Jump to content
1911fan

Do you support gun control?

Recommended Posts

Ah, you merged it. Didn't want to revive a random thread, sorry. But yeah, it seems that if it's in the Constitution, they don't care. It's too old for them or something. That's their excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In England, where guns are banned, people had to register all of their guns. One year later after all the guns were register, the government took them all away, because they new where they were.

 

New legislation that requires unregistered guns to become register is a precursor to a future gun ban in my eyes.

 

The government in Maryland doesn't give two craps about the people, they just get money from Bloomberg. 2000 people went a house hearing to appose and testify a gun bill, and 32 came to testify to support it. In any case, the bill will pass anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In England, where guns are banned, people had to register all of their guns. One year later after all the guns were register, the government took them all away, because they new where they were.

 

New legislation that requires unregistered guns to become register is a precursor to a future gun ban in my eyes.

 

The government in Maryland doesn't give two craps about the people, they just get money from Bloomberg. 2000 people went a house hearing to appose and testify a gun bill, and 32 came to testify to support it. In any case, the bill will pass anyway.

 

I know, and they lowered the time so you had about 30 seconds to speak. It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any strong opinion on this. While I think the addition of a owner database with all weapon sales and transfers could be helpful, and that we do need to have saved background checks to ensure that error checking can be done, I don't think that we should have so many restrictions, mostly for the fact that many of the banned features aren't things that are utilized in crimes, things like bayonet lugs, pistol grips (where the definition may lie, I don't know), semi automatic fire (that one makes a bit of sense), and a flash suppressor, which won't make a smidge of difference for any activity. Really, it makes so little sense that I'm confused that it's even been considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the thing is, they already have the background checks and the ATF database, but they want to reinforce it. And semi-auto ban means more people with shotguns, they still saw them off. And really, semi-auto is important for self defense and some hunting situations, but that depends on the person too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just skimmed half of the first page, and some very good points were made. I for one am very against gun control. Leave my sh*t alone, it's none of your business. I am a law-abiding citizen, don't punish me for others doing.

 

But on to the point I wanted to point out. Lanza never had an "assault" rifle. I watched the live video; all damage was done with pistols. They did however pull a weapon out of his trunk, which was also on video from an overhead helicopter. Anyone wanna guess what they pulled out? Sure as heck wasn't a rifle. It was a semi-automatic shotgun, that he never even used.

 

You can't believe anything you see/read in the media. Ever talked to a war vet? They'll tell you the real story compared to what you hear on the news. It makes you wonder where the media gets their info sometimes.

 

 

I for one want to see hammers, bats, alcohol, vehicles, fists, tree branches, chairs, pens/pencils, etc. regulated. They're all just so dangerous.......

 

MOLON LABE.

Edited by Amorton94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the thing is, they already have the background checks and the ATF database, but they want to reinforce it. And semi-auto ban means more people with shotguns, they still saw them off. And really, semi-auto is important for self defense and some hunting situations, but that depends on the person too.

 

ATF database my :censored2:. They don't save anything, I mean, for :censored2:'s sake, they don't even know where half the :pain: is. The ATF has almost no ability to govern anymore. Still, I will say that having semi-auto on the list of features isn't a bad thing (they can have up to two features before being banned) mostly for the fact that it does allow for it's use in gang activity and other gun violence. I won't mention the shootings mostly for the fact that although they are tragic, they are very little as compared to the massive amount of gun violence every year in the united states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding me turtletech; take a look at Australia. They damn near banned all firearms, confiscated and destroyed them. Did the crime rate drop? Hahaha nope! It actually increased! Something about not being able to protect yourself and a criminal knowing that makes you an easy target... Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right about the ATF, they just sit at their desks and twiddle their thumbs like morons all day.

