You know I can’t let this one go, Tank. We regulate the hell out of machine guns. In California and some other places, they’re regulated almost right out of legal existence.
Yet that one crime by a registered owner was not the only crime committed with a full auto weapon. Machine guns are used in crimes. If they had been legal, all those crimes would have been committed with legal machine guns, and we’d be just as outraged.
Minty:
Where did I say we didn’t? All I said is that it was generally legal within the U.S.A. Of course YMMV by state. I didn’t get into all of the details necessary to acquire one (fingerprint cards, photos, lengthy forms, lengthy wait, lots of money, etc,).
But, as a law-abiding Texan, if I wanted to legally obtain an N.F.A. (full-auto) weapon, and had the cash, it would only be a matter of time before I had one. I don’t have the cash, or the desire either, FWIW.
But: If they were unilaterally illegal, there wouldn’t be any legally owned machingunes or full-auto weapons in the U.S.A.
It was the only violent crime committed with a legally owned, N.F.A. registered full-auto weapon. There were dozens, if not hundreds of “crimes” committed every year in the 80s and 90s by registered N.F.A. owners because some A.T.F Inspector or another didn’t like the way the “i’s” were dotted or the “t’s” were crossed on the paperwork.
These paperwork infractions are not violent felonies.
A crystal ball cite?
We can play “if” games all day long. If the fly had a .45, the froggy wouldn’t fuck with him.
My point, Tank, is that you can’t prove that machine guns do not pose a threat by defining the threat with reference only to crimes committed with legally-held machine guns. Fully automatic weapons are used in a surprising number of crimes, and their uniquely dangerous nature makes them a perfectly appropriate subject of massive regulation and restrictions.
minty, do you actually have any stats that show the suprising number of crimes committed with illegal fully-automatic weapons?
I can’t find any comprehensive numbers, but I found mention that a total of 4 police officers were killed with full-auto weapons from 1983 to 1992. Not a real helpful number, as it only accounts for LEOs and is not current. Also, I found that 2.3% of the gun homicides in Canada in 1994 were committed with full-auto weapons. Again, not very helpful. The Bureau of Justice Statistics only divides their gun crime stats into “handguns” and “other guns”, so no luck there either.
Regardless…
It is prohibitively expensive for most people to own legal fully-automatic weapons. This most likely accounts for the minute number of crimes committed with such weapons. This should be apparent to anyone. Given the number of murders committed with legal guns, it is logical to assume that more crime would be committed with full-auto weapons if they were as legal to own as any handgun or rifle. I personally do not really object to the current laws regarding fully-automatic weapons. Now, the uneven application of the law WRT the paperwork of said weapons is another matter…
While it would probably be a lot of fun to “rock&roll” with a full-auto gun, I am willing to forego that experience in the interest of general public safety. I am also not interested in joining a militia and roaming around the hills hunting for packs of unruly illegal aliens, keeping America safe for Americans or any other such nonsense.
What I am interested in is being able to defend myself and my family in the most effecient manner. That means being able to own and carry a handgun. The only thing that I see, on a federal level, that totally ensures that I will continue to be able to own and carry a handgun, so I can defend myself, is the 2nd Amendment. I’d imagine that many people feel the same way.
I am fortunate to live in a state that has its own RKBA amendment to its Constitution. I feel sorry for those who live in a state that does not, and who have to rely solely on the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution to protect their ability to defend themselves. This 9th Circuit ruling, among others, erodes that protection.
Will the Bureau of Justice Statistics report on Firearm Use by Offenders (Nov. 2001) suffice? That report says that among inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were incarcerated, 2.4% of state prisoners and 3.8% of federal prisoners reported carrying a fully automatic weapon.
Perhaps you can see why I object to the “only one crime” factoid?
Actually, I understood it before, and, FTR, I agree with it.
I was looking in the wrong place on the BJC website, thanks. One nitpick though: “carrying a firearm during current offense” doesn’t necessarily mean that the prisoners were using the weapon to commit a crime…unless, of course, the crime committed was possesion of a full-auto weapon without a permit. However, that’s a minor quibble.
From page 2 minty.
“Less than 2% of inmates reported carrying a fully automatic or military-style semiautomatic firearm.” So help me out here, where did you find the stats in your post?
Page 3, left hand column. As I said, 2.4% and 3.8% were the figures “among inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were incarcerated.” The “less than 2%” figure you cite is the percentage of all inmates.
minty:
Did I suggest otherwise? My point was that further restrictions upon legal owners of fully automatic weaponry was unecessary; that there wasn’t sufficient crime committed by legal owners of fully automatic weaponry to warrant such measures.
Of course, we always can pass more laws to make triple-super-duper illegal for the illegal owners. :rolleyes:
Read what I say, not what you want to see.
I read what you said, which was to repeat the old saw about how there’s only been one violent crime committed with a legally owned machine gun in however many decades. That is only half the story, and I merely wished to reveal that other half.
Which means in Minty’s world this?
Color RED by Gus
Lightning is a bigger danger to shooting victims than automatic weapons. YMMV
(Pissit:::: ) I have been hit by lightning twice, got witnesses and everything, so I have some real life static’s for my statement.
Yes, sadly, it turns out that there are apparently many thousands of times more crimes committed with (presumably) illegal automatic weapons than the reported one crime with a legal automatic weapon. My apologies for so dramatically underplaying the true picture. I should have said that I wished to reveal the other 99.999% of the story.
Let me know if there’s any more math I can clarify for you, okay?
Color by Gus
And that number is?
Committed with, not picked up while in possession of —
Automatic as in full automatic = machine gun or are you saying that an semi-automatic pistol is included in automatic weapons?
Gus, how 'bout you read the damn link? It’s not like it fails to answer your questions.
Question Minty. If a burglar robbed a house (no one home) and was later caught and he claimed that while he was doing the burglary, he was carrying a machine gun = fully automatic, that you and the statisticians include that as an useable statistic on how often a machine gun is used in a violent crime?
I can find no where on that page where it says anything about what is known to have been done, but it IS all about what they, the convicted felons, SAY they did.
It is not a matter of public record that it is a fact, but that it is hearsay from convicted felons.
Please show me where it says anything other that what the interviewed prisoners SAID they did.
Or that is the kind of thing you take at face value?
So, you’re prepared to reject it in its entirety? Oh well, you know where google is. Knock yourself out finding data more to your liking.
Absolutely did not say that. I asked if you took it at face value?
My dad and all my uncles “could” have bought and owned any type of fully automatic machine gun, since it was totally legal during most of his lifetime. (actually, all weapons known to man were totaly legal for any U.S. citizen back then)
The fact is, that a machine gun has very limited use, and is not very practical. It is most effective in laying down a lot of bullets in a very short period of time.
The only practical use that I can think of is if you are outnumbered, and you are being charged by a whole lot of people. This fits in with wartime situtations, but something that is now never encountered by a private citizen, since the last indian wars ended.
I have shot many different kinds of machine guns(to my complete and total surprise, I definitely prefer the uzi), and the cost of owning one, pales in comparison to the cost of ammunition. Sure, it is fun to shoot a machine gun, but I cant think of why I would be better off in any situation with carrying one.
Most people do not own machine guns, because they dont need them or want them.
Those of us who grew up with guns, feel that a repeating rifle(one kill per shot fired) is all we need when compared to the machine gun.
Not true.
Our Founding Fathers stated unequivocally that our rights came not from men, nor governments, but from our Creator. Since our rights are from our Creator and therefore preceded the founding of this country, the government, state or federal, has no authority to deprive us of our rights no matter how unpopular they might become with the government, or even the majority of the people of any state.