Efficacy of Machine Gun Registration

[M1911Owner]

In another thread, there's been a side discussion of what the meaning is of the fact that, in the history of registration of machine guns, there has only been one registered machine gun used in a crime. I submit that we need to look at the converse or contrapositive, or whatever my high school math teacher would have called it, of the argument that's going on there:

In the entire 70-year history of machine gun registration, in the whole United States with its hundreds of millions of population, there has only been one person who has used a machine gun in a crime who has ever complied with the registration requirement. And that one person was a police officer.

And that is the most conclusive demonstration of the complete and utter failure of registration that one could possibly imagine.

 

[rock jock]

One could also say that it is the most compelling evidence of the success of registration. Afterall, only an infinitesimally small percentage of MG owners have commiited criminal acts; thus the registration system has kept them out of the hands of criminals. Now, I disagree with MG registration, but this is nonetheless a logical conclusion of this statistic.

 

[M1911Owner]

No, not an infinitessimally small percentage of machine gun owners, rather, an infinitessimally small percentage of registered machine gun owners.

The point is, with a single exception, no one who's committed a crime has bothered with registration. Only the law-abiding people have registered their weapons. Therefore, you have invaded the privacy of the law-abiding people, who have by this statistic demostrated that they don't commit crimes in the first place, but the criminals, the ones who do commit the crimes, have all ignored the law.

So, registration has accomplished nothing at all, expect to be a burden on law-abiding citizens, and create a list of machine guns owned by law-abiding citizens for eventual confiscation.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

only an infinitesimally small percentage of MG owners have commiited criminal acts

That's infinitesimally small percentage of registered MG owners. If one took the number of unregistered/stolen or otherwise illegal machineguns used in crimes, it would indicate only law abiding citizens register their weapons and it is therefore a waste of resources to so closely monitor the law abiding public.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Well, the important and relevant question has not been asked: How many crimes have been commited with a machine-gun since 1934?

The asked question is only a subset of the answer to the above question.

If there have been 100,000 crimes commitied with a MG then registration has failed. If there has been only 10 crimes with an MG then maybe it has been successful.

 

[M1911Owner]

Yes, I agree that that statistic is important to the analysis. Anybody have good stats on that?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you ask me, the important statistic to note is that despite the fact that the atom bomb has been used more frequently than an NFA-registered machinegun in crime, all such weapons were banned in 1986.

That tells me more about what is really the agenda here than anything else...

 

[Al Norris]

Let's see, before the NFA, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of recorded cases of machine guns used in crime. Granted that much of this stopped right after prohibition was repealed, but some use still prevailed.

Since the NFA, the number of criminal acts is minimal, at best. Machine Gun registration worked. It is a fact that this was precisely the mechanism (to stop the use of machine guns in crime) used to pass the NFA. Remember too, it's a TAX act. The very same way most gangsters were put in jail during the "roaring 20's."

It's a pretty easy arguement to use when you need to remind people why the law was put there in the first place.

History, Gentlemen. Never overlook the obvious.

 

[Publicola]

Okay, so we look to the obvious:

the use of machine guns in crime was at a high rate during prohibition. Now right after prohibition ended the NFA of '34 was enacted.

What we have here is a point where the reason for crime was diminished at the same time a measure to combat that crime (or so they say) was enacted.

Kind of like draining the bathtub then put a sponge in it to soak up excess water. sure, to someone who doesn't understand the relationships & time frames involved, it may seem like the sponge soaked up all the water from the bath tub, but we all know the spnge just soaked up what water as was left over from the bathtub drain.

Also, the NFA deals with short barreled, rifles, shotguns & sound suppressors (at the time the Maxim family was probably thinking FDR had singled them out since they had lucrative cound suppressions & machien gun designs). To my knowledge there has never been a case where someone was convicted of using a sound suppressor during a crime. This doesn't mean sound suppressor registration worked - it simply means no one's been caught with a silencer & conclusively linked the use of same to a specific crime.

Short barreled shotguns were popular as business defense implements. Face it - it was a powerful deterent for armed robbers &/or mob enforcers. Now as far as I know there hasn't been any criminal use of a registered short barreled shotgun, but then again because of the expense & hassle there hasn't been that many justifiable defensive uses of them either.