 

As for the "huge amount of gun violence" , there is a list somewhere that shows the deadliest killer in America... I can't find it though. Shame, because firearms were at the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest tiff with this whole thing is, 99% of people I have talked to about it, DO NOT WANT ANY TYPE OF FIREARMS BAN/CONTROL/RESTRICTIONS. Law abiding citizens or not, the US has the right to vote and who is going to take them away from us? The government can try but they will just have to be taken down and over thrown again. Just like what needs to happen with the banks. To be honest I think its all connected. :a-shocked:

 

Don't remember where I heard it but I remember hearing about the development of a new ID system thats basically a computer chip that goes in your hand under the skin. Just another way to control the population. Take our guns, always know our whereabouts and personal information. Things are getting awfully crooked around here! I think this whole thing goes way farther than just gun control. You gotta look at the big picture people.

 

Check this vid about the development of banks in the US.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest tiff with this whole thing is, 99% of people I have talked to about it, DO NOT WANT ANY TYPE OF FIREARMS BAN/CONTROL/RESTRICTIONS.

And there are people who would say that 99% of the people they know want to ban all of them. In neither case are those numbers representative of the country. I think part of the problem is that a lot of people on both sides are stuck in their own echo chamber. They only really talk to people who share the same view which lead to a distorted view of the landscape. It's like one person saying, "I don't know anyone who voted for Obama," meanwhile someone else would say, "I don't know anyone who voted for Romney."

 

I heard about that microchip thing too. It was on SNOPES.

 

Like I said before- gun control = using two hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest tiff with this whole thing is, 99% of people I have talked to about it, DO NOT WANT ANY TYPE OF FIREARMS BAN/CONTROL/RESTRICTIONS. Law abiding citizens or not, the US has the right to vote and who is going to take them away from us? The government can try but they will just have to be taken down and over thrown again. Just like what needs to happen with the banks. To be honest I think its all connected. :a-shocked:

 

Don't remember where I heard it but I remember hearing about the development of a new ID system thats basically a computer chip that goes in your hand under the skin. Just another way to control the population. Take our guns, always know our whereabouts and personal information. Things are getting awfully crooked around here! I think this whole thing goes way farther than just gun control. You gotta look at the big picture people.

 

Check this vid about the development of banks in the US.

 

 

LOL. Honestly, this is kind of what I expected to see. When can we have a sensible discussion about this. I only mentioned keeping a database of gun owners by background checks, sales and transfers, and the idea of making the ATF a better force by raising the number of officers and the funding. Nothing too off the ball, really. The microchip idea wouldn't actually allow them to do GPS tracking, just saying RFID tags, not gps. You can't get a gps tracking device to be that small without losing any reliability at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah sorry about that post I hadn't slept in 2 days when I wrote that lol! But on the 99% thing, I work in a retail store that makes 400,000 dollars a day. I do have 2 or 3 friends I've talked heavily about the issue with it but I see so many people in one day and hear from people about this issue all the time. I have talked to at least 4 people who were for the ban but they seemed to be mostly knowledgeable about guns in the first place. I think a large chunk of people for the ban are just uneducated about guns or the current laws and standards that we have now. I guess I'm trying to say maybe a lot of people are just afraid so they don't know any better. Things are not like they were when the 2nd amendment was written. Then again maybe they are with the government talking about tightening the gun control policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a large chunk of people for the ban are just uneducated about guns

 

Ding ding, we have a winner. In Maryland, NOBODY knows anything about firearms, they just think they are scary and hurt people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ding ding, we have a winner. In Maryland, NOBODY knows anything about firearms, they just think they are scary and hurt people.

 

Exactly what I was aiming for lol but think about it, how is a gun more dangerous than the lunch lady at the school putting bleach or something into the food. (totally hypothetical.) Yes guns can kill but jeez man If I wanted to hurt a bunch of people I'd probably just drive my car into a crowded area like a Bieber concert and run people over. :a-laugh: lol the point is its the person behind the gun or the car or the bleach container (watch out those are deadly!).

 

Another thought I've recently had is that guns are something that they can control. they don't exactly sell bombs at walmart to blow up buildings or whatever other crazy acts of violence people do. Again the point is, the person is responsible and if they don't have a gun they will just use something else.

