You forgot to link to the source where you lifted that paragraph, Susanann. Please try to be a little more fastidious in attributing other people’s intellectual property around here.
Thanks, minty, I looked at the stats on page three on the right, and then glossed down the rest of the pdf file. I am quite suprised at those stats, since any crime committed with a semi-auto military style rifle gets front page headlines, and the only two that come to mind is the LA bank robbery a few years ago and the assassination of a Sheriffs candidate in GA(?), last year or the year before last. I wonder if those stats for machine guns used in crimes is for guys involved in the drug trade?
I wouldn’t be surprised, given the much higher rates for federal prisoners. It is self-reporting, so take the figures with a grain of salt. My point was only to demonstrate that, indeed, a fair number of criminals are using full auto weapons.
Nitpick: The bank robbery was not committed with “semi-auto military style rifles”. The robbers used assault rifles, which by definition are selective fire. The footage clearly show that they were being fired in the automatic mode. These were not things that a person could just go out and buy (certainly not in California!).
I don’t know how the robbers got the guns, but there are a couple of possibilities. Either they were using military weapons that were smuggled in, or they modified civilian semi-autos to fire automatically. Note that smuggling is illegal. Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted for about 70 years or so. Modifying a firearm to fire automatically is prohibited under the same decades-old laws. (Not to mention that robbery, murder, etc. are also illegal.)
Of course possession of assault rifles (as defined) is legal in some cases. A federal background check is required, a transfer tax must be paid, etc. You also have to live in a state that allows it (California is not such a state). I am not aware of any crimes that have been committed with a legally-held machine gun.
Here’s one:
Here’s another: the three survivalist nutballs who killed one cop and wounded several others in Utah a few years back.
And remember the “Texas Seven,” the guys who broke out of jail about two years ago, then killed a cop when they robbed an Oshman’s for more guns? They had a thing for automatic weapons too, though I can’t tell whether they killed Officer Hawkins with one (several opened fire on him).
Here’s some 1996 news about our pals in China:
The guy who shot up the North Valley Jewish Community Center a few years ago got an extra ten years on his sentence for possession of a machine gun, though he used a different illegal weapon in that shooting.
Sorry, I had had put the link in on the other thread, but I forgot on this one for the same quote .
minty green: You’ll notice that I said legally-held machine guns. Your link says: “In the end, law enforcement would be left with little; a dead suspect who was a convicted felon, an unlawfully possessed fully automatic weapon with an obliterated serial number”. Bennie Lee Lawson did not possess the gun legally.
The “Texas Seven” did not legally possess machine guns.
The Chinese guns were not legally possessed.
So I am still not aware of any crimes in which the criminals have used legally possessed machineguns in the commission of their crimes. At least not for almost three quarters of a century.
I was replying to BF, who was asking for full auto crimes period. I’ve also already replied to ExTank on how it’s inappropriate to define away the problem by limiting it to “legally held” machine guns.
I’ll go back and see if I can find that post. Since your post was a couple of hours after mine where I told BF that there is a difference between “semi-auto” and “automatic” I thought you were replying to me. But in the meantime…
If you don’t limit the problem to lawfully possessed machine guns, then how do you handle the unlawfully possessed ones? I mean, you either have one legally or you don’t. Very, very few people have machine guns legally or illegally. Since there is no case that I’m aware of where a legally possessed machine gun was used criminally, and even if there were one or two, it’s clear that machine guns are not a large problem and that people who have them illegally can be prosecuted under existing laws. What? Are you going to make them “double-secret-ultra-cosmo restricted”?
Did something give you the impression that I was advocating further restrictions on machine guns?
You personally? Not to my knowledge. However, your continued pursuit of my innocuous (and factually correct) statement that:
may lead people to draw their own conclusions independent of any statement you may make to the contrary.
Upon review, I can see how that statement might be interpreted to imply that obtaining a fully automatic weapon was as simple as driving down to the neighborhood Wal-Mart; on that basis (even though it hadn’t been mentioned in that regards) I’ll stand corrected.
