What keeps criminals from automatic weapons?

[gfanikf]

John Dillinger stole Thompsons from Illinois police stations.
Bonnie and Clyde got BARs from National Guard Armories.
Ma Barkers gang got stolen Army Thompsons from fences.
Going back to the 1920s, Al Capone simply offered a bounty of $3000 for Thompsons, no questions asked, when the factory price was $200. $2800 profit is a lot of temptation.

Why couldnt Al just have people or shell companies buy them?

 

[Sam1911]

I had a conversation about this with another member via. PM last night. Figure it is as on-topic as can be:

What I was primarily referring to was in a close-quarter, target-rich environment. Think theater seating here, as in the Aurora shooting. The ability to sweep could leave a number of people dead or dying in their seats before anyone could react to take cover.

And my contention is that AIMED fire, even roughly aimed, will put individual bullets (or pairs) into more people just as fast, and will do so more efficiently. Ripping off a mag dump with a full auto will kill people, but it will also waste over half the mag with misses and redundant and peripheral hits.

There's very little for them to hit there that's not a person. Single aimed shots may thus be more precise and waste less ammo, but definitely not as quick as what a machine gun would put out.

But what it will put out doesn't equate directly to the effectiveness at killing people.

It sounds scarier, but it isn't actually more lethal.

I am quite aware of the limitations of machine guns and fully-automatic fire, but in the right environment it can be a horrible, horrible thing, and cause casualties at a rate far exceeding aimed fire.

I do not share your opinion about this. I, personally, can put aimed fire onto targets at close range with a simple handgun at rates of something around 4-5 shots a second (not counting transitions), and I'm no pistol legend. Hitting the happy switch is going to toss half the rounds into the background and many of them as redundant shots or peripheral hits. It is a horrible thing, but not the most horrible thing.

From my work with automatic weapons the only hope you'd have of being as bloodily effective would be to LIMIT your fire to contolled bursts of 2-3 rounds per target. Which is more or less the same thing as fast aimed pairs from a semi-auto.

 

[JohnBT]

"What keeps criminals from automatic weapons?"

I don't know. Why aren't they all driving new Corvettes? Too lazy to steal them? They cost too much? Too busy doing drugs?

Maybe they simply don't want the feds involved.

 

[Sam1911]

What keeps criminals from automatic weapons?

Nothing, in [strike]practice[/strike] theory.

They are criminals.

Nothing in theory -- they could have them if they wanted them.

In practice, however, they don't bother because automatic weapons are not the most useful tools for their work. There's no benefit that outweighs even whipping out a file for 5 minutes. It's a lot like asking why a guy digging a hole for a fence post doesn't rent a CAT 347D excavator. It's so wrong for the job that it makes the job harder.

 

[22-rimfire]

There are full auto machine guns out there that are not licensed. But not many. The government enforces this very vehemently. Just call in a "tip" about an unlicensed machine gun and you will see police in numbers. Law enforcement WILL knock on your door when it comes to full autos.

Do you want this level of enforcement with semi-autos? That is what it will take and the US has ceased to be the country we all know it to be.

I think the cost deters criminals from buying a full auto for crime guns and crime guns are often discarded after use. Most criminals are not going to dump a $10,000+ gun.... so economics, control, and need deters criminals from commonly using full auto guns.

I actually believe the lack of full auto use in crime is an argument for gun control. Defining a machine gun is fairly easy.... single pull of the trigger results in multiple shots. These are the true assault guns. Defining what semi-auto gun should be regulated is difficult since all mostly use the same mechanism regardless of what they look like.

They tried defining them in the original AWB that sunsetted during the George W Bush term. It was ineffective and the commonality made enforcement very difficult. I don't think Americans in general would accept law enforcement actively enforcing a ban or a restriction similar to that in place for full autos. A very stringent law would "upset the apple cart".

 

[Sam1911]

There are full auto machine guns out there that are not licensed. But not many.

Really? Are you sure about that? How many is "not many?"

Do you want this level of enforcement with semi-autos? That is what it will take and the US has ceased to be the country we all know it to be.

The country ceased to be a bit of what it was with the NFA'34, and a bit more of what it was with GCA'68, and died a little more with every Commerce Clause case since Gibbons v. Ogden. Hard to say exactly when the country did or will cease to be. I'm not sure that a new AWB would be THE moment. In fact, we weathered one before and came out stronger than before.

I think the cost deters criminals from buying a full auto for crime guns and crime guns are often discarded after use. Most criminals are not going to dump a $10,000+ gun.... so economics, control, and need deters criminals from commonly using full auto guns.

