Thumper
Member
Need? Pshaw...left-think.
Read U.S. v. Miller...that will address the need part of things.
Read U.S. v. Miller...that will address the need part of things.
Why do we need automatic guns?
- Thread starter Yohan
- Start date
- Status
CleverNickname
Member
As others have mentioned, it's not due to any inherent characteristic of machineguns that they're so expensive, but the
'86 ban. For example, I bought an Uzi parts kit awhile back so I have some spare parts for my full-auto Uzi. It cost me roughly an order of magnitude less than what the Uzi is worth, yet the only difference between the two is that the parts kit is missing a rather large chunk of the receiver. Well, that and the Uzi has an entry in the BATF's database saying it's transferrable, which is what you're really paying for.As for why I bought full-auto, there's several reasons.
- It's fun to shoot.
- It's evil (not only is it full-auto, but also has a short barrel, bayonet lug, and horror of horrors, a a folding stock! OH NO!)
- It's fun to shoot.
- It's increasing in value (not that I have plans to sell it)
- It's fun to shoot.
I can't think of a situation where I'd use it defensively, mainly because it's too big to CCW and because a 5.56mm out of my AR is ballistically superior to the 9mm out of my Uzi.
Ask your senators...
Dear Sir,
The conclusive answer from our office is that you do not need automatic weapons for any purpose.
We do, and so do our bodygaurds, as well as the security, law enforcement, and military whom we have control over; but you do not.
Thank you for your inquiry,
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Corzine representing a multitude of our colleagues.
Dear Sir,
The conclusive answer from our office is that you do not need automatic weapons for any purpose.
We do, and so do our bodygaurds, as well as the security, law enforcement, and military whom we have control over; but you do not.
Thank you for your inquiry,
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Corzine representing a multitude of our colleagues.
Automatic transmission is more convinient than a standard. So, what does an automatic gun do that a regular gun can't do? I mean, besides being fun and evil
and cool, do they serve a real purpose? One of the reasons I saw was providing covering fire should a riot break out, but I don't think that will be happening anytime soon (If you disagree, I suggest you open another thread about it) but are there any reasons an automatic machine gun would be better than the normal average semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for normal usage? I'm thinking along the lines of critter control or such. I appericiate the fact that no one's flaming. Except for this little dude over here ----------------------------------> 
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Seriously, probably the best reason is that they are collectors items and in an economy where the stock market can fall 40% and beanie babies can fall 99% they are a desirable commodity. They just aren't making any more pre-86 SMGs so the values go up every year.
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
Authenticity. I want the original MP5 not some semi-safe 16" barreled beast!
They make great photo props too.
They make great photo props too.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Skunk must be getting ill. A post about MP5 submachineguns without using the word tactical. Maybe it's an imposter. 
"Need?".............. irrelevant...
"Want?".............. is all that is necessary.
Until I pull a ski mask over my head and go into a bank to close out everyone's account, it is no one's GD business what type of firearms I own or why I own them.
"Want?".............. is all that is necessary.
Until I pull a ski mask over my head and go into a bank to close out everyone's account, it is no one's GD business what type of firearms I own or why I own them.
Why do we need firearms with 2- or 3- burst trigger groups?
Just because people want or "need" an automatic firearm doesn't mean they want or need to shoot entire magazines at a time.
[blockquote](byron quick) Thompson submachine guns that go for around $10K? There's at least one warehouse in Russia with NIB Thompsons.[/blockquote]
Let's go get them.
[blockquote](microbalrog) However, full-auto weapons could be used for intimidation (warining 20-round burst from a 120-round clip for an M-16), and if necessary, a followup with 10,20,30 rounds. [/blockquote]
(20-round clip is emptied) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. For example, those two guys with the machine guns? If they start blastin' off, ain't none of y'all going home!" - Romeo must die
Just because people want or "need" an automatic firearm doesn't mean they want or need to shoot entire magazines at a time.
[blockquote](byron quick) Thompson submachine guns that go for around $10K? There's at least one warehouse in Russia with NIB Thompsons.[/blockquote]
Let's go get them.
