Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Why someone that has never shot full or burst firearm want to ban ownership of them?

3K views 40 replies 12 participants last post by  HotGuns 
#1 ·
From a previous thread:

...One thing that I never understood though, Thanis, that you might be able to help me with.

Why is it that someone that has never shot one, want to ban ownership of them? There have only been a couple of instances where legally owned full autos have ever been used in a crime. Why would they ban a gun that has the smallest percentage of misuse of any type gun?

Why do you feel like a limitation on a full auto is OK? They are legal to own in most states, just like suppressors are.
I wish I could own a suppressor. I would like to own a full auto or burst auto. I'm willing to consider limitations on those items so long as it is not a route to greater 2A regulation.

Soon to follow from replies, semantic arguments on Benjamin Franklin quotes, etc.

Others may disagree, but as a serious deer hunter, I'm very aware of poachers here in MI during hunting season. I'm positive, in MI, suppressors would be used after dark by a greater number of hunters if they became more available in MI.

I would have to state something I learned on this forum, from you. Regulations that might be reasonable in my neck of the woods might not be reasonable for yours.

As ownership of full-auto increases, at the very least in ratio, those couple of instances where legally owned full autos have ever been used in a crime would increase. IMO and experience, if even a American 180 were easier to aquire in lower MI, they would often be used in drive buys.

As far as never having shot a full or burst fire. Just because I have not been shot does not mean I need to be shot to know it would hurt or cause death.

Between the extremes there is a truth to not knowing something until you have tried it. ATM, with the experience I have had (even if that does not include firing something that is full-auto), I'm understanding of limitations on these firearm types, for the places I currently live, work, and shop.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I think that your logic is somewhat flawed here.

You are assuming that another limitation on a firearm would make a difference to a thug. Trust me here, it doesn't. When you limit my ability to own anything, are you just limiting me, or are you limiting the bad guy?

The answer is...you are only limiting ME, the law abiding citizen. The thug is so accustomed to breaking laws that another doesn't even matter.

That is precisely the reason that the "Assault Weapons Bill" was such a dismal failure. Even those that initially voted for it realized that it had NO impact on crime and served only to restrict them for people that aren't the problem.

Another thing. Have you priced one lately? They cost a fortune. The people that can legally own them are your doctors,lawyers, and highly skilled people that make good income.

Your gang banging thugs don't buy guns though the proper channels because they cant.

More restrictions than we have already on guns do not work.
 
#3 ·
I think that your logic is somewhat flawed here...
Agree, however so is yours, IMHO.

...You are assuming that another limitation on a firearm would make a difference to a thug. Trust me here, it doesn't...
Agree.

...That is precisely the reason that the "Assault Weapons Bill" was such a dismal failure. Even those that initially voted for it realized that it had NO impact on crime and served only to restrict them for people that aren't the problem...
Agree, Assault Weapons Bill was a failure.

I can't agree it has "...NO impact on crime..." IMO, it increased some crime, by making people into criminals who refused to abide by the bill.

I also believe it did lower the use of drug related automatic-firearm crimes. The nature of drug crimes has changed since the ban was put into effect. In addition, Assault Weapons Bill was not the dirrect legal "bill" that limited automatic-firearms. IMO, it did reduce drug related automatic-firearm crimes by its existance, but was not its intent and is like using a sledge hammer to put a tack in cork-board.

...Another thing. Have you priced one lately? They cost a fortune. The people that can legally own them are your doctors,lawyers, and highly skilled people that make good income...
I believe costs would drop if limitations were eased.

...When you limit my ability to own anything, are you just limiting me, or are you limiting the bad guy? The answer is...you are only limiting ME, the law abiding citizen. The thug is so accustomed to breaking laws that another doesn't even matter...Your gang banging thugs don't buy guns though the proper channels because they cant....
You already know what I'm going to say. As firearms become more available, they will also become more available to the BG.

...More restrictions than we have already on guns do not work.
You and I will not be able to agree on this. I'm willing to adhere to reasonable regulation so long as it does not infringe on 2A.

However, I'm hopeful we will never agree to disagree. The debate is valuable, as it helps me to think beyond my own thoughts / views.

Goes back to:

I think that your logic is somewhat flawed here...
Agree, however so is yours, IMHO....
I don't like either view, and believe both are flawed. I'm just willing to stick with my choice, for now.
 
