Thread: Full auto fire and weapon bans
6/29/2009 8:39pm, #1
Full auto fire and weapon bans
OK, I just had a thought about weapon bans/laws and full auto fire.
I think it's a fair statement that most people in the US, even including many people who are otherwise pro firearm ownership, would agree that weapons with full auto fire modes should be subject to relatively severe legal regulation in terms of civilian ownership.
Now, I could be totally wrong with my next thought, but since this is a discussion forum I figured that what the hell, I should through it out there and see what kind of feedback I get.
If a nihilistic girly-man pansy, like the Columbine Kids, or that Virginia Tech guy, wanted to go on a shooting rampage and then kill themselves before the SWAT team arrived, and they hypothetically had full auto fire modes on their weapons instead of only semi-auto, would that make them miss a lot more than they would using semi-auto mode, and would that make them run out of ammunition really, really quickly?
Like, if instead of squeezing off individual shots aimed at individual targets, one of those guys had just started spraying around haphazardly like a spaz, would he have possibly hit less people?
You know that either way he'd have burned through his magazines and disarmed himself faster than you can say "media circus".
In other words, if you're going to be an idiot about your shooting, would full auto make you less effective than you'd be if you had semi auto only? "Should" full auto really be the big legal deal that it currently is in the United States, or is it only the icing on the cake?Best Vietnam War music video I've ever seen put together by a vet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDY8raKsdfg
6/29/2009 10:01pm, #2
I don't think it would make much difference. The Virginia Tech guy and the Columbine boys both had something in common, after all: They planned ahead. They collected weapons and practiced with them and got all the ammunition they thought they'd need before making a move. Having select fire weapons would just give them more options, and probably cause them to carry a bit more ammo. Only difference in my opinion is that they would have had a better chance against SWAT and police had they confronted each other."Intelligence is nothing more than discussing things with others. Limitless wisdom comes of this." - 山本 常朝
6/29/2009 11:05pm, #3
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
It's not really that hard to get full auto weapons anyway. I now have two friends who have done the paper work and gotten fully auto weapons. It is cost prohibited, but not really all that hard to do.
I personally don't feel being rich should be the criteria on who gets to own what type of gun and I think they should be legal with your normal background checks. I also think we should be allowed to import them from other countries. It doesn't scare me anymore to think someone has a mp5 then it does to think they have a nice sniper..errr hunting rifle."a martial art that has no rules is nothing but violence" - Kenji Tomiki
6/30/2009 12:34am, #4
While full-auto guns are cost-prohibitive (and everything else prohibitive)...sure they could still be used in a crime. Most full autos are big guns (physically speaking)...with the exception of machine pistols, I guess. They are heavy, difficult to conceal...yeah, the list goes on.
We live in a free society....whether it's a crazy fucker with a 30-round magazine spraying into a schoolyard...or a crazy fucker with a 4-ton truck with 30 gallons of gasoline mowing down innocent people---our best, collective defense is to ensure our populace is armed. The government (military or police) will never be able to afford us REAL protection...and it shouldn't be their job to, anyway. We are all collectively responsible for our own safety as well as that of our neighbors and communities. We should start acting like it and take some personal responsibility instead of railing against weapons ownership and whining like sissies.
7/01/2009 12:01am, #5
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
7/01/2009 12:16am, #6
No, it shouldn't be a big deal, but as you pointed out, it is. For better or worse, the average gun owner draws a bright line between owning a semi-automatic firearm and owning a fully-automatic firearm, which is at least partly our own fault. Because we recognize that the public thinks full-auto is dangerous and useful only for crime, and because the other side knows it too and spends so much time trying to confuse the public about which is which, we necessarily spend a lot of time explaining that our semi-automatic firearms aren't machine guns.
The downside of that is that such explanations carry with them the tacit implication that semi-automatic firearms are legitimate weapons for civilians, but full-auto are not.
An added complication is that although I would like to own an automatic rifle and a few subguns as a collector, they really, truly won't do anything that a semi-auto rifle won't do. They aren't necessary. Now, you should not be limited to what is "necessary," in my opinion, but in the real world I've got a dozen fights going on politically at any given moment, and full-autos are at the bottom of my priority list. I want CCW first, for instance, because that's something I can use. If you're trying to raise and train a militia/home guard unit, then the unit probably ought to have a machine gun or two, but as an individual I just don't have much call for one.
7/01/2009 3:49pm, #7
7/01/2009 3:56pm, #8
7/01/2009 4:05pm, #9
7/01/2009 4:52pm, #10