[blockquote](microbalrog) However, full-auto weapons could be used for intimidation (warining 20-round burst from a 120-round clip for an M-16), and if necessary, a followup with 10,20,30 rounds. [/blockquote]
(20-round clip is emptied) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. For example, those two guys with the machine guns? If they start blastin' off, ain't none of y'all going home!" - Romeo must die
okay first off *we* don't need two or three round burst devices - if people are taught proper trigger control to begin with, they don't need that nonsense.
That being said: I think full auto is tremendous fun as long as someone else is paying for the ammo...I mean I had a lot of fun with it in the Army, but Uncle Sam ain't payin' my ammo bill any more so if *I'm* buying, semi-'s good enough for me.
OTOH, we should still have access to full auto under the original intent of the 2A.
That being said: I think full auto is tremendous fun as long as someone else is paying for the ammo...I mean I had a lot of fun with it in the Army, but Uncle Sam ain't payin' my ammo bill any more so if *I'm* buying, semi-'s good enough for me.
OTOH, we should still have access to full auto under the original intent of the 2A.
Marshall
Member
Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.
Tamara
Senior Member
"...but as for me, give me reasonable government controls and rapid, accurate background checks, or give me death!" 
Marshall,
Please explain why we "don't need" automatic weapons.
Do you "need" everything that you own? Doubt it!
People own automatic and other Class III firearms because they want to and can! Some people like and buy shotguns, others a particular type of handgun while others prefer a type of rifle or a particular cartridge. to each thier own. I know people that favor rifles but have no interest in handguns but I am not going to tell them they don't need what they like/want/own. As long as there's people with your feeling towards autos, there's 2 things happening...1) there's a nother auto that is available for one of us that does think they're ok to own, and 2) there's another person that is giving a little boost to those that are trying to take ALL our firearms away from us. :banghead:
Exactly how many legally own autos are used in crimes each year?
GAC
Please explain why we "don't need" automatic weapons.
Do you "need" everything that you own? Doubt it!
People own automatic and other Class III firearms because they want to and can! Some people like and buy shotguns, others a particular type of handgun while others prefer a type of rifle or a particular cartridge. to each thier own. I know people that favor rifles but have no interest in handguns but I am not going to tell them they don't need what they like/want/own. As long as there's people with your feeling towards autos, there's 2 things happening...1) there's a nother auto that is available for one of us that does think they're ok to own, and 2) there's another person that is giving a little boost to those that are trying to take ALL our firearms away from us. :banghead:
Exactly how many legally own autos are used in crimes each year?
GAC
Thumper
Member
When I get to be King, I want subjects like Marshall.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
How many legal full autos are used in crimes each year...thus far, since 1934, just one-by a law enforcement officer.
Kinda kicks this drivel:
Kinda kicks this drivel:
in the head, doesn't it?
cliffdropover1
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 28
I can drive an old Volkswagon to work and it WILL get me there. Or I can drive a new Corvette. One of them is a whole hell of a lot more fun.
Mannlicher
Member
Yohan,
Just why does it have to be about 'need' in the first place? If you were only allowed what you 'needed', then you would have darn little in your house.
.................and, who is the one you would trust to determine you needs anyway????
Just why does it have to be about 'need' in the first place? If you were only allowed what you 'needed', then you would have darn little in your house.
.................and, who is the one you would trust to determine you needs anyway????
Yohan has explained at least twice that he isn't interested in taking anyone's guns away and that he's not for more laws. If I were Yohan, I'd be getting a mite irritated that people keep answering a question that hasn't been asked and attacking a position that hasn't been taken.
It's a fairly simple question: What does an automatic weapon do that you want done?
Only a few people have tried to answer the question that was actually asked. So far, the answers have been
Any other answers? Why does the military have them? What's the military doing with them that can't be done with a semi-auto?
pax
Full-auto is a good way to turn money into noise. -- Clint Smith
It's a fairly simple question: What does an automatic weapon do that you want done?
Only a few people have tried to answer the question that was actually asked. So far, the answers have been
- They're fun.
- You can use them to burn a lot of cash in a hurry.
- They're fun.
- They are mechanically interesting.
- They're fun.
- The military has them.
- They're fun.
Any other answers? Why does the military have them? What's the military doing with them that can't be done with a semi-auto?
pax
Full-auto is a good way to turn money into noise. -- Clint Smith
Thumper
Member
Pax...I was purposely avoiding the full auto's utility as a weapon.