#5 ·
I also believe it did lower the use of drug related automatic-firearm crimes. The nature of drug crimes has changed since the ban was put into effect. In addition, Assault Weapons Bill was not the dirrect legal "bill" that limited automatic-firearms. IMO, it did reduce drug related automatic-firearm crimes by its existance, but was not its intent and is like using a sledge hammer to put a tack in cork-board.
You are aware that the bill did not outlaw ownership of assault weapons right? It only prevented them from being sold commercially after the bill was passed. It also only allowed magazines that were 10 rounds or less to be sold after that date.

Now tell me what the purpose of banning a 12 round mag would be? Really, whats the point?

OK. Back to the real Assault Weapons, the full autos.
First of all they are the most regulated class of weapons there are.

Since you may not be aware of what exactly it takes and the hoops you must jump through to get one, I'll tell you.

First you must find one that you want to buy from a dealer or a private party.
Most dealers want you to put down a deposit, some places as much as 50 % the cost of the weapon.

Then you fill out the paper work.
It takes a set of fingerprints, a 2x2 photograph, the CLEO signature and a $200 dollar transfer fee on top pf the purchase price of the weapon.All this must be done in duplicate.
You also fill out a sheet certifying that you are an American citizen.

Now, you send it all to the ATF. You may wait several months for them to approve it. When you get it, one of the forms you filled out it your permit. It will have a "tax stamp" affixed to it.

You take you tax stamp to the dealer, pay whatever you owe on the gun, and its yours. Where ever the guns goes, so must the paperwork. Any LEO can demand to see it.

I have been to several noise complaints that dealt with this very thing here in Arkansas. I drive up, walk up to the people shooting the high dollar guns, and ask to see their forms. Thus far every encounter has been excellent, not a problem, most of them offer to let me shoot them.

Now over the years, the ability to own fully automatic weapons comes under scrutiny, especially when the gun hating Democrats are in office. So far, when they actually study it and see just exactly what it takes, they have backed off because it is the most regulated class of weapon there is. Not to mention that it produces revenue...its a tax.

You are correct about one thing though. Since the price is dictated by supply and demand, if the regulations were eased up, and new guns were produced that could be sold to anyone other than Police or Military as it is now, the price would drop.

Guns that are 10-15K would drop back to where they originally were, less than a 1000 bucks. Most people aren't aware that at one time, a Semi Auto UZI was more expensive than the full auto was, because they have to swap out parts to get them to fire semi only.

So, when someone advocate passing MORE laws on ownership of full autos it is usually out of ignorance of what it takes to own one.

BTW, you haven't told me WHY my logic is flawed.
I'm listening.
 
#6 ·
You are aware that the bill did not outlaw ownership of assault weapons right? It only prevented them from being sold commercially after the bill was passed. It also only allowed magazines that were 10 rounds or less to be sold after that date.

Now tell me what the purpose of banning a 12 round mag would be? Really, whats the point?...
I don't think I ever said I thought the bill was reasonable.

...like using a sledge hammer to put a tack in cork-board...
To clarify, I'm saying it did have an effect, simply by ratio, however it was not the intent of the bill nor should it be considered a justification for the bill.

...you may not be aware of what exactly it takes and the hoops you must jump through to get one...
I am per previous posts / threads and inquiries I made (but the cost made me consider other options).

...So, when someone advocate passing MORE laws on ownership of full autos it is usually out of ignorance of what it takes to own one...
Just to clarify, I've never advocated additional laws on ownership of full autos beyond what is already in place. If I gave this indication, I made a mistake. I do wish the laws were more "honest" (IMO) and less cost related, as I believe it is a path for anti-gun on how to regulate to the point of prohibition on other firearm issues (for example ammunition or caliber types).

...BTW, you haven't told me WHY my logic is flawed...
As one example, you use your opinion as fact, that banned weapons do not restrict BG from aquiring those weapons. While you argue the semantics of that opinion calling it fact, using the socratic method to demand proof, but not adhering to the same level of fact finding to justify your facts and ultimately your proofs.

What you state as "fact" is IMO "well reasoned opinion." It is a form of cognitive dissonance, where you look for information to support your preconceived belief and then redefine or discount information that invalidates your belief.

I am no better then you, so acknowledge, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, my logic is as well flawed, because it is based on opinion.

...I don't like either view, and believe both are flawed...
I philosophically respect a demand that opinion should not infringe on a "Right." But in RL, there are few assurances that what is provided as fact is not well worded opinion. In a Republic, the judge of opinion in theory is the majority. My vote (opinion) differs from yours considering some regulations I might find reasonable.

Wordy, but hopefully without insult.
 