No criminal is going to buy an expensive registered, transferable machine gun. (Even if they could buy a firearm through legal channels.) If they really wanted one they could get a black market conversion much more cheaply than you or I could buy a legal one. And more quickly/easily. Making a gun run full-auto just isn't hard (easier than semi-auto, actually) and there are plenty of shady/illegal machinists who will do that work pretty cheap if someone actually wants it.

I actually believe the lack of full auto use in crime is an argument for gun control. Defining a machine gun is fairly easy.... single pull of the trigger results in multiple shots. These are the true assault guns. Defining what semi-auto gun should be regulated is difficult since all mostly use the same mechanism regardless of what they look like.

I can't see how it is any more difficult at all to define what a semi-auto gun is than a full-auto one. And to say that "looks" has something to do with it is specious as well -- the most common semi-auto rifles look identical to the most common full-auto ones.

 

[22-rimfire]

I can't see how it is any more difficult at all to define what a semi-auto gun is than a full-auto one.

Me either. You will notice that I used the word "what" semi-auto. But the AWB tried to differentiate between semi-auto rifles based on specifically named models and models with certain characteristics. Previously owned or manufactured semi-auto's were grand fathered.

Hence I see it as an all or nothing kind of argument. I don't like the "all" choice when it comes to more restrictions.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I've heard about full autos only really being used for suppression fire, but why are most military rifles full-auto? Do they really shoot them semi-auto most of the time?

 

[Sam1911]

Do they really shoot them semi-auto most of the time?

Yes, absolutely.

That's what they're trained to do. Also, remember that most weapons issued to our infantrymen do not fire conventional "full auto" anyway, but are mechanically limited to fire 3-round bursts, in effect producing a similar result to fast, aimed pairs. Even so, soldiers are trained to fire individual aimed shots in most situations, not to go to the 3rd position unless using their rifles for suppressive fire.

 

[happygeek]

I've heard about full autos only really being used for suppression fire, but why are most military rifles full-auto? Do they really shoot them semi-auto most of the time?

Yes. The only time I've shot a M4A1 on auto in training was when the instructor was showing us two things; why it's not a great idea to go auto and why you should square up on your target and lean forward a bit.

Crew serve machine guns are a whole different ball game. They're also used for things like area fire, grazing fire, and shooting at moving vehicles, and are typically mounted to a vehicle, tripod, or are used from a bipod. They also generally fire in controlled bursts.

Making a gun run full-auto just isn't hard (easier than semi-auto, actually) and there are plenty of shady/illegal machinists who will do that work pretty cheap if someone actually wants it.

I'm no machinist, but everything I've read says the same thing. The Polish designed and built a submachine gun while under a brutal German occupation that killed 1 out of 5 Poles between 1939 - 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Błyskawica_submachine_gun). Apparently the only other firearm manufactured in occupied Europe was the Sten.

 

[One_Jackal]

I am no rocket scientist but in 30 minutes with nothing more than a screwdriver and a file I can have a fully automatic 10/22 or model 60. Once I have committed this federal crime what can I achieve? I can commit any violent crime just as well with a bolt action weapon, especially against an unarmed target.

The real criminals wear a suit and tie. They don't need automatic weapons. They can buy their own police force. Our tax dollars have already armed their army. We are just pawns in a high stakes game of chicken.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The very serious penalties for being caught keeps the non-criminal dealers, importers and manufacturers along the chain of possession from providing the full-auto to the violent criminal end user.

This only works because full-autos were made illegal before they became common house hold items like semi-autos are now. We all grew up knowing that machine guns were “bad” and forbidden . Unless you are old enough to remember back 80 years, that’s the way it has always been so it seems normal.

If such stringent restrictions were suddenly placed on common semi-autos like the popular AR-15 it would never work. First of all there are tens of millions of these in private hands. Practically everybody involved in the sport or hobby of shooting either has one or knows someone who does. In 1934 most Americans had never even seen a Thompson gun except in the movies where they were always used by bad guys. That notion would not sell with semi-autos because too many Americans grew up shooting and know that rifles have been around since before America was founded unlike those newfangled machine guns.

Most Americans are starting to realize that common rifles are covered by the 2A and it would cause real problems if this right were suddenly violated or when uncle George got dragged off to prison for having something that he had owned since he was a teen. Also state and local law enforcement would side with gun owners against the federal government in parts of the South and rural West. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ This could eventually lead to another civil war or at least riots like those that happened in the South when federal troops were sent in to enforce intigration.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Ah, so the whole reputation of full-auto weapons being so threatening is just a myth?

 

[Sam1911]

Ah, so the whole reputation of full-auto weapons being so threatening is just a myth?

