Full auto fire and weapon bans

[chemistry]

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.

I'm going to vehemently disagree, if we're discussing slapping on more bans / regulations. Any further regulations won't have any effect at all.

If we look at those who lawfully own fully automatic weapons, you'll see that they're some of the most law-abiding people you'll ever find. If anything, out of that entire group of those who lawfully own / owned fully automatic weapons, there has only been a single incident, where someone used a NFA authorized weapon, to commit a crime. That single incident was where a rogue police officer used such a weapon. Even if he had not owned such a weapon, he could have easily used his duty weapons instead.

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?

Possibly, but even if they ran out of ammo, they could simply use one of their other weapons, such as the shotguns or that silly TEC9 pistol.

In the end, it was actually better that the Columbine kids resorted to using firearms, since they had placed a large number of propane bombs in the school cafeteria, with boxes of nails attached. The explosion from those alone, could have made the Bath massacre look small in comparison.

"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?

It shouldn't be that big of a deal, seeing how it really isn't a big deal amongst those who lawfully own such weapons.

As for those who illegally own such weapons, well, that's a different story, indeed...

[Matt Phillips]

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?

Bizarre and irresponsible as it is, I actually agree with this. I also think providing scholarships for gangbangers to train at Insite would cut down on innocent victims getting shot in the city (happens too often in Boston) and increase the death rate among gang members. Try gettting that bill sponsored.

Interesting and funny idea. I approve.

[Wounded Ronin]

So, after thinking about this again and re-reading the thread...is it fair to say that full auto fire isn't of decisive tactical importance versus, say, trained and disciplined semi-auto fire? Or is that incorrect?

Hypothetically, if there were a fortified compound or camp filled with angry survivalist militiamen in a rural part of the US, and they were very skilled with their rifles, and had a grasp of tactics, and one day some police organization decided to try and raid their camp and arrest them all, how much of a difference would it make whether the miltia men all had semi-auto rifles, or full-auto rifles?

[thatrugbyguy]

So, after thinking about this again and re-reading the thread...is it fair to say that full auto fire isn't of decisive tactical importance versus, say, trained and disciplined semi-auto fire? Or is that incorrect?

Hypothetically, if there were a fortified compound or camp filled with angry survivalist militiamen in a rural part of the US, and they were very skilled with their rifles, and had a grasp of tactics, and one day some police organization decided to try and raid their camp and arrest them all, how much of a difference would it make whether the miltia men all had semi-auto rifles, or full-auto rifles?

Whether or not they had actual machine guns would make quite a bit of difference. Having full auto vs semi auto rifles not so much.

[Robstafarian]

Whether or not they had actual machine guns would make quite a bit of difference.

This is a good point.

I don't have any strong opinions regarding the availability of automatic rifles, but I certainly wouldn't want honest-to-Browning machine guns to be as easy to buy as shotguns. I draw a line between civilian arms and military arms, and I don't think civilians should have machine guns any more than they should have tanks or mortars.

Don's earlier point about not being limited to owning "necessary" firearms notwithstanding, I think at some point everyone supports some kind of arms control...even Ted Nugent.

[Red Elvis]

So, after thinking about this again and re-reading the thread...is it fair to say that full auto fire isn't of decisive tactical importance versus, say, trained and disciplined semi-auto fire? Or is that incorrect?

Yes and no and shades of gray. It depends upon WHO is using the two methods (or three depending upon weapon), and HOW they are using full auto verses selective semi-auto fire. When used properly and in conjunction with one another full and semi-auto has a tactical advantage over just semi-auto or just full auto. If its a question of either/or then selective fire is better then auto for certain situations and not as good for others. There is not a black and white answer.

Generally speaking a small arms weapon on full auto is best suited for suppression. In other words, keeping the BG's heads down while you maneuver, flank, call for fire, escape, etc. Or you can use it in other ways such as forcing them to move (such as towards an ambush or an area better suited for semi-auto fire), disorienting them, diminishing their accuracy, instilling fear etc.

When you are actively trying to hit targets with any real precision you would switch to selective (single / semi-auto) fire or burst if available (selective still being the better of the two IMHO). You can selective fire and hit targets with consistency pretty damn fast and with WAY more accuracy then you can hit with a weapon on full auto. Not to mention the rate at which you burn ammo on full auto is ridiculous.

When used together you get the best of what I just mentioned above. You keep them low, scared and unable or unwilling to expose themselves while your side has people taking aimed shots and/or _____________ (insert tactic here).

