The MAC-10 used to be very easy to convert - just a few seconds’ work to make it fully automatic, and even less time to return it to semi-auto.
Presumably they’ve fixed this by now…
just as, presumably, all the ones that were sold during that time can still be modified as easily as they ever were. But still, not happening so much.
If you haven’t tried it, bump firing takes a lot of practice. The stock I linked to just makes it easier.
crowmanyclouds posted a link to an amateur. 
Check out THIS guy instead!
Correct. The lower receiver with the serial number is considered the firearm for ATF purposes. However, if you want to make that a full-auto, it better have been registered pre-1986. If it was, you can replace all of the parts on your gun at your hearts content, add features, etc., but if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can take a pre-1986 receiver, make it full auto, and register it?
I don’t believe that is the case, and forgive me if I misunderstand you. The amount of legally registered machine guns is forever fixed by law. They had to have been registered in 1986 and there will forever (barring a change in the law) be only X number available for the public to legally own. That’s why they are so damned expensive.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
crowmanyclouds posted a link to an amateur.
Check out THIS guy instead!
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
Ethilrist says he can’t view videos, so you post a link to a video in your response, well…
“Half-fast” is something my Dad used to say when he meant “half-assed”. Thanks for asking. It shows that some journalists still know how to ask questions.
OK, so journalists are under pressure to meet a deadline. So what? I’m expected to do my job also but I’m expected to do it well. Do I have the same option to turn in crap because my boss needs something to fill airtime or 1,000 words to fill some space between advertisments? Oh well, Farnham “tried” to do a good job but he just didn’t have the time. The readers will just have to suffer thru his stupidity this time and maybe he’ll get it right next time. He’ll definitely get it right the time after that. Maybe.
From a readers perspective, I only need to know if ABC’s Alan Farnham’s articles are accurate and worth my time and effort to read them. If it’s obvious that a Farnham-type doesn’t know what he/she’s talking about, I see no reason to read any more of his “stuff” and I certainly wouldn’t recommend him to anyone else, except maybe as an example of agenda or piss poor journalism.
I’ve got a question for you. The original AWB was passed in 1994. There was a lot of discussion leading up to it’s passage about what it meant, which firearms it would effect, and why people thought it was/wasn’t necessary. The original AWB expired in 2004. There was more discussion about auto, semi-auto, full-auto, machine gun, bayonet mount, flash suppressors, silencers, magazine capacity, registration, the nose of the camel, and confiscation. It seems to me that author/journalist/blogger/putz-with-a-word-processor, Alan Farnham, had two decades to gain some factual understanding of the issues involved. So my question is - Why doesn’t Farnham seem more knowledgeable about this subject?
I think a lot of people are under the misapprehension journalists are only doing one story at a time. It doesn’t work like that. All this stuff where you see a journalist on a TV show/movie devoting all their time to a “hot” story? Doesn’t work like that in my experience. You’ve got quite literally 20 other things you’re working on, all of which need to be done by more or less the same time or else. It is not realistically possible to get 100% of those things 100% accurate.
To put it another way: It’s entirely possible (and has happened to me several times) to have about an hour (maybe two) to go from never having heard of a subject (or only having the vaguest understanding of it) to acquiring some background on it, interviewing people and writing a story about it. It is, however, vitally important that the basic facts of the story are accurate and you do not publish anything defamatory or liable to impair a court case, but assuming an average journalist (and not a pundit) who doesn’t shoot and doesn’t know anything about guns is working in that scenario, I’d call mistaken references to “automatic weapons” completely understandable (depending on who they interviewed, too).
Not being familiar with Mr Farnham or his work, it would be unprofessional and inappropriate for me to comment there. I will, however, say that in my experience most people (as in, the average newspaper/website reader) doesn’t pay much attention to the byline on a story unless it’s an Op-Ed piece or something particularly controversial.
Even with TV news, I don’t think most people actually remember/pay much attention to the names of the various reporters standing in front of the camera “at the scene”. (The newsreaders and weatherpeople are a different thing, obviously).