#7 ·
What you state as "fact" is IMO "well reasoned opinion." It is a form of cognitive dissonance, where you look for information to support your preconceived belief and then redefine or discount information that invalidates your belief.
Not really. I do get quite alot of boring information of statical nature that has to do with guns. Some if it no doubt may be somewhat slanted,when it comes from an organization like the NRA or the GOA or even the ACCA. Others, like info put out by the FBI or the DOJ or ATF,tend to have a less political slant on things. When I look at the fact as published, I don't look at them from a particular standpoint, I just look at what they have to say. That is what I form my opinion on.

If you look at the numbers, and what they represent, you come to an understanding of what works and what don't. You tend to put aside all of the media hype and rhetoric because it almost never is the same thing as the truth.

What can get really interesting is to see what both the pro-gunners and the anti-gunners put out about the same "facts". Naturally, one will tend to align with the side that they agree with and no amount of argument either way will change their particular outlook on the situation. In a case like that, you just say you piece and move on to other things because doing much more than that is a waste of time.

I am no better then you, so acknowledge, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, my logic is as well flawed, because it is based on opinion.
Well of course it is based on opinion. As intellectual as some people would like to think of themselves, thats the way it is whether we think so or not because we are human,which renders alot of your pretty wordy and scholarly sounding post moot.

In a Republic, the judge of opinion in theory is the majority. My vote (opinion) differs from yours considering some regulations I might find reasonable.
Unfortunately those that make the law often do it because they can, there is no majority to it. Look at the excessive tax burdens on most people. Do you think that the majority vote for more taxes? No, because they don't vote on taxes other than of a local nature. The representatives that they vote in vote on taxes ,among other things and they often do whatever they dang well please, regardless of what the majority thinks.

You come from a predominately anti-gun background. I don't. What you see as a reasonable restriction on ME I see as unreasonable. Why? Because it really doesn't affect YOU it affects me. The Civil War was fought over such differences. Perhaps if they had the Internet then, they could have discussed it on-line and not had to do the bloodshed.

Wordy, but hopefully without insult
Wordy it is, but no insult taken.
 
#8 ·
...You come from a predominately anti-gun background...
Between the information available to you and the information available to me, I'm more conservative then you are concerning 2A. However I'm a flaming 2A liberal in my part of the world.

...As intellectual as some people would like to think of themselves...
Well, I'm not striving to be intellectual, just intellectually honest.
 
#9 ·
However I'm a flaming 2A liberal in my part of the world
.

That I do not doubt.

That is the difference in culture.

Here you would be considered anti-gun because of your "reasonable restrictions".

Stick with me though, in a year or two, you'll be wanting to move so that you can buy suppressed automatic weapons and you be petitioning Congress to loosen up.
 
#10 ·
I don't care what they ban,a criminal with knowledge and either the FA parts or a machine shop can pretty much turn any semi auto firearm into a select fire weapon.getting caught with a FA weapon is low on their radar since the crimes they are into that would dictate needing that weapon carry a lot more prison time.My buddy bought his M16 for $3000.00,His HK MP5 was $5000,his UZI was $1500.00,AK47 was $7000,you couldn't buy the M16 today for what he paid for all his FA's.To tell you the truth I worry about him every time he leaves the gun range and people know he's got those guns,I tell him to watch his 6 and drive home a different way watching for tails.If somebody wanted a FA bad enough,they wouldn't hesitate to kill somebody and rob his guns,especially living 20 miles from Mexico.FA's are fun but they can create problems for owners.
 
#11 ·
(1)Others may disagree, but as a serious deer hunter, I'm very aware of poachers here in MI during hunting season. I'm positive, in MI, suppressors would be used after dark by a greater number of hunters if they became more available in MI.

(2)As ownership of full-auto increases, at the very least in ratio, those couple of instances where legally owned full autos have ever been used in a crime would increase. IMO and experience, if even a American 180 were easier to aquire in lower MI, they would often be used in drive buys.
It really isn't about "disagreement." The fact is, the best predicator of future response is past behavior. In light of that, and given that use of a suppressor or other Class III item in a crime become a Federal felony, it is very unlikely that "poachers" would run rampant with them. At least they haven't in the 32+ years since the 1936 Machine Gun Act.(1)

(2) AFIK, there still has never been a crime committed with a legal Class III device.

Facts don't support your case.
 
#12 ·
I'm willing to adhere to reasonable regulation so long as it does not infringe on 2A.
Any regulation infringes on our 2A rights, in my opinion. What is "reasonable regulation"? Limiting things that you personally don't care for?
 
