.

Ya sure, but it is easier to kill people with guns than knives.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is simply because anyone who is willing to jump through all those hoops and pay that much money to be legal, has a great deal of respect for the law. People like the LA bank robbers a few years back who shot up the street with illegal full autos don't have any respect for the law. Murder is already illegal, so is bank robbery. To a person like this a gun law is irelivant.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

I think it's that most machine guns cost more than $10,000

Back in the early 80s, I was quoted $1200 for a Thompson, stamp and all. I had the money, but I turned it down as a useless range toy that I wouldn't use much.

Hindsight...

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

I see a failure of logic here.

IIRC, since the government started controlling machine guns, there have only been two murders with registered fully automatic firearms.

You are somehow equating "government control" with a reduction in crime.

Logic is a lot like diagramming sentences or proving geometric theories. You can't just say "X happened and Y happened, therefore X causes Y". You have to prove it.

 

[Marlboro Guns]

Banning goods only creates a black market and an increase in both crime and the price for delivering the desired product.
Has the history of prohibition taught us nothing?

From an economic standpoint, one could argue that the demand for machine guns is more elastic than the demand for handguns. Normal everyday people who carry probably don't carry a M60 everyday. The demand for handguns are far more inelastic and would continue despite any kind of ban.

Furthermore, you have to remember that the statistic only takes into account "registered" firearms.
I doubt that most crimes are committed with registered hand guns and I am sure there have been more than two murders with stolen guns.

Banning these types of firearms doesn't make them any harder to obtain -
automatic weapons and high capacity magazine bans have not restricted their accessiblity, I know this because I live in such an area and know many NEW owners of Uzis, AK-47s, Glock 18 and many other automatic firearms that are supposedly banned in my area. With the right kind of money, any gun is obtainable anywhere. A ban doesnt really mean anything but a price increase and perhaps inaccessibility to the poor working common man for personal defense.

The shooting in Hollywood (that caused this ban) was stopped by police officers who went to a gun store to upgrade their firepower. Imagine if that gun store didn't have any automatic rifles. (They don't now. ) Luckily I believe the LAPD upgraded their own firepower since then, but let's see what happens next time when the bad guy decides to use his black market machine gun... What will they do then? Wait for the military to arrive maybe?

 

[Blakenzy]

Because machineguns are effectively BANNED, with the exception that pre1986 specimens were grandfathered and allowed to survive in civilian hands. What happens when all those receivers get worn and crack? No more machineguns for anyone without a uniform, that's what.

Should we extend the same fate to all firearms?

 

[jmahalek]

Quote: What happens when all those receivers get worn and crack? No more machineguns for anyone without a uniform, that's what.

No, not really. In many guns, the registered component is the sear not the receiver. Sears are often registered in several calibers and can be moved to more modern semi-automatic weapons - this effectively gives the owner multiple options with regards to full auto firearms.

 

[Zoogster]

The shooting in Hollywood (that caused this ban) was stopped by police officers who went to a gun store to upgrade their firepower. Imagine if that gun store didn't have any automatic rifles. (They don't now. )

The North Hollywood shootout happened in 1997. The assault weapon ban restricting semi auto firearms at the national level happened in 1994.
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act also dealing with non NFA items in CA happened in 1989.
The "ban" we are discussing here, the one dealing with select fire weapons legaly termed "machineguns" happened in 1934. Had an import cutoff in 1968, no more foriegn guns could be added. Then a domestic cut-off in 1986.

The North Hollywood thing had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor did gangster crime which surged in the late 80's and early 90s.

I know this because I live in such an area and know many NEW owners of Uzis, AK-47s, Glock 18 and many other automatic firearms that are supposedly banned in my area.

Select fire weapons such as those which are not NFA papered have been illegal since 1934.
They are also all foriegn guns which if made in a foriegn location could not have been papered after 1968.
Saying you know many people with illegal weapons is also a good way to get entrapped by the ATF so they can hold charges over you and try to get you to snitch on other people. You should probably avoid painting a big red "entrap me" target on yourself during your first post.

Imagine if that gun store didn't have any automatic rifles.