The thing is, 1994 is Ancient History to most journalists, most of whom (in Australia, where I work) simply haven’t been in the industry since that far back. I was in primary school in 1994 and several of my colleagues either weren’t born then or were also still in primary school. Experienced journalists are expensive and it reaches a point where, unless they’re truly passionate about Journalism, it pays way more (with better conditions) to go and work in PR or for the government - which they do.
And just because something’s been around a long time doesn’t mean people - journalists or anyone else - have much experience with it. Take personal computers. They’ve been around and affordable to the average punter for about 20 years now and yet I think we can agree most people generally know fuck all about them, except how to type letters in Word and generally surf the net/check their Facebook.
As I said before, I can’t comment on Mr Farnham’s work, but generally I don’t really expect anyone to be an expert on a subject that was a big news story 20 years ago unless they’ve since established or presented themselves as some sort of authority on the subject in the period since then.
Martini Enfield: Not really directed at you, but related to you post.
One of the things I’ve learned being something of a frustrated science geek is that you have to be extremely selective about your sources and weight them as you find them deserving - or not. For example I’ve found that most popular publications that try to report on highly technical matters like say quantum mechanics either present something misleading (even wrong) or gloss over so much of the detail that you get nothing of any substance.
Aside from that, there is the overpowering impulse to sensationalize any story that seems amenable - which is, IMHO, a type of disinformation in and of itself.
So even though I still like to get information from a variety of sources, there are only a small handful to which I give proper respect and deference, and that’s because I know that they’re writers are learned, extremely well informed and articulate. So spending an hour trying to grasp the essence of something they write I know will be worth the effort.
That was 30 rounds.
1.NO civilian needs a gun from the lefthand column
2.I have ZERO problem with sane law-abiding adults having guns from the righthand column.
Setting aside the misidentified weaponry, and not having read this entire thread, I’ll reply to this. While I don’t have any guns in the left hand column, there may be some scenarios where I might see someone having a justifiable need.
What if a person lives in a crowded, high crime area where the police are afraid to come if you needed their help? What if a cop will only come if s/he has backup, so s/he waits until a second squad car is available, meaning that when you call 9-1-1 it takes them 30 minutes to respond?
What if a person lives in a rural area where the nearest neighbor is miles away and packs of hungry wolves are desperate enough to attack (want to eat) your kids playing in the yard?
What if a person travels to such places?
Have you ever been on a road trip, late at night and miles from anywhere, stopped to relieve yourself at the side of the road, and wondered who or what may be out there in the pitch-black darkness?
I suppose it can be possible that an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine sometimes comes in handy.
A further nitpick.
Pistols and Revolvers are each a subset of Handguns.
Pistols are semi-automatic, single shot, or multiple barreled. Revolvers are… well we know what revolvers are.
…but thankfully, we live in America.
Gotta remember that one.
You’re making a fine case for overworked and under-appreciated journalists but what about the “Consumer”. Are they getting anything worth reading? Is the object of writing an article to be entertaining, correct, first, spin, influence?
A baker may be running late, experience equipment problems, and have a boss who expects a “product” to be delivered to the customer by 0630 opening time “or else”. It’s not OK to deliver undercooked, apricot tarts, half of which are filled with bitter orange or vegemite, because there wasn’t time to buy more apricot filling.
The various firearm ownership issues haven’t just been around for long time. It’s been a very popular subject. A lot of the information being passed between journalists and then fed to the public isn’t correct. Repeatedly. Many articles are nothing more than rewrites of some anti-2nd groups brochure. Is it possible that journalists are confused about the issues because they themselves are listening to other ill-informed journalists who didn’t verify their story?
You’re correct that most people don’t pay attention to the byline. I think that hurts jounalists more than helps them. Journalists are considered interchangable. The Washington Post sez…, the Chicago Tribune sez…, if Farnham can’t produce the article that the editors/owners wanted/expected, there is someone who will.
None of which helps me, the consumer, become an educated consumer.
Pistols are handguns.
Revolvers are a subset of pistols (pistols with revolving cylinders).
That assault Daisy can carry several hundred high-powered “BB” rounds without reloading! :eek:
1st-The sentence I bolded above CRUSHES any credibility you have in this thread!
2nd-The list parts I bolded-That’s what law enforcement is for! We don’t don’t need Rambo-wannabes taking the law into there own hands!