#15 · (Edited)
No, there are many things I would like (for example, as I stated, a suppressor) that I am willing to do without, as I think they are best to do without.

...very unlikely that "poachers" would run rampant with them...Facts don't support your case.
Where ever your cognitive dissonance has taken you, your facts are wrong.

For example, if suppressor were more widely available, I have no doubt they would be used more often in a firearm crime.

There are many examples I know of where hunters used home made suppressed firearm to poach or went out at night with a bow. I don't care what you believe, because this is a public forum, and details do not serve my interests. In contrast to what you want to believe, I know from first hand.

Hotguns is in fact correct...Several members here are in the Class III community...
I have no doubt that few in the Class III community have used that firearm in a crime. Not the point.
 
#13 ·
As one example, you use your opinion as fact, that banned weapons do not restrict BG from aquiring those weapons.
Hotguns is in fact correct. This is why the AFTE has such a case load of "illegal manufacture/possession of machine gun(s)/destructive devices," and, "possession with ready ability to create," relating to machinegun parts, SBRs and SBSs.

You may certainly retain your opinion, but without facts, "opinions" are irrelevant to cogent discussion. Several members here are in the Class III community. Some(myself) have spent considerable time with manufacturers and dealers of Class III items. I would strongly commend Small Arms Review to your attention, as it is the best industry (Class III) publication I have found.
 
#14 ·
I'm with Andy W. on this one. Any laws are an infringement.

Most of the laws are silly. Committing murder with a knife might have a 3 year sentence, but if you murder someone with a gun it might be an 8 year sentence - if the gun is FA then maybe its 13 years. Silly because the crime is murder one way or another.

Just my opinion,

Austin
 
#16 ·
So Thanis...are you readly let everyone keep theirs without regulating them into oblivion?
If you are asking if I think full-auto and burst-fire should be as available to the general public as my Glock, and is protected by 2A.
I would say no. In my personal opinion, I believe full-auto and brurst-fire firearms are more a privlage then a right.

As interesting as they are, full-auto and brurst-fire firearms are battle field / combat weapons.

I don't have all the details figured out, and if it came up for a vote or something like that, I would need to consider this more. But as far as my gut, ATM, full-auto and brurst-fire firearms are battle field belong to the state-milita part of 2A. Personal ownership of these weapons beyond LE appear to fall under privlage and not a right.
 
#17 ·
Thanis,

Most every firearm including revolvers and grandpa's hunting rifle have been either applied toward combat on a battle field or started out as designed for combat on a battle field. And then there are all the various types of pistol and rifle centerfire ammunition toward same.

I have a book called The Encyclopedia of The Gun that details out firearm history going backward in time to the days of literal hand cannon musket loaded blackpowder single shot 'psitols' and comes forward into modern arms circa the books print of IIRC 2003.
You might be shocked and surprised at how many and how often arms were used in combat on a battle field, even arms that started out as being civilian purposed for hunting or sporting.

If we were to snap of a finger full ban every firearm that ever was combat applied then there would basically be relatively little to no firearms remaining to be had lawfully. BTW that is not hyperbole. I am being completely serious and as factual as I know and understand factual firearms history to be.

The battlefield/combat weapons reasoning is unreasonable and irrational too.
Apply same reasoning toward motor vehicles such as airplanes, trains, boats, motorcycles, trucks, and yes even cars...and the result would be equally devastating past and present history inclusive.
And before you think yeah but planes, trains, and automobiles don't kill people...consider also that firearms do not do so either. It is the operators that use them by specific intent to do so. And just as firearms have been used by specific intent person to intimidate, injure, and kill. Exact same can be said for airplanes, trains, and every other motorized vehicle and common conveyance.

- Janq
 
#18 ·
Also, any criminal who seriously wants to get a full auto just has to skip across the border. There are heavily armed mexican drug runners who yes, also wield full auto weaponry.

If I could lift any restriction, I'd say it'd be on the new manufacture and importation of FA weapons. They're already effectively banned for the average joe (as they're not going to take the time and money to jump through the hoops).
 
#27 ·
As ownership of full-auto increases, at the very least in ratio, those couple of instances where legally owned full autos have ever been used in a crime would increase. IMO and experience, if even a American 180 were easier to aquire in lower MI, they would often be used in drive buys.
You certainly have an opinion, but not experience. There are no, "couple of instances." Legal machine guns aren't used in drive-bys(at least those not stolen from LE/Mil/Dealers.)

Class III "discussion," will continue to be akin to discussion of communicable disease transmission with someone who believes that bathing will give you the flu, until you educate yourself.
 
