Full auto fire and weapon bans

**Robstafarian** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 12:05am

Originally Posted by Red Elvis

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

Oh ****, now that's getting into some fucked up laws. Start a new thread if you're interested; I'm sure some Canadians are around to comment, and I can certainly share what I've learned about Canadian gun laws from my own research (I looked into various factors regarding a possible move to Montreal, a move which I want to make as soon as possible).

**thatrugbyguy** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 12:09am

Originally Posted by Red Elvis

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)?

Yes, I was thinking of LMG's and GPMG's. Mostly because a) they are so often conflated with select fire AR's and b) because they are light infantry weapons that can, in a pinch, be used as an individual weapon.

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.

I'm not out and out disagreeing with you. Obviously the less capabilities that the enemy has the better. I'm just saying that the difference between having being able to switch to full auto or being stuck with rapid semi-auto fire is a niche factor that might make a difference with a little help from Murphy. A well positioned MG, on the other hand, can provide game changing fire superiority. Using an AR in the same role is an order of magnitude less hitting power.
They are both worries, only one is big worry and the other is considerably less so.

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...

Quite frankly, I'd be worried if something like this wasn't a PR nightmare. Actively interfering or spreading misinformation is a different story though.

**mad_malk** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 12:14am

personally as Citizens of the United States of America i think the line in the sand on what private citizens are allowed to own should be at WMD's. if it's not a WMD and you can afford it and maintain it and store it safely then Go buy and own what ever you want. Just be prepared to pay for for that road you tore up with your tank etc.

**ArrogantBastard** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 12:38am

How do bans/restrictions on firearms affect crime rates if most are committed using illegally obtained weapons?

**Hooded Justice** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 1:41am

Coincidentally I just got into a discussion about this subject with a gun store owner and former marine. Myself being a fairly liberal dude but also a gun lover, I believe that full auto weapons as far as civilians are concerned are nothing more than someone wanting something because A) someone else doesn't want them to have it or B) it is fun to shoot and nothing more. ( I have no problem with this if you are honest about it). As it happens the argument as to why civilians should be able to have full auto weapons presented by the store owner was... "Because I should be able to have it." That was the extent she could articulate her reasoning. The former marine who claimed 2 tours in vietnam said he never took his rifle off 3 round burst as full auto was stupid, not accurate and wasteful of ammo as well as harder on your weapon. In a civilians hands all it does is increase the chance of random people getting hit by uncontrolled fully automatic fire and cost way more in ammo and maintenance.

Even legally I would submit that since only very specific police officers ie SWAT and specific members of infantry units are given full auto weaponry that the whole "maintaining a militia" isn't enough to justify joe blow getting a full auto ak.

Also the whole idea of an entire populace being armed = safer society I would submit that that did not work out well when america tried it in the late 1800's/ early 1900's ie wild west where murder rates were higher per capita in some cities than today.

**Hooded Justice** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 1:49am

Originally Posted by ArrogantBastard

How do bans/restrictions on firearms affect crime rates if most are committed using illegally obtained weapons?

For the most part they don't and are mostly for political points. However I am betting that most cops don't have a problem with bans on armor piercing rounds so there could be a bit of subjectivity.

**Mtripp** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 3:44am

Actually, more years ago than I care to remember, Jeff Cooper at the Gunsite proved pretty quickly that accurate fire was far easier with semi auto vs full auto. Spray and pray came from those days; where he felt less ammo in the magazine meant you would aim better.

I understand bowling pins do not shoot back, but in clearing the tables, semi auto fire cleared them faster than full auto every time.

Now, I do not recall three round bursts, but suspect it would fall to the same problem.

My personal handgun of choice for many years is the H&K P7M8. Easy to carry and conceal, and VERY accurate a very long way out there....

**Mtripp** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 3:53am

Originally Posted by Hooded Justice

For the most part they don't and are mostly for political points. However I am betting that most cops don't have a problem with bans on armor piercing rounds so there could be a bit of subjectivity.

No one had a problem with the KTW bullet being banned.

The NRA was not against the banning of "cop killer" bullets.

The problem was the first bill in New York dealing with the issue said any bullet that could penetrate a threat level IIa vest was banned. This meant 99% of all hunting ammo was now banned. The NRA fought against that, and now the left claims the NRA were against banning "cop killer" bullets.

BTW, you do know that no Cop has ever been shot with, let alone killed, with a cop killer bullet. The KTW round was a solid brass bullet coated with teflon made to defeat drug dealers using bullet proof vests. It actually was more widely used by undercover officers in their .25 and .32 hideout guns to insure the bullet would go into the skull.

Bullets of that nature tend to over penetrate and really are not effective stopping rounds. I really don't know of anyone who uses them or would want to anymore.

**adouglasmhor** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 4:44am

The British army managed with Semi-Auto 7.62x51mm (7.62NATO) along with the LMG and GPMG from 1954 to 1985 (and I used one in NI till late 1989). Never heard we were under rifled compared to other countries.

**Rock Ape** · Posted On: 1/18/2010 1:44pm

An automatic weapon simply gives an added weight of fire power in the suppression of the target, it isn't actually intended to be entirely accurate but prevent an enemy freedom of movement. Now at close quarters and in the hands of the right person - and of course depending on the weapon's feed option I.E. magazine or belt fed a lot of damage can be sustained within a very short space of time.

In a crowded place a lot of people are going to get hurt with an automatic system, the same isn't going to be the case with selective fire unless the user is particularly skilled in point of aim (instinctive shots not fired through the sights) and magazine changing drills are pretty slick.