The NFA works as a mechanism to get us accustomed to registration. It works as a legal justification for congress to pass prohibitions. But as a crime deterent it fails. Criminals still use NFA weapons & devices but the public is cut off from using them for justifiable defense by the hassle & expense created by the NFA.

& again speaking of the obvious - te NFA creates registration as well as tax requirements for the possession of arms that would be of use to the militia. It creates an impedement (through registration requirements as well as the distortion in the free market caused by those requirements) to civilian ownership of such arms as well as taxes a person who wishes to exercise a constitutionally enumerated Right.

So even though I think it's obvious that the registration failed to stop crime with those types of weapons, that isn't the main point. The main point is that until we repeal the 2nd amendment & throw out a lot of case law dealing with taxation of Rights, then the NFA is unconstitutional. & even after that we are still left with it being an immoral violation of our Rights.

Keep in mind that although the merits of policy can be argued, they should take a back seat to the constitutional & moral arguments.

After all, I'm sure velcro-ing every individual's mouth shut would have saved lives, such as those lost who followed Jim Jones, but do we really want to consider the cost/benefit side of that argument?

 

[Monkeyleg]

Since there isn't any data I'm aware of on the number of criminal uses of full-auto's, we can't say definitively that the registration doesn't work. Anecdotally, I can point to one criminal use of a full-auto in my own neighborhood, and can point to one or two newspaper stories about criminal full-auto use in my city. Therefore, I would have to conclude that there are many more criminal uses nationwide, and that registration doesn't work.

 

[labgrade]

There was no success through registration. All it did was enact a starting database for objects that never had any intent, of themselves, to do any harm whatsoever. The owners may have, but too, might it be that they had other nefarious ways to create their goals? Or never did anyway?

Hmmm?

Registering those who never meant harm is the primary focus of law enforcement-types? Somehow, I learnt otherwise.

I would daresay that of all the machine guns possessed in these USofAs, that only about 10% of the functioning machine guns are registered.

But too, all the law abiding citizens that never would have been a problem anyway, did register them.

What about all those that never trusted the government in the first place?

& what about those that "merely" have a scoped .30-06, or could, at any time, cut off a shotty, ... ? Or didn't, & just "must" make use of it?

Ludicrous to accept the premise that MG registration did anything other than avail the feds, & many fine americans, to the fact that is was a "good idea."

Anybody think that any registration scheme, or a liscensing idea, would make anybody more law-abiding is pure-D crazy.

Those who will make illegal use of anything at all will do so no matter what.

& the penalty of an unregistered MG, after going on a mass-rampage, is, ... uh, what? an extra 5-10+, & that after a mass-murder (life/death) ....

C'mon.

 

[rock jock]

I'll bet the FBI or DOJ has stats on FA guns used in crimes.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I think there are two reasons for the low number of actual machineguns used in crimes. First, a machinegun isn't the preferred weapon by most criminals for various reasons. Many of those same reasons also apply to the average CCW holder who would prefer to carry a handgun over a machinegun.

Secondly, the monetary value of the machinegun and the collectibility of the machinegun. Why would a BG hold up a 7-Eleven with a gun that he could sell on the black market for a few thousand dollars? Along these same lines, even criminals collect firearms. In addition, some "honest" Americans buy unregistered machineguns simply because they want one and for some reason, they cannot legally own one. On two occasions I have been offered a "really good deal" on a full auto by someone that thought it was neat to have a machinegun, but had decided to get rid of it.

As for actual statistics...

Inmates reported that a handgun was their preferred firearm; of those carrying a firearm, 83% of State inmates and 87% of Federal inmates said that they carried a handgun during the offense for which they were serving their longest sentence. About 8% of State inmates who had carried a firearm during the commission of their crime reported having a military-style semiautomatic (7%) or fully automatic (2%) firearm, with some carrying both.

These numbers are from a comparison of the firearms used by criminals in 1991 and 1997.

Bureau of Justice Statistics - Firearm Use by Offenders

The 2% with machineguns is out of 190,383 inmates. That comes to about 3,800 machineguns.

 

[rock jock]

The 2% with machineguns is out of 190,383 inmates. That comes to about 3,800 machineguns.

I wouldn't trust these guys to know the difference between a semi and full-auto.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

They made sure they BGs knew what was machineguns...