The weapons they borrowed and the store owner got into trouble for were not "automatic" they were just semi auto firearms. One round per pull of the trigger. They were simply ARs if I recall the pictures. The police likely thought they were ideal for the same reason, they look scary, like a big tough military rifle.
The officers would have in fact been better served by many hunting rifles also available in the store when facing such heavily armored individuals. Rifles that allowed a better shot that would penetrate heavy body armor from further away.
The majority of police are however not very knowledgeable about weapons.
Even in light of the it was the SWAT team arriving with full auto weapons that finaly took the final guy down. They also got lucky because they said they unloaded on the guy and were having little effect and he was returning fire. Then they shot him in the legs many times, and unlike his partner he was not heavily armored in his legs.
If it had been his partner it could have ended much worse for some of them.
So they did end it with full auto weapons, but they were weapons the SWAT team brought with them.

 

[Southern Rebel]

Deer Hunter, you can't just quote incomplete statistics. You need to include the complete statistics on murders in the years before and following the machine gun restrictions.

You have to comprehend that nature abhors a vacuum - remove the machine gun and other guns will take it's place. For example, What if you outlawed penises on all men who make less than $250,000 per year in order to reduce the number of welfare babies? It sounds like a good idea - remove the cause and the effect is cancelled, right? How quickly do you think the vacuum would be filled by financially secure men? You could run your incomplete statistics and show that no welfare babies were the product of the nuetered group of guys and therefore the welfare baby problem was solved. the count of welfare babies before and after the experiment just might explode your logic.

If there is a demand, there will be a product - maybe not the best product, but the demand will be satisfied!

 

[mr2guru]

Eventually I can see all firearms going the way of current NFA items. It's only a matter of time.

Various tax stamps, federal registration, fingerprints, etc....

 

[Gamera]

I agree with what's been said here. It's just not feasible for criminals to use machine guns. Like, can you really picture someone robbing the mini-mart with a SAW? I don't think so.
Also I think everyone should check out this link. It's a pretty long read, but it's very informative. The slippery slope is a dangerous thing...

 

[Baba Louie]

Eventually I can see all firearms going the way of current NFA items. It's only a matter of time.

Various tax stamps, federal registration, fingerprints, etc....

A good friend of mine, who knows all of the local D's in Southern NV (he does fund raising for them), came to me this morning and asked me to review for him, a paper he was asked to prepare that pretty much follows this line of thinking.

Registration of owners, Annual tax on each firearm, proficiency testing, pro-rated taxes on older firearms, heavier excise tax on new mfg arms, highest possible excise tax on ammunition, limit number in "collections", all transactions must go thru FFLs, etc. with the final thought being (and I quote) "Don't discourage it (arms ownership), regulate it and tax it."

Crime control has nothing to do with his paper, yet everything to do with making criminals out of presently law abiding citizens who might avoid paying this proposed taxation. His reasoning being that in the past 3-4 months w/ over a million NICS checks each month, if Uncle Sam could have received $100 on each purchase... well, they need the money and this tax is now inevitable and for the "good of the US".

*sigh*

 

[Funderb]

Regardless of what tools anyone is using,
when criminals know that the victims are going to
be standing up for themselves and fighting back,
only THEN will there be a real reduction in crime.

No amount of regulation will save us from people who ignore
that regulation along with the rest of the laws they break.

come on guys.

 

[Funderb]

No, not really. In many guns, the registered component is the sear not the receiver. Sears are often registered in several calibers and can be moved to more modern semi-automatic weapons - this effectively gives the owner multiple options with regards to full auto firearms.

isn't that assembling a machine gun, hence illegal?
I could be wrong.

 

[CoRoMo]

why shouldn't all firearms be controlled like machine guns?

• Because our Constitution states that our government shall not infringe on this nonnegotiable right.
  
• Because it would do zip, zilch, nada to affect crime rates.
  
• Because it is a solution that is lacking a problem.
  
• Because it is an illogical idea.

 

[amd6547]

Criminals don't care...we had a fairly large bust here in Ohio of Aryan Brotherhood members who had been making sten guns for sale to other criminals.

As it stands now, the NFA process is quite unfair and classist. Rich people and corporations can afford a $10,000 machine gun...not too many others. That is what would happen if NFA was extended to all firearms.
When you consider that many of our greatest weapons were designed by private individuals...what happens to the John Browning of today when he walks out of his workshop with the prototype BAR or 1919?