Largely, yes. Well, "threatening" is a factor of emotion/intimidation/fear. Many people indeed feel more threatened by them than by their semi-auto cousins. That includes many gun owners.

The reputation of full-auto weapons as being significantly more deadly is a myth.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

So given that, does that mean that it makes sense to support the '34 NFA law, or the 1986 law that bans any new full-autos from being sold, or even the 1968 law? I've always been against those things, but it's sounding like the NFA law makes sense.

 

[Owen Sparks]

.....but it's sounding like the NFA law makes sense.

No, it does not make sense but the way the law was put in place makes perfect sense. This class of firearm was sevearly restricted before almost anybody in the general public had any personal experience with them. The reason the public was given was that these were evil "gangster weapons" that put everyone at risk but the real reason was the 'bonus army' of WWI vets who camped on the mall in D.C. in '32. If a group like this got their hands on effective weapons it could overthrow the federal government. If you have never heard the story of the Bonus army's occupation and the riots that followed click here for a short film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWvCCxOUsM8
Or here for the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
The real reason that common people can not own a modern select fire military rifle is NOT to protect you from crime, it is to protect the federal government from YOU.

 

[WinThePennant]

Criminals who want fully-automatic weapons already have them. My understanding is that cartels in Central and South America possess these weapons.

Let's face it. Your every day street hoodlum has no NEED for a fully automatic weapon because the Sheeple typically are UNARMED. A .25 ACP is plenty when the crime victim is anti-gun or believes that something bad will never happen to them.

 

[Sam1911]

So given that, does that mean that it makes sense to support the '34 NFA law, or the 1986 law that bans any new full-autos from being sold, or even the 1968 law? I've always been against those things, but it's sounding like the NFA law makes sense.

I'm sorry, you lost me there. What? Given the fact that they AREN'T more dangerous it then makes sense to restrict them heavily? I don't think that's what you meant to say.

 

[Vector]

I have to respectfully disagree with the others. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns because they have the best combination of power, conceal-ability, and cost.

The idea that a criminal is not smart enough to convert a semi to full auto is debatable. If there was a true need criminals would pay to have it done.

Exactly.

Look at the terrorists, or even freedom fighters going against their government. They learn very quickly how to convert semi-autos into autos.

If our society ever devolved into civil war, rest assured many reading this forum that do not currently know how to do a conversion would learn quickly.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

^^ 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.

 

[leadcounsel]

True story.

I am a defense lawyer and represented a client that broke into an Army arms room and stole 2 dozen full auto AK74s and a real Dragunov (all were captured bring backs, and scheduled for demilling). He sold them to gang members for, get this, about $300 each. Yep. $300 each on average. He sold his life away for a few thousand bucks. And for the amount of work he put into the theft, selling them, driving hours to make sales, etc. it was probably a losing venture even if it had been completely legal.

It didn't go well for him. He was facing 187 years in prison. I negotiated a deal for him for 'only' 20 years. He'll be in Leavenworth for a long time...

Not all of the rifles have been recovered.

Unfortunately for him (and the victim), it appears likely that one of those rifles was used in a murder earlier this year.

So fully automatic rifles are out there in the hands of very bad people...

 

[Owen Sparks]

.....So fully automatic rifles are out there in the hands of very bad people...

So, should good people be treated like the worst violent criminals if they are caught with a modern military rifle that gives them the means to commit a crime? Or should crime be an ACTION rather than a tool with the potential for criminal misuse? Are we not all in possession of the proper tool to be rapists? Anyone with a computer is equipped to view kiddie porn thus creating a demand for this insidious crime. Does widespread unregulated computer ownership not lead to more child rape? What about crow bars, big screw drivers and other "tools of burglary"? Are we not all potentially guilty of breaking and entering if we have the means?

 

[FROGO207]

For anyone to believe there are NOT any FA firearms in criminal hands within the US is utter foolishness. Legally purchased or not there are a fair number out there I am reasonably certain. Kind of like saying that nobody has any grenades in their house. I responded about a year ago to a call where a citizen brought a couple "pineapples" of his late grandfathers that were live into the local PD for disposal and dropped them onto the dispatchers counter unannounced. We secured the area and waited for the bomb squad from the county to remove them. I keep hearing "stories" about someone or another that had one years ago when they were legal and the darn thing just disappeared one day. Yeah riiiight. There are a lot of those around the US I assume.

 

[michaelbsc]

Some of our rules are nuts. We prohibit a guy who stole a motorcycle 35 years ago and been straight as an arrow since.

But Whitey Bulger, who has evaded conviction for decades, can buy anything he wants?

I know we need some rules. And I know I don't have good answers. But the system is broken.

 

[leadcounsel]

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