 

In support of guns though, they are a damn efficient way of defending yourself from the nutjobs described above. What happens when the same guy who would use a gun to defend himself with a gun doesn't have it anymore. What is he supposed to rely on? the cops who take 5 minutes to show up? The guy defending his home from the meth addict who shot him with the illegal gun to take his stereo for another hit of dope is now going to bleed out. Now the meth head is gonna go get high again and do it all over when he comes down. More people will get hurt because they don't have there "oh so dangerous" guns.

Edited by Hellion_Blade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. Honestly, this is kind of what I expected to see. When can we have a sensible discussion about this. I only mentioned keeping a database of gun owners by background checks, sales and transfers, and the idea of making the ATF a better force by raising the number of officers and the funding. Nothing too off the ball, really. The microchip idea wouldn't actually allow them to do GPS tracking, just saying RFID tags, not gps. You can't get a gps tracking device to be that small without losing any reliability at all.

 

An official national database of gun owners is never going to be allowed to happen in the US. History is full of examples gun confiscations being the end result of registration, and American gun owners will fight a registry tooth and nail. As for the ATF, their budget is more than sufficient to do their jobs, if they would quit wasting it on things like buying guns and giving them to Mexican drug cartels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have plenty of laws & regulations regarding guns. It's just that they aren't enforced. This much has been has been admitted by law enforcement. Either we don't have the man power, the money, they are just lazy, or prosecutes don't want to go after them, and so the laws aren't enforced. Now they just want to add more laws, most of which probably aren't going to be enforced.

 

Personally I think we need to get rid of some of the current laws. For one, I don't think the government needs to know what I own. If they did their job properly, they wouldn't be worrying about it, because they know that those of us who like the Constitution and believe in it wouldn't have a reason to "come after them" Frankly, I think we need to do away with a lot of laws, not just gun control related. For a free country, we are pretty heavily regulated and restricted. Did you know that if your raised a goat, and your neighbor raised chickens, and you traded some of your goat milk for some of his chicken eggs/meat, you could go to jail for trading/"selling" unpasteurized milk. Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

 

Believe it or not, New Zealand is ranked #1 in the world for freedom. That's pretty :a-censored: up that the United States falls to second, especially when our country was founded on the concept of freedom. We should be ranked #1 in that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe it or not, New Zealand is ranked #1 in the world for freedom. That's pretty :a-censored: up that the United States falls to second, especially when our country was founded on the concept of freedom. We should be ranked #1 in that category.

 

Well, that kind of defeats the purpose of the country... It's because New Zealand is where they filmed "The Hobbit" and everybody was all happy :a-laugh:

 

And this is great, in MD you have to wait 7 days when buying a handgun from a gun store, so the ATF/State Police can put all the info in. Well it's been taking a month, and some gun shops are stacked eight high with guns these people bought. So now, instead of waiting, the shops are saying "Hey we're releasing these guns after the week, get used to it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of people that obtain guns for illegal purposes look towards illegal sources of weaponry, due to convenience and cost. Further restricting legal gun purchase and ownership will do little to impede this. The majority of guns aren't made in nor tracked by the US; the government does not have control over these firearms. And making them less convenient won't impede a gunman nearly enough -- even if you took guns away, these people would just turn to knives or swords. And to some, guns have been legitimately used for defensive purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look in any NRA magazine there is always a whole page on victims who defended themselves. Every issue. And the dates are recent. I have a feeling it's more than just "some" people...

 

But I do agree though. I once bought a greatsword fro $50 because it was a yard sale, and you can buy bowie knives, and nice ones, for less than that. If someone mugs you with a bigass knife like that and you don't have a gun, your only defense is if you know hapkido really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the word "some," as I'm not sure of the exact amount-- to avoid arbitrating a statistic. If I remember correctly, around twenty-five feet is the range at which knives and swords are, at least, as effective as guns. And these shootings would be a lot worse as open slaughters, where the murder doesn't even have to reload and has the ability to mutilate... But (as I've said) I don't see the government keeping control over the gun population, especially when guns are so close to American culture.