Hypothetically, if there were a fortified compound or camp filled with angry survivalist militiamen in a rural part of the US, and they were very skilled with their rifles, and had a grasp of tactics, and one day some police organization decided to try and raid their camp and arrest them all, how much of a difference would it make whether the miltia men all had semi-auto rifles, or full-auto rifles?

Given your hypothetical situation then yes, they'd be a pain to deal with as they have the capacity to go full or semi and per your example, "have a grasp of tactics" and "are skilled with their weapons". (i.e. they have the tactics to utilize both full and semi-auto fire and know how to shoot). An angry group of survivalist militiamen may very well have former military as well.

Whether or not they had actual machine guns would make quite a bit of difference. Having full auto vs semi auto rifles not so much.

Gonna disagree with your second sentence here on the premise of what I have just stated above. If they are good marksmen and have good tactics having firearms capable of full auto is a tactical advantage. Bear in mind that MOST small arm weapons that can function on full auto have single fire modes as well. It's not an either/or proposition. Having the ability for both and knowing how to utilize them is a bad combo.

Now, if they had a crew served weapons as alluded to in your first sentence then we agree but I didn't see that specifically in the context of his question.

[thatrugbyguy]

Gonna disagree with your second sentence here on the premise of what I have just stated above. If they are good marksmen and have good tactics having firearms capable of full auto is a tactical advantage. Bear in mind that MOST small arm weapons that can function on full auto have single fire modes as well. It's not an either/or proposition. Having the ability for both and knowing how to utilize them is a bad combo.

Now, if they had a crew served weapons as alluded to in your first sentence then we agree but I didn't see that specifically in the context of his question.

In some situations, such as very close quarters or a break contact drill, full auto can make some difference sure.
In defending a prepared defensive position I don't see it making nearly as much a difference as MG's and/or aimed rifle shots, including for suppression purposes.

[Red Elvis]

In some situations, such as very close quarters or a break contact drill, full auto can make some difference sure.
In defending a prepared defensive position I don't see it making nearly as much a difference as MG's and/or aimed rifle shots, including for suppression purposes.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

If I'm attacking a defended position in the scenario as described above by Mr. Sexy Pants, I would prefer the enemy to only have semi-auto small arms rifles as opposed to them having the ability of choosing how and when to go full, burst or semi.

Remember, tactics, terrain, training, number, initiative etc. will dictate how they utilize their weapons. It may be they only utilize their fully auto capable weapons in a semi-auto mode making this discussion a wash. However, they would have the option to utilize good suppression if needed amongst other tactics. I'd prefer they didn't.

Typically these groups in their fortified compounds have a **** boat of ammo and are prepared (to a certain extent) for what most LEO's will throw at them having paid attention to and trained for other similar scenarios. Ultimately, they will loose as better trained/equipped agencies become involved but it has the potential for being a mess and a PR nightmare. Thank the liberal media for this...

(Likewise, in Mr. Pooty Detective's scenario, were I the defender I would prefer full auto weapons to just semi. Again, I might not use them in that capacity but if need be...)


BTW - You keep mentioning **machine guns as being better etc. Of course you gain fire superiority when you add crew served weapons. Ideally you use the crew served weapons for suppression and the small arms for precision shots.

However, I'm not sure why you bring this up though as this wasn't mentioned in the original post or his follow up. If we're gonna just start adding things to up the ante then I want a sniper with a .50 mounted on a roof, an M1 Abrams and an AC-130 Spectre gunship...


**I am assuming you are referring to crew served weapons when you refer to machine guns (MG's)?

Note: Again it's not all or nothing when I say I'd prefer full auto weapons. Ideally were I defending or attacking my peeps would have both. I personally prefer a bolt action but that's just me. Of course, having said bolt action would be much nicer if my spotter had a weapon capable of laying down some heavy **** so we could GTFO if needed.

[Robstafarian]

I am assuming you are referring to crew served weapons when you refer to machine guns (MG's)?

I certainly was, due to the fact that I couldn't remember the correct term (and was too tired to think of a good search query). You made some very good points regarding select-fire weapons, and I agree completely.

Basically, I think you win the thread.

[Red Elvis]

I certainly was, due to the fact that I couldn't remember the correct term (and was too tired to think of a good search query). You made some very good points regarding select-fire weapons, and I agree completely.

Basically, I think you win the thread.

Thats ok. In the first response I used the terms 'selective fire' in a couple spots where 'semi-auto' would be t3h correct. I've been known to say 'clip' too with regards to magazines and slap myself when I do. :icon_conf

As far as winning I think we are all loosers in the regard that we can't exercise our 2nd amendment rights without a bunch of BS laws. (Applies to US only...)

You Canadians and Europeans have your own issues as well I'm sure.