Should Full Auto's Be Legal?

[dudester]

I just got off the phone with a friend and we were having a discussion about whether or not regular folks should be able to legally purchase and own full auto's (AK's, M16's, etc). His argument is that regular folks don't "need" full autos and that only military and law enforcement should own these. When I asked him why he couldn't really explain it to me (surprise). So what do you all think?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ccw9mm]

The need is dictated by the situation, and plenty of folks find themselves in situations where more lead would help. That's where select-fire weapons would come into play.

And, when it comes right down to it, the only real way that criminals amongst us are going to be eliminated is if the likelihood of their being stopped in their tracks approaches 100%. Can't be doing that with a disarmed population. IMO, full-auto arms have their place, and having them in the hands of ONLY the temporarily elected folks (and their forces) isn't rational or desirable in a free nation.

[highvoltage]

I just got off the phone with a friend and we were having a discussion about whether or not regular folks should be able to legally purchase and own full auto's (AK's, M16's, etc). His argument is that regular folks don't "need" full autos and that only military and law enforcement should own these. When I asked him why he couldn't really explain it to me (surprise). So what do you all think?

It would take a lot of practice to perfect shot placement. I doubt most people would have the monetary resources to be able to afford to practice to the point where they are placing every shot where they want to.

Given that scenario, I would not want to be around someone with an automatic in their hands and badly honed skills.

[hihosilver]

I say no... that would mean that much LESS ammo for me to buy.

[Siafu]

I can barely afford my ammo now.

[AZ Husker]

They already ARE legal in most areas. You just have to jump through a few hoops and come up with the moola.

[bandit383]

Good question...still trying to figure the "why"...from a defensive standpoint.

[MSGTLEGO]

I love my guns but my feels are:

No need for full Auto, in the civilian sector

[Jackle1886]

Shot placement still matters...and the PEOPLE should have access to the same weapons as LEO's and military.

[archer51]

Full auto's are legal, it just takes a lot of time, money and hoop jumping through to get the paperwork to own one.

[Duisburg]

I think that new machine guns should be allowed to purchase by citizens. I would love to see some prices on NEW M16s, MP5s, American 180's, M2's and more new guns like the FN 240 and the SCAR.

Keep the NFA rules but do away with any other (1986) laws that restrict new imports and new machine gun sales.

Think about it, with newer machine guns and vastly more supply of them the prices would drop on them. Same principle for what happened to the prices of high-cap magazines during the dreaded gun ban years => once citizens were allowed to buy new hi-cap magazines the prices for them dropped. I remember a 33 round glock magazine selling for more than $150 yet after the ban in 2004 those same magazines fell to $30

[bmcgilvray]

Folks don't need automobiles with 300 hp engines that are capable of going faster than the highest posted speed limit.

Yes, law abiding American citizens should be able to own full auto.

[edr9x23super]

To me there is no advantage to owning one; I look at it this way:

At 100 or even 50 yards, I can fire an AR-15 accurately, with splits averaging about .2 to .3 seconds between shots. When I was shooting a lot of 3 gun, those splits were lower than that. And these are accurate shots that will hit something. When these guns go full auto, the muzzle climbs and gets off target after the second round cooks off and the operator then struggles to get it back on target. You can get a custom comp to help combat this, but you are still going to be inaccurate. The US military tried to offer an option by making their M16s with a 3-round burst feature, which helps, but it still won't beat practiced, aimed semi-auto fire that hits every time.

I also don't buy the argument that a full-auto weapon is better in CQB, either. If its within 25 yards, give me a Benelli M5 with a 10 round mag, you can concentrate awesome firepower instantly, and fire as fast as any semi-auto AR.

Personally, the only reason i would own one is so that we could keep the right to do so, money allowing. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money, but luckily a relative of mine does, so I get to shoot them quite often, and my experiences shooting MP-5s, M16s, an authentic Thompson and an FAL and the prized possession - An original WWII era Browning BAR have all convinced me of my views on this. Full auto weapons do have their place on some battlefields, but experience with them tells me I would rather fire accurately, and control where those rounds go than save a few hundredths of a second and risk a few hundred months in prison because an innocent bystander got hit.

[Tally XD]

I am torn on this. I personally have no need or desire for a full auto anything.

I also see no need for the general public to have them, however, I totally disagree with gun control of any kind really.

I think they are a terrible waste of ammunition. Full auto is designed for suppressive fire, not accurate fire. Who needs suppressive fire as a civilian?

I sure do not think the gangsta's (real gangs of all colors) need any easier access to them than they already have. However, again, gun control doesn't work so if they want them they will find a way to get them.

I could however, see having the selective "three round burst" mode available.

[MSGTLEGO]

"One Round One Kill"
To me shot placement and control are key, but I do understand the "Right to do so" issue. But I still don't see the need.