 

Not to mention that these random shootings still make up a very minuscule statistic of death. Only (est) 00.0035% of deaths in the united states (not counting confirmed suicide) are gun related. Yes, shootings are horrible events and we should do all we can to prevent them, but taking away guns isn't a direct nor a feasible solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, and they aren't gun deaths. They are gun related "casualties", which actually counts accidentally shooting oneself, without a fatality. If you shot you pinkie off with a 9mm, it would go into that category. Cuz your pinkie died :a-laugh:

 

But I agree, they may get some bans into effect, but in 2014 people aren't going to reelect these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dawg-they-passed-a-law_zps6154493d.jpg

 

I swear some of the idiots out there think this is how it's going down.

 

You sheep need to wake up.

 

Gun control didn't stop the North hollywood shootout

 

Gun control didn't stop the absurd murder rate of Chicago, DC and LA County

 

Gun control didn't stop Timothy Mcveigh from blowing a building into pieces

 

Gun Control WILL limit LAW ABIDING CITIZENS and do nothing else! Don't be such weak minded sheep and fall in line with the pathetic morons like Joe Biden, who think it's a good idea to indiscriminantly fire shotguns out of your window into your neighborhood. And of course breach loaded shotguns are easier to shoot and control than a 5.56mm AR 15? WTF? And that guy is in charge of the Gun Control Task Force?

 

These Friggen idiots can't pass a budget in 4 years but can propose a gun control ban in 30 days?

 

The government doesn't do anything efficiently or effectively. DON'T rely on them! Don't allow them to redistribute hard earned dollars and piss away money on their political BS! Don't offer up your rights as an American for a FALSE sense of security.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, that was a mouthful. But it was good all the same. I was looking into getting a Stevens Gold Wing and blowing a hole through my door whenever them thar criminals take mah chickens.

 

By the way, that picture is awesome :a-laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think it would do some good for some people here to talk to people who support the other side of the issue in order to better understand their argument. It's important in order to be able to give well-supported arguments in favor of what you want.The argument of 'criminals will always get the banned guns' leaves a lot to be desired.

 

The anti-gun argument (or, at least for the AWB) goes something like this:

 

Restrict guns available to law-abiding citizens.

Premise: Over time (read: decades), the supply of "assault weapons" will diminish.

Conclusion: Criminals have fewer guns available to commit their crimes with.

 

For support that this is a legitimate argument, you just have to look at NFA history. "Machine gun" receivers and parts are very hard to come by today, and all it took was a closing of the machine gun registry in 1986. So to say that bans don't work isn't entirely accurate. They do eventually lead to a de facto extinction of the banned firearms. An argument of whether or not this actually influences mass shootings is a completely separate argument (I would argue it does not significantly change them).

 

But there is an important recognition to take away- an AWB would eventually lead to less "assault weapons" in the hands of criminals. Yes, criminals will still have access to firearms, but the idea is that the firearms they have access to are 'less dangerous' than their previous selection. The argument of whether "assault weapons" are actually more dangerous than non-AWs is also a separate argument (I would argue that they are built to be more deadly, but they are not necessarily more dangerous).

 

I think any of the "separate" arguments mentioned above are worthless to get into. There are not a significant number of studies done on either to come to a convincing conclusion either way. The same goes for comparing gun laws and crime rates in other countries- whether you're using it in a pro-gun argument, or it's being used against you as an anti-gun argument, there is simply not enough data to support either claim. There are too many variables, and no credible statistical paper will come to any distinctive conclusion- at most, they will show a correlation. But there are many, many ways (in fact, an infinite amount) that two things can be correlated. You will only see the correlation that you want the data to support, not necessarily the one that it does support. And the same goes for anti-gun people, so it's a bad subject to try and use convincingly.

 

Likewise, the "tyrannical government" argument is one that isn't convincing to anyone who doesn't already think that way. At that point, you're usually trying to answer the question "why do you need an assault weapon?" And, at that point, you're in a position of defense. "Assault weapons" are currently legal, and should require an overwhelmingly convincing argument in order to ban them. And that's the direction to go- I think the most cut and dry argument to make is that an AWB is simply not legal to pass.

 

US v Miller and DC vs Heller combine to say that the government is restricted from regulating firearms "...in