Fewer than 1 in 50 State and Federal inmates used, carried, or possessed a military-style semiautomatic gun or a fully automatic gun during their current offense. These guns, as used in the questions and definitions for the personal interviews with prison inmates, include the following:

* military-style semiautomatic pistol -- similar to a conventional semiautomatic pistol except that the magazine or clip is visible***Footnote 3: The survey interview included in the operational definition of a military-style semiautomatic pistol the phrase "can hold more than 19 bullets."***

* military-style semiautomatic rifle -- a semiautomatic rifle with military features such as a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount

* military-style semiautomatic shotgun -- a semiautomatic shotgun with militaryfeatures such as a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount

* machine gun -- a fully automatic gun which, if the trigger is held down, will fire rapidly and continuously.

Although, military-style semiautomatic pistol defined as "can hold more than 19 bullets." is a new one for me.

 

[c_yeager]

Also we need to remember that when the whole NFA started in 1934 things were very different than today. Back then if you payed your tax you could buy virtually any small-arm around. The enforcement (interpretation) has changed drastically. Not to mention the more recent (86?) ban on the manufacture of new FA's for civilians.

 

[Langenator]

* military-style semiautomatic pistol -- similar to a conventional semiautomatic pistol except that the magazine or clip is visible***Footnote 3: The survey interview included in the operational definition of a military-style semiautomatic pistol the phrase "can hold more than 19 bullets."***

What this actually sounds like to me are things like the TEC-9 and probably the MAC-10 types and maybe Mini-Uzi. None of which are military service weapons. Whoever made up that definition doesn't know what they're talking about.

I don't think any military sidearms has more than 18 round magazines.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I have a 20-round magazine for my 1911. Maybe that counts.

 

[Sam Adams]

By definition, criminals don't obey the law. That being the case, who exactly has registered their machineguns? Certainly not the criminal class. Registration of machine guns is an abject failure, since it has resulted in the identification of only 1 criminal in 70 years in a nation that had a population of at least 130 million at the time of enactment and now has nearly 300 million. There is no justification for this law based on the premise that "it prevents crime."

All gun registration schemes are at least a burden on the law-abiding, and at most are a listing of guns and gun owners for future confiscation.

 

[John Ross]

Reason for the NFA

Prohibition was repealed in 1933, in the middle of the depression. The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Tax unit of the treasury Department had grown by 1000% in the previous 15 years. Now these Phohibition agents had nothing much to do. The NFA was passed so as not to lay off thousands of government workers in the middle of the depression.

Original language of the NFA included handguns. This caused such an uproar that they were removed and silencers added. Silencers used to sell for $2 in hardware stores. Adding silencers made the pool of prohibited things big enough to give the agents work.

STOP thinking that ANY of these laws are promoted by people who truly care about reducing crime. They are always about MORE GOVERNMENT POWER.

JR

 

[labgrade]

Ditto, JR (& others) ---->

& to boorrow a phrase from JR's excellent book, "not a s ingle one of these governmental agents had to go through a (specfif) background check (to possess), pay the $200 fee .... "

How many civilian crimes have been committed with MGs versus those committed by LEOs "in the performance of their duties?"

 

[Drjones]

The only way you could point to the registration and say that it worked is if you believe that those same law-abiding citizens who registered their fully automatic weapons would have gone and committed crimes if they hadn't registered their weapons.

This obviously implies that the registration alone prevented the crimes from happening.

If that's the case, then man am I glad we have laws against murder, rape, and robbery! No one would dare violate those!


Oh.......wait....... :banghead:

 

[Drjones]

If there have been 100,000 crimes commitied with a MG then registration has failed. If there has been only 10 crimes with an MG then maybe it has been successful.

That is completely illogical.

If we say, "only 10 crimes have been committed with fully-automatic weapons since registration, therefore it is a success," there is no reason why we couldn't say the same about 20 crimes, or even 30, 40, 100, etc.

There is no logical stopping point, and any number picked to point at and say, "look! It's a success!" is completely arbitrary.

If you're going to say that registration is a failure at 100,000 crimes, you must also say it at 95,000 crimes, 90,000, 80,000, etc.

Again, any number you pick is arbitrary and meaningless.