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

This is a discussion on Why someone that has never shot full or burst firearm want to ban ownership of them? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; From a previous thread: Originally Posted by HotGuns ...One thing that I never understood though, Thanis, that you might be able to help me with. ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347

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

    From a previous thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,627
    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.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I think that your logic is somewhat flawed here...
    Agree, however so is yours, IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...You are assuming that another limitation on a firearm would make a difference to a thug. Trust me here, it doesn't...
    Agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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:

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I think that your logic is somewhat flawed here...
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    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. #4
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    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.
    Sensible advice IMO. This thread is off on a tangent.

  6. #5
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,627
    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.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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).

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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).

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ...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.

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,627
    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.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...As intellectual as some people would like to think of themselves...
    Well, I'm not striving to be intellectual, just intellectually honest.

  10. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,627
    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.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,093
    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.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    (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.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array Andy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    983
    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?
    America: Your government is not ignoring you, it's insulting you.

    The Bill of Rights: Void where prohibited by law.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    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.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array aus71383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,543
    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. #15
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy W. View Post
    Any regulation infringes on our 2A rights, in my opinion. What is "reasonable regulation"? Limiting things that you personally don't care for?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72 View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Thanis; December 17th, 2008 at 06:22 PM. Reason: spelling

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. No new full-auto or burst-fire firearms on civilian market since 1984?
    By Thanis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: December 19th, 2008, 11:55 PM
  2. Why own a full-auto or burst-fire firearm?
    By Thanis in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 07:32 PM

Search tags for this page

chienkuo mi

,
chienkuo mi and truth as a semantic switch
Click on a term to search for related topics.