Why shouldn’t people be allowed to own machineguns? To get one requires a deep FBI background check, fingerprinting/photographing, and an interview with your local Chief LEO. Then, the specific machinegun in question is registered with the BATF, with appropriate paperwork. And subject to random periodic inspection by the BATF to make sure you still have it (or them, if multiple).
In essence, it’s the sort of scrutiny a lot of people would like to have applied to ordinary rifle, shotgun, and handgun purchases and transfers.
It’s also an illustration that for many, there’s no such thing as “too much gun control.” In spite of a sterling record of no violent crime committed with legally owned and registered machineguns since the passage of the N.F.A. of '34 (note the dates on the two incidents linked below), Congress nonetheless decided to double down on it and added the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act in '86.
Since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, there have been two violent crimes committed with legally owned MGs: a (IIRC) Cincinatti physician who, in '92 or thereabouts, went through all the steps I described above, just to murder his wife with it (IIRC, he thought she was cheating on him). The other was a Dayton cop who used a department owned MG in '88 in a murder-for-hire scheme.
The Big Event in the MG community is the semi-annual Knob Creek Shoot.
Only in the sense that in making the larger accurate point, an inconsequential one was not technically accurate. If you choose to view that as a lie, that’s certainly your prerogative.
But I think that for you to do so would be to stretch the definition to an, shall we say, dishonest degree?
You must be referring to posts that referenced the fact that there were some drug addicts in NYC in the early 1900’s or that some girls actually got pregnant in the fifties. :rolleyes:
There is simply no comparison between now and the 50’s in terms of the things I just mentioned upthread. None! You know it, and everyone else knows it! All that remains is who’s going to accept culpability and start working to get it straightened out, and who’s going to continue to stick their head in the sand and pretend it just happened all by itself.
As you show, keeping ownership very tightly controlled works. So why *aren’t *we doing it for “ordinary rifle, shotgun, and handgun purchases and transfers”?
All fair points and I had no idea there was a contingent of society that used machine guns for entertainment purposes. Ignorance fought on that score.
Would you object to these same criteria and background checks being applied to semi-automatic weapons as well? Obviously they HAVE been used to massacre people and they do a hell of a lot more damage than a handgun or rifle (all the school shooting victims had multiple gun shot wounds–one of the kids took 11 bullets). It would seem prudent to me to apply these same safety measures to semi-automatic weapons, since these controls have clearly been effective for machine gun owners. That said, I would be interested in other perspectives.
The advocacy group Gun Owners of America know exactly how the Newtown massacre might have been averted: Guns in schools.
And in the hours after the tragedy, Larry Pratt, the group’s executive director is calling on state and federal lawmakers to overturn any bans on guns in schools. More hauntingly, he is suggesting gun control advocates “have the blood of little children on their hands.”
Here is his statement:
“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”
The Gun Owners of America claim a national membership of 300,000 people.
Here’s the thing. Whatever the system is now is broken. The guns this guy used to pull this off were bought legally by his mother. If they hadn’t been legal for her to buy, she probably wouldn’t have bought them and it would have been much more difficult for the shooter to get his hands on those type of guns.
And that’s the point. Sometimes I think pro-gun people think that anti-gun people (for lack of better terms) want gun control laws just so they can revel in the sweet, sweet punishment when somebody breaks them. It’s prevention that is the aim.
I think this post carries in it something very interesting to me and that’s this egalitarian approach where two ideas - one, to use poster words, is the idea held by pro-gun people and the other idea is held by anti-gun people - are being discussed as if they are of the same value to the society. I’m still working on mentally comprehending it myself in terms of how to define it and explain it. To me, it is very similar to the setup and dynamic that produces pro and anti abortion and pro and anti gay marriage battlefields as if - and this is my opinion - it is an idea in the philosophical sense forgetting that behind these ideas there are people who suffer from the consequences almost on a daily basis.
From what I read and hear on the guns situation in US I’m very much surprised that the numbers are this low. There’s a kid like this in almost any “little town USA” and there’s also guns very much available and accessible at the same place so it is purely a chance that they go off like this.
I wouldn’t really call it protection but I would call it “stoppage.”
If somebody’d had a gun or three they could have offed that little asshole while he was leisurely going about his business shooting each of those kids multiple times.
The cite is in the liar’s post. Nowhere in the cited article is there anything to indicate that Larry Pratt suggested anything even close to “kids should have been shooting back.”
You’re missing a key point: in 1934, when machine guns first began to be regulated, there weren’t many machine guns around. So the lawmakers had a “clean slate” to work with. That wasn’t the case with ‘ordinary guns’ even in 1934 (much less today). Tight regulations of the type used for machine guns aren’t likely to work because they’re too easy to evade via the black market. Because machine guns were so tightly regulated from the beginning, they’re essentially all accounted for, and therefore can’t be traded through the black market.
Some states (such as my own) do require extra checks before a person is permitted to purchase handguns, but they’re not as stringent as the one required for machine guns. Frankly, I’d rather see more mandatory education classes (which would cover such topics as safe handling and storage and state laws on legal versus illegal use of lethal force) over additional background checks, as I think they’d do more to prevent reckless handling and use.