#31 ·
Thanis. You're losing it brother.

You are using the same emotional and illogical rhetoric for your reasoning that the anti's and liberals are known for and you are starting to use the same buzzwords in your posts.
Not the way to argue with people that know better.
 
#37 ·
Back at ya.

Well HotGuns, it is because my heart is not into this thread. I'm just responding. I can provide studies, etc but then people attack the meaning of that information, the org that did the study, start spewing famous quotes, etc.

Look at what I have to deal with concerning suppressors. People are demanding examples, I can't provide those examples on this forum, so the conversation turns into a type of name calling. IMO, pointless.

Winning a debate on an internet forum is like shoving you head up a bull's (sensor), taking it out, and spewing bull (sensor). This is not directed at you, but everyone. Every once in a while you learn something new. But most of the time, it is just the same old opinion threads.

Most days I don't mind the conversation, but I really have bigger things going on, and can't bring myself to spend time on an internet debate beyond thoughts.

Per the origional thread, I was just trying to learn something about burst-fire and full-auto firearms (but not get caught into the same arguements I can read in every thread).
 
#32 ·
I don't know, I'm really torn on this one. Normally, I'm against any sort of big brother laws, and gun control certainly is just that. However, I've seen a lot of people do a lot of really stupid things when they get to fondle a FA weapon. Its like they lose IQ points, go to retarded mode, and start doing the dumbest of things.
There a plenty of people who shouldnt have a single shot 22, and I'm not sure giving easy access to FA is the smartest of things to do. At least now, its the serious collector or shooter that is willing to jump the hurdles to get one, and I dont think thats such a bad thing.
 
#34 ·
...I'm not sure giving easy access to FA is the smartest of things to do. At least now, its the serious collector or shooter that is willing to jump the hurdles to get one, and I dont think thats such a bad thing.
Any coke-using jackanapes can get financing for a Prosche or a Ducati... Jimmy Bob can drive his daddy's '69 Camero with the 454 in it... as long as we're discussing people being entrusted with dangerous devices...:wink:
 
#33 ·
I've seen a lot of people do a lot of really stupid things when they get to fondle a FA weapon. Its like they lose IQ points, go to retarded mode, and start doing the dumbest of things.
We arent talking about Cops here,we are talking about "normal "people.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

sorry..couldn't resist...:image035:
 
#40 ·
I doubt those who, under the current requirements, legally own a suppressor, full-auto, or burst-fire would use that weapon in a crime. I doubt it has never happened, but it would be very rare.

I feel somehow hijacked into being labled into something I'm not trying to prove. I'm sure the legal community of elites and not so elites, who have this class of firearm, are law abiding.

What I do believe, is if suppressor, full-auto, or burst-fire were more common, they would be used far more often in crimes. Simple matter of the application being useful.

From the tommy gun, to many other periods in history, there is a reason (that I'm ok with) some items are not generally available beyond the jedi-mind tricks of anti-gun and big brother.
 
#41 ·
Look at what I have to deal with concerning suppressors. People are demanding examples, I can't provide those examples on this forum, so the conversation turns into a type of name calling. IMO, pointless.
I don't see any name calling going here, if so I would have edited it.
When someone asks for why you think the way you do, and asks for an example to support why you think that way, thats really not much too ask.

Occasionally I work with some AG&F officers. Although I am sure its happened over the years, I have yet to hear of a deer hunter being busted with a suppressor. I have heard of them being busted with night vision scopes that they were using at night we have one a few weeks ago.

Lots a people have opinions that aren't based on reality. Several of your posts and comments are dealing with what you think to be fact, yet you cant support it.

There are many,many assumptions about the Class 3 world. Most of them are wrong. When we talk about that stuff we try to put out the facts and kill the misinformation and misrepresentations about that.

You are talking about people whacking deer with a suppressor. Did you know I did exactly that the first day of deer season? I whacked a 10 point with my suppressed .300 Whisper. Even here in Arkansas where it is perfectly legal, some people are amazed that I can legally build, own and use a suppressor. You cant imagine how many times I've heard, "thats illegal". Some of them will even try to argue about something they know nothing about.

I can understand people that come from states that don't allow it all not being familiar with it. But for some one up north to say, they would ban something, just because they don't understand it, makes no sense to me.It never has and it never will.

And forgive me if I take offense at someone wanting to ban my stuff that is legal, because they don't understand it.

So,since your heart is no longer in it, and you started this thread, I am closing it because there is no point in continuing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top