But I do believe that limiting questions of practicality of any new law or restriction upon firearms or categories of firearms to discrete, defineable categories to be of utmost importance. I want to see if and how a particular category of weapon is a present or logically perceivable future threat to society; not hear about how it may potentially be one. I will balance [my] liberty and individual rights on the one hand against the cost to society. Since the vast majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by inner-city gangs, I feel no personal responsibility or need to surrender my right to keep and bear arms.
It comes from the POV of believeing that individuals have the inalienable (but not unrestricted) right to keep and bear arms, in spite of what those inflatible ass-clowns (er, excuse me, Appelate Court Justices) have said or have to say on the matter, and that the burden of proof for more restrictions and limitations on that right must be bourne by those wishing to do the restricting to show how a weapon, or category of weapons, pose some imminent peril to society. It’s a “yardstick” applied to every other civil liberty; it’s high time it’s seriously applied to the 2nd Amendment.
But you took a different tack, minty. You came back at me head-on, challenging an assertion that I never made. In fact, I believe that this post:
claearly demonstrates the philosophical difference which make most gun owners on this message board both dislike and distrust you. Most of us believe the conventional wisdom that says, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” It’s elegantly simple in its logic. Any logical positivist would accept it as a fundamental truth. The simple fact of the matter is that the “first half” mentioned in the quote above represents “us;” the non-violent, non-crime committing gun-owning portion of society. Whereas you would tar us all with the “potential criminal” brush in broad strokes to justify current levels and even further levels of firearms restrictions by pointing out all the clever ways criminals or people with criminal intent have broken laws.
This implies a mindset on your part that “anyone can snap, at any time; therefore ban them all.” You have never, to my knowledge, said such a thing in such a way. But in my time here on the SDMB, in every GCD thread in which you’ve participated, it’s come through loud and clear. To me, at least.
As Johnny noted, in every link you provided, you cited instances where the firearms had been obtained illegally,(and I’ll pay you $100 if The Texas Seven bought a fully automatic weapon at an Oshman’s Sporting Goods Store in Texas!), had been illegally converted from a semi-automatic weapon (difficult, but not impossible), or just plain didn’t mention the provenance of the weapon used (Cortez, CO.)
You may assume that they were NFA papered weapons if it makes you feel better, or if you think it proves that legal owners of NFA weapons are a serious threat to society, but I’ll wait for some more substantial info before drawing conclusions. Because if they weren’t NFA papered weapons, I don’t believe anyone can justify further NFA restrictions.
BTW: something the ATF, with Congressional approval, has attempted with some success is to outlaw “easy conversion by design”, that is, manufacturers are making the semi-auto “assault weapons” in such a way that illegal conversions to full-auto is difficult at best. That was one of the tenets behind the importation ban of the late 80’s, and the federal assault weapon legislation.
Laws of Physics and principles of mechanical engineering being what they are, I think that it may be impossible to make a semi-automatic weapon totally impossible to convert to full-auto; but certain design features can make it a lot more difficult than “15 minutes and a file.”
Susanann:
There are plenty of people in the USA and beyond who have the financial wherewithal, the mental stability, and the civic conscienciousness to behave appropriately while safely blasting through thousands or rounds of ammunition with legally owned fully automatic weponry, be they submachineguns, automatic rifles, or true belt-fed machineguns.
I have no problem whatsoever with this. I believe that the current level of restrictions sufficient to keep it that way.
I also believe that minor paperwork infractions, like the owner not having pressed down hard enough to make the 10th carbon copy “clearly legible” in the mind of an arbitrary “inspector” being an excuse to charge them with A Felonies and sieze their collections worth tens of thousands of dollars, as well as the poor schmuck’s house and car[s], is intolerable.
Fortunately, it didn’t happen often, and one thing I will credit Congress and the NRA with is putting a stop to the ATF doing such things.
Unfortunately, the damage had been done; there is a healthy portion of the gun-owning community that will never trust the BATF again.
In summation, minty, you’re defining a “problem” which may-or-may-not exist, based falsely upon:
A. the heresay testimony of convicted felons, and
B. the assumption that the weapons those felons claim they used were obtained legally in the first place.
I’m personally playing the “Bullshit” card; crimes committed with fully-automatic weaponry is sensational enough to grab major headlines; at even “2%” of crimes committed with firearms, according to a survey of convicted felons, it would be prevalent enough to make a bigger “blip” on the social radar scope than in your own mind.
Tank, I could give a damn whether the weapons were obtained legally or illegally. It is simply irrelevant to me. Fact is, they obtained disproportionately deadly weapons and used them in the commission of crimes. I desire legislation that places substantial impediments in the way of their doing so, and significant penalties if they manage to do so anyway. That is all.
I’m perfectly aware that legally obtaining a machine gun takes quite a bit of effort. That is as it should be, given their disproportionately dealy nature.
I’m also perfectly aware that when you or any other pro-gun poster repeats the factoid that “only one legally held machine gun has been used in a violent crime since 193_,” you are spouting propaganda. Great, the legislation works; it assures that only the good guys (bar one) get their hands on machine guns. Shouldn’t that be the point of gun control legislation?
On the other hand, thousands of automatic weapons have been used in violent crimes. Your factoid ignores that simple and crucial fact, instead implying that machine guns are no problem at all. Hell, hand 'em out to everyone, they’re harmless.
Finally:
I don’t care what you or any other gun fetishist thinks of me personally. I will continue to speak my mind on the issue, and I will continue to correct the falsities that appear so regularly in these debates.
- it assures that only the good guys (bar one) get their hands on machine guns*
should be
- it assures that only the good guys (bar one) get their hands on legal machine guns*
So I guess were back to “double-secret-ultra-cosmo restricted” then?
What do you want to do? Make it illegal to smuggle automatic weapons? Make it illegal for criminals to obtain automatic weapons? Make it illegal in most states for people to legally own them? Done, done, and done! Just what do you propose? They’re already illegal. “Double-secret-ultra-cosmo restricted” is not, I think, something we can put into law.
But it is relevant to millions of other people. (By the way, I object to being called a “fetishist”.) Banning every firearm in the world won’t affect you; but it will affect a lot of other people. Run the numbers yourself. What percent of firearms possessed in the United States are used in the commission of a crime? Even if you include all of the guns that aren’t used in crimes but just happen to be in the proximity of a criminal during commission I think that you will find that the overwhelming majority are not used in crime!
In other words, you would impose your likes and dislikes on anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, how I wish that were true! You could start with your own.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s probable that we would agree on most other subjects. Or maybe not. I’m against capital punishment and for a woman’s right to choose abortion. I’m in favour of increased spending on education, and for universal health care. I’m the Office Liberal. You sound like a person who might hold similar views. I don’t dislike you personally, but on the subject of gun control you are wrong, wrong, wrong!
Once again, Johnny, have I said anything that would indicate I am in favor of further restrictions on automatic weapons? As a matter of fact, I feel that the current approach is more or less okay.
And I apologize for the “gun fetishist” crack.
Well, there’s this:
(Which, of course, we already have.)
Correct. And you read that to indicate I want more?
Seriously, man, the only beef I have on this machine gun thing is that the “only one crime” factoid, by itself, indicates that machine guns are not a problem, and that restrictions on their ownership are some sort of irrational plot to oppress with the fine, upstanding citizens of this nation. In fact, machine guns are a problem that goes well beyond the scope of the factoid, and it should not be stated or implied otherwise.
You are going along good and then there is this again…
Hell, hand 'em out to everyone, they’re harmless. And with this in place you then continue to rant to everyone the part about correct debate. :rolleyes:
Don’t remember anyone advocating that. à Hell, hand 'em out to everyone, they’re harmless.
thousands -thousands - thousands- thousands :smack:
Then you go on and say, Minty -->
So what do you want? More laws? total gun control? Total confiscation? What?