Yohan has expressed in the past that he's not comfortable with the idea of a firearm as a weapon.
That being out of the way, one of the best "stoppers" in a gunfight is the autonomous shutdown of the central nervous system. The best way to acheive this is by multiple near-simultaneous thoracic cavity trauma.
A three round burst zippered into someone's chest beats the heck out of three aimed shots...time wise and effectiveness-wise.
Other advantages include increased hit probability, effectiveness against multiple attackers, and the obvious psychological advantage.
Yohan has expressed in the past that he's not comfortable with the idea of a firearm as a weapon.
That being out of the way, one of the best "stoppers" in a gunfight is the autonomous shutdown of the central nervous system. The best way to acheive this is by multiple near-simultaneous thoracic cavity trauma.
A three round burst zippered into someone's chest beats the heck out of three aimed shots...time wise and effectiveness-wise.
Other advantages include increased hit probability, effectiveness against multiple attackers, and the obvious psychological advantage.
To me this is a little contradictory. The first sentence..."three round burst beats three aimed shots" Shouldn't ANY shots be aimed?
Also, how are the three round burst shots more effective than three non-three round burst shots?Second sentence..."Other advantages include increased hit probability" Wouldn't hit probability be higher with aimed shots rather than the seemingly non-aimed three round burst shots?
Lastly, anyone using any fullauto against any badguy, will likely get A LOT more legal obsticals (sp?) thrown at him than if they used something else.
Need doesn't have anything to do with it.
There should be no regulations on small arms at all in this country.
The cost issue would go away if there were no regulations.
Need has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.
So why do we "need" any weapons at all?
After all, we have the police to protect us, right?
And the judicial system never fails us, right?
And why do police need FA weapons?
Perhaps they work better for solving certain situations, like putting some guy on PCP on his ass.
Don't I deserve the same ability to respond to a threat as a police officer?
If you want to get technical about it, the military doesn't need Full-auto either. Rapid aimed fire is almost always more accurate.
But, since we have now entered the age of peace on earth, maybe we should arm our servicemen with stun guns and pepper spray...
Why do they need guns after all?
I mean, guns are so dangerous...
Why can't we all just get along?
To date, the only guns that I own that have been used to kill anyone are the old Mil-Surps, and that was 50 years ago. None of the AK's that I have owned have been used to harm anyone, nor have their Hi-Cap mags.
That trend would continue if I had a Full-auto.
The type of gun, the law, the Brady bill...none of them have anything to do with controlling my behavior.
Anyone with ten minutes of spare time, internet access and a hardware store nearby can build a bomb and hurt alot of people, IF they were so inclined.
But you will note that none of us have done that.
Why?
Because we don't want to hurt people.
Laws are nice, but at the end of the day, I am the reason that I don't hurt people.
BTW-I read somewhere that Thompson SMG's were used by farmers to kill prarie dogs before the NFA.
There should be no regulations on small arms at all in this country.
The cost issue would go away if there were no regulations.
Need has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.
So why do we "need" any weapons at all?
After all, we have the police to protect us, right?
And the judicial system never fails us, right?
And why do police need FA weapons?
Perhaps they work better for solving certain situations, like putting some guy on PCP on his ass.
Don't I deserve the same ability to respond to a threat as a police officer?
If you want to get technical about it, the military doesn't need Full-auto either. Rapid aimed fire is almost always more accurate.
But, since we have now entered the age of peace on earth, maybe we should arm our servicemen with stun guns and pepper spray...
Why do they need guns after all?
I mean, guns are so dangerous...
Why can't we all just get along?
To date, the only guns that I own that have been used to kill anyone are the old Mil-Surps, and that was 50 years ago. None of the AK's that I have owned have been used to harm anyone, nor have their Hi-Cap mags.
That trend would continue if I had a Full-auto.
The type of gun, the law, the Brady bill...none of them have anything to do with controlling my behavior.
Anyone with ten minutes of spare time, internet access and a hardware store nearby can build a bomb and hurt alot of people, IF they were so inclined.
But you will note that none of us have done that.
Why?
Because we don't want to hurt people.
Laws are nice, but at the end of the day, I am the reason that I don't hurt people.
BTW-I read somewhere that Thompson SMG's were used by farmers to kill prarie dogs before the NFA.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked