And how do those numbers compare with crimes committed with both legal/illegal machine guns before NFA?
Because there is no record keeping requirement so there is no way to determine whether or not someone complied with the law.
Fewer. But why does that matter if all those crimes are now being committed with other weapons
Well, that seems like an unprovable premise, I could just as easily say “Yep, there would have been 2000 mass shootings with fully automatic weapons, but the NFA put an end to that” 
Also, the fact that there were fewer crimes committed with fully automatic weapons AFTER the passage of the NFA, seems to imply that one of the results of the NFA was to decrease crimes committed with fully automatic weapons.
At least it seems that way to me.
Please provide a cite that there were less crimes committed after the NFA was enacted.
To be clear, the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act) was in response to gangs prohibition era. Events like the attempted assassination of FDR and gang violence like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. They fully intended to ban pistols just as they banned machine guns but the political will did not exist.
The 1960’s legislation that resulted in quasi registration was due to civil unrest and the AWB of the 1990s was a repeat due to drug war induced gang crime.
It is a continuing example of Parkinson’s law of triviality, where we get distracted with relatively trivial “solutions” to difficult situations.
If it was practical I would actually support a repeal of the 2nd amendment, just so that we can quash this very political “single issue”.
But the fact that the crimes are now being committed with other weapons demonstrates that we need to quit bike shedding and spend our political capitol on efforts which will work.
The violence has always been happening, the only reason for increased fear now is that people whom have had the privilege to not care about the costs of this hidden war now have a taste of the fear that others live with day to day.
In the case of the NFA and machine guns, that war is mostly being fought to our south where firearms are mostly banned. Just because we do not have a fresh pool of Irish and Italian immigrants shooting each other up to control a black market does not mean the violence isn’t happening.
http://www.fugitive.com/mexican-drug-war-videos-warning-some-are-graphic/
You cannot hand wave away those deaths because it is brown people, whom are going to jail and because most of those whom are losing their lives this decade are to the south.
The goals of the temperance movement and the second great awakening were not met by prohibition, and actually their effort to enforce religious ideals resulted in establishing the huge criminal black market that drives much of this violence.
The fact that you claim that the NFA stopped prohibition gang violence is just laughable. The 21st Amendment removed the need to handle disputes between people whom were moving tons of booze across the border into the lawful world. They could settle disputes with the law and not weapons. It also reduced the gangs power and a large money source. If you have any cites to support your claims provide them or admit that you are opining and not stating “facts” as you claim.
Note: you will find that the 1986 ban on new machine-gun sales to the general public was based on those crimes that you claim that the NFA prevented.
Why would I? I never claimed, stated, or implied that there were less crimes overall after the NFA was enacted.
Thanks for the rest of your post though!
Because I am not good at making sure I click on the correct post when I log in.
If we banned Honda accord then we could probably say that we reduced traffic fatalities involving Honda accord. How useful is that information?
I agree with your point but to head off the inevitable red herring banning the Honda accord is a mostly obtainable goal. Where as trying to ban something that only requires 1800’s technology to produce is impossible to do when you can buy the machinery to produce the product for less than a third of the cost of a Honda accord. And this equipment would take less room than the car would in your garage too.
Even without CNC it is trivial to produce firearms at scale with minimal equipment as demonstrated by Khyber Pass in Afghanistan.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19wq62_hows-its-made-firearms-khyber-pass-gun-makers_creation
But I will bow out of this thread, I personally don’t care about owning guns myself I just get frustrated that my side spends so much time and political capital tilting at windmills.
So does our side.
I suspect that sometime within my lifetime, we will have the technology to improve guns so that they can only be used by the registered owner. As soon as police and military adopt this technology, you will see widespread adoption off this technology by the general public.
I also look forward to a night night gun at some point. Once again, adoption by police and military is critical to adoption by the general public.
Because then if someone said “Banning Kia Rios won’t reduce traffic fatalities” we could point to where banning Honda accords DID in fact reduce traffic fatalities.
Take away their guns and they’ll just switch to swimming pools.
That’s DA’s logic here, FWIW.
But you never showed where banning machine guns reduced gun fatalities. You merely show that it reduced machine gun fatalities just like s Honda accord ban would reduce Honda accord fatalities.
Banning a subset of gun is no more effective in reducing gun fatalities than banning a subset of car would reduce cart fatalities.
You realize you aren’t in the poor anymore, right. You have to have actual arguments beyond damuri is a poopyhead.
Come back when you find one.
Yeah, I sort of typed that wrong, but was busy and couldn’t fix it.
Anyway, i picture it like this:
There are fatalities attributed to all cars. Some of those fatalities are attributed to Honda accords. When Honda accords got banned, there was a drop in fatalities attributed to Honda accords. Maybe there was a drop in total fatalities because of it. Or, maybe fatalities stayed the same, because the next year, there were more Kia Rio fatalities. So, ban Kia Rios in order to reduce the amount of fatalities attributed to Kia Rios. Eventually, there would be no more cars to cause fatalities
But here’s the thing, I don’t believe in banning all guns, due to the 2nd amendment. But what I don’t like is people saying that banning all guns wouldn’t reduce the amount of gun violence. OF COURSE it would reduce the amount of gun violence, that just seems self-evident.
I would rather people just say “Yes, banning all guns would reduce gun violence. But, the 2nd amendment says we have a right to guns to protect ourselves. Yes, there are instances that guns cause unnecessary deaths, but so do a lot of other things. Maybe we should work on other things that cause more deaths than guns before focusing on something that is Constitutionally protected”
But even a hint of “Less guns equals less gun violence” is met with “NO IT DOESN"T!!!” :rolleyes:
Fewer guns would mean less gun violence. The question is how much banning guns actually would mean fewer guns, any more than banning alcohol actually meant less alcohol. Hand-made AK-47s in Afghanistan have already been mentioned; I’ll add the thriving clandestine gun industry in the Philippines.
Does everyone agree with this statement? If so, why are there some people who say, the only way to curb gun violence is to put MORE guns in the hands of people?
Maybe, but doubtful if it would reduce* violence. * I dont give a rats ass about “gun violence” I care about violence.
More guns and less guns- both dont seem to make much difference in America. A gun make make YOU safer, but it doesnt seem to add much to overall public safety.
Again, there are some who say that the more people who carry guns, the safer society would be.