Sentinal
Technically, a “hand-cranked” .22 is not a machine gun. The law says that a machine gun is a firearm that delivers more than one shot for each single pull of the trigger. The crank just pulls the trigger several times very quickly.
Modifications to any sime-automatic firearm to fire automatically is illegal! Furthermore, possession of any part or parts that can convert a firearm to a machine gun are also illegal. Say you have an AR-15 with an M-16 bolt carrier. There is no way this rifle can ever fire automatically in this configuration (unless there is breakage of one of the non-M-16 parts). You would still be in violation because the bolt alone is illegal. You don’t even have to have it in the rifle. You used to be able to walk into any gun show and buy all the auto parts (except for receivers) you wanted. You could even buy “drop-in auto sears”. These parts were only illegal if they were installed. In the 1980s, the BATF ruled that “drop-in” auto sears were illegal if manufactured after a certain date (how would they know?). Several years ago they changed the rule so that any part of a machine gun that is part of the automatic function is a machine gun. Also, new machine guns for civilian use are now outlawed. You can only legally purchase machine guns made before a certain date. (Sorry, I don’t know the dates.) The fact that you can get the parts does not make them legal. If you have an AR-15 that’s “almost battle-ready” (i.e., just switch out the selector and drop in the auto sear), you’re in violation. Remove the M-16 parts and replace them with AR-15 parts. Destroy or otherwise rid yourself of the M-16 parts.
The parts are illegal. The instructions are not.
Oklahoma may be one of the states that allows citizens to own machine guns, but you still have to go through all of the Federal processes to get them. The gangs certainly didn’t get them legally.
They probably didn’t have too hard a time getting (or modifying) them. That still doesn’t make them legal. The sad thing is that the Media implied that you could walk into any gun store and buy one. You can’t. It’s a good thing that AR-15-type (semi-automaticrifles were for sale then. The cops went to a gun store and borrowed some to even the odds.
The key is that he has a license. Five bucks to shoot a BAR? The BAR fires a .30-06 round, popular with many hunters. I don’t have a .30-06, but it seems to me a box of 20 rounds would cost about $15.
Bushmaster makes M-16s for military and police use. If you contact them, they can tell you what’s legal and what’s not. Note: There are “pre-ban” and “post-ban” firearms. You can put an AR-15 barrel with a bayonet lug on a pre-ban receiver, but not on a post-ban. Want a folding stock for your Mini-14? Make sure it’s pre-ban. Flash hider? Ditto. Greater-than-10-rounds magazine? Snap 'em up now. Post-ban mags are limited, and the pre-ban supply is dwindling and expensive. (I used to be able to buy 30-rd. AR-15 mags for $6, surplus. Now they’re about $30.)
In Texas you can buy a full auto machine gun but you need a Federal Class 3 weapons permit. These are issued by the Treasury Department and require your local chief of police’s okay. Not a good procedure if you like to stay under the government’s radar screen. I have seen the parts at gun shows that will make semi-autos into full autos. However, I have also been informed that if you even have these part in the same house as the semi-auto weapon, you are looking at 5 years in a federal pen. Spiny Norman, join in the debate by all means, just think what living in the U.S., with the greater chance of becoming a victim of crime, might do to your desire for self protection.
I probably was wrong in calling the weapon a BAR. It is a massive gun with a dipod attached to the front of the barrel. The cartridge it shoots is as big as my hand, close to an inch around and heavy! He said it was used to attack tanks with in the Korean War and, later, in Vietnam. One soldier carried the gun, while another carried the ammo.
Most of the laws against military-style weapons are nothing more than blatant attempts to curry public favor with style over substance. Most of these weapons are no more lethal than regular sporting arms in the hands of your typical criminal. Assault rifles are made to be light, easy to clean, and rugged. Important qualities when you’re hauling them through the bush, but hardly necessary for your typical drive-by shooting. They are no more powerful than a typical sporting arm, and often much less accurate.
Remember the guy who opened up on the schoolyard of kids with an AK-47? He emptied magazine after magazine of ammunition, and I think he killed three kids.
The kids in that schoolyard were damned lucky he had that ‘deadly assault rifle’ instead of say, your dad’s Remington 12-gauge pump shotgun, which is FAR more lethal and easy to use in that type of situation. But no one’s talking about banning THOSE, simply because they don’t look ‘mean’.
Not only that, but the laws (particularly the Federal laws) against these military-style weapons are bans of assault weapons, not assault rifles. “Assault rifle” is a well-defined military term meaning a light, low-recoil selective fire rifle. (Selective fire means you can switch between semi-automatic and fully-automatic.) “Assault weapon” is a made-up legalistic term that means whatever the laws say it means. The Federal definition of an “assault weapon” includes any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and two or more of: a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, a protruding pistol grip, a front clip that can hold a bayonet, or a “grenade launcher” (a mount that can accept a rifle grenade, which would be illegal under other laws).
Note that firearms capable of fully automatic fire (machine guns) are not covered under the Federal “assault weapons” ban. Only semiautomatic firearms are. Thus, the Federal assault weapons ban does not affect assault rifles! (All full-auto or selective-fire arms are classified as “machine guns”, and are regulated according to an entirely different [and stricter] set of Federal laws.)
Sentinel; I thinks that buddy-collector-dealer was pulling your leg. IIRC, a BAR is 30-06 cal, -which isn’t the cheapest gun to feed- but sure don’t cost five bucks per shot.
I only own a few small-caliber firearms now, as I don’t have anywhere to shoot anything larger. I even have an airgun but since it shoots with 18 ft lbs of energy (roughly 1/6th the power of a .22 LR), I’d need a “firearm permit” to own it in merry olde England, because it is 50% over the non-licensed energy limit. It weighs 11 lbs; I’d be more likely to kill a person with it by beating them over the head rather than shooting them with it. I would ask where is the line between obsession and repression drawn? - MC
From the description of the round, could it have been a .50 cal?
The rounds are that big and damn expensive. Of course the gun costs anywhere from $5000 - $15,000. So the average Joe isn’t going to be playing with one of these.
This is the same type of rifle that was used in a one mile sniper kill during Vietnam. They also used them n the Gulf war to shoot airplane engines (parked) to disable them. I don’t know about shooting tanks, but I guess if you knew exactly where to shoot then you could slow one down.
Magazine capacity restrictions. This one baffles me. Here in Canada, we’re allowed to have a pistol magazine of up to 9 rounds. No more. The chief effect of this was to kill the sales of 9mm handguns that had double-stacked magazines of usually 13 rounds or so, or to force owners of those to spend money on new, re-engineered magazines that only hold the 9 rounds. But what the hell is the point of this? Is there anyone who thinks that lives will be saved because the criminal missed with his first 9 shots but would have got the innocent civilian on the 10-13th round? Anyway, with a very short practice time a person can swap magazines in a couple of seconds anyway. This is another gun law that was passed simply because it sounds good, and has as its ownly effect to inconvenience lawful gun owners.
Sam Stone: We have a similar law down here in the States. Federal law prohibits the sale or posession of magazines larger than 10 rounds manufactured after September 13, 1994. As of this year, a new California law bans all magazines larger than 10 rounds within California, regardless of when the magazine was manufactured.
I’m guessing the reasoning behind the “high capacity magazine ban” was that a criminal might go berserk and start shooting at everyone around him, and without a high-capacity magazine he’d only be able to kill 10 people. (Before he popped in a new magazine, of course.)
ok…all you people out there FOR gun control… RIGHT ON! I live in america and personally think that there is way too many people who take advantage of our “right to own guns” or so they think and many people arn’t very educated about it. “A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” a well regualted militia. When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made…it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia. I dont think we should ban handguns just learn to use them right. People say well it’s our right. Yes it is, but all rights come with responsibilitys…i.e. you have the right to drive a carbut you DON’T have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road! catch my drift? now automatic weapons… that’s a different story… these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what’s the purpose of a machine gun? population control? hunting? are you really that bad of a shot? comon you have to agree with me on that one at least. Thank you for taking the time to look at this and if you have time lpease respond. I like a good argument. Thank You
SUAVESKIN
As some of you probably know, I try to stay out of the legal side of these debates - I’m not American, and I’d sure as hell be p.ssed if an American started telling me which laws to support and which not to.
However: I can only agree that if you are going to allow private possesion of handguns on a larger scale, restrictions on magazine capacity is a misunderstanding. If anything, a larger capacity favors the attacked, not the attacker, right ? The attacker has his mind all made up and plenty of time to carefully aim the first round - the attacked is in shock and will probably miss with most of his rounds.
On a lighter note: Firing the 0.5 HMG (Browning) is just about the most fun I ever had in the Army. And of course, thinking that a 5-round burst just burned off 25$ of taxpayer money was kind of a kick too… Carrying that weapon around is another story entirely, the fun stops rather abruptly. FWIW, it’s worthless against modern armored vehicles, but I suppose it could have been useful against light armor in Korea.
BTW: Has anyone seen “Lock, stock and two smoking barrels” ? There’s an incredible shoot-out scene where one of the bad guys brings his granddads Bren gun (light machinegun) along - let’s just say that he has more than enough firepower for indoors use.
It appears to me you are one of the many that “arn’t” very educated about it. There are so many errors of fact in your post I don’t know where to begin.
I’ll take a shot at the spelling and grammatical errors, UncleBeer: #1 - “ok” used first in sentence, but not capitalized. #2 - “America” not capitalized. (frowning) #3 - " , ,there is way too many people who take advantage of our “right to own guns” or so they think , , " - Sentence meaning unclear. #4 - " , , and many people arn’t very educated about it." - There are times when no snide remark seems apropriate. #5 - “When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made…” - It’s clear we are obviously dealing with an expert on the subject here. #6 - " , ,it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia." - Army != Militia. The two terms aren’t interchangable, particularly in the modern sense. #7 - “I dont think , ,” - Conjunction missing apostrophe, and that’s all I’m gonna say about that. #8 - “responsibilitys” - Spellcheck, thou hath forsaken us. #9 - " …i.e. you have the right to drive a carbut you DON’T have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road!" - Space missing (car_but). And people in other countries do drive on the wrong side of the road. And they also don’t have guns. Hmmmmm , , , #10 - " , , catch my drift?" - I’m trying, you drift a lot. #11 - now automatic weapons… that’s a different story… these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what’s the purpose of a machine gun? population control? hunting? are you really that bad of a shot?" - Automatic weapons are often used for hunting. Ever been hunting, cupcake? #12 - " comon " - I could not find this term in my dictionary. The closest I could come was comity of nations and comma. #13 - " you have to agree with me on that one at least." - No, I don’t; I’ve been hunting. -And about that comma, , , #14 - " , , ,if you have time lpease respond." - transposition of letters; I’ll let this one go. I do it every now and then when I’m in a hurry. #15 - “I like a good argument.” - I like a good debate, myself. That generally requires that both parties be reasonably informed on the subject, so I’m not going to get one here. - MC
Spiny: Actually, large capacity magazines favor both relatively equally. Criminals under fire or delivering fire experience the same sensations are normal person does; however, they do tend to control it better. This is because they have a “aggressor’s mindset” which, as you mentioned, the ever important predetermination of action. Your average criminal isn’t going to be carrying a large amount of magazines on him, and neither are you.
So, why do I tend to support small magazines? Because it gets the firefight over with quicker! It also means that there will be less bullets in you (imagine if you both have 15 round clips, on average you both will have 3.66 bullets in you. If you both have 10 round clips, on average you both will have 2.5 bullets in you). These is in your (the defender’s) best interest.
First, Out of bullets many criminals will run. If they decide to stay and fight you have a good club in your hand (pistol whipping hurts) and since you clearly had the mindset to stick through a fire fight you have the mindset to fight the criminal now too. The odds are still relatively even. Of course, through all this you still should be evaluating your escape options, and should take any reasonable. Out of bullets, some new options will undoubtedly have opened up, hopefully, you have developed the plans of escape ahead of time (predetermination again) and will take them.
Keep in mind too, with shots fired the police are on the way. The criminal knows this. This puts a lot of pressure on him to run.
Second, personally, I am not interested in killing the criminal. My objective is to live. If we both have 2.5 bullets in us, we both will likely live (~80% for those injuries), but he has been stopped. Easily a win for me. If we both have 3.66 bullets in us, chances are one of us is going to die (50/50 with those injuries). If the fates choose me, that is a decided loss for me.
Finally, I always carry an extra magazine. Always. I know that some criminals will, but many won’t. Out of bullets, IF I can reload fast enough the advantage is clearly mine. That’s where the martial arts comes in. In my dojo, we practice reloading and firing under attack. The martial arts may not be a “Hammer of Thor” but if you use simply for short term avoidance it simply rules the roost.
hunting? are you really that bad of a shot? comon you have to agree with me on that one at least. Thank you for taking the time to look at this and if you have time lpease respond. I like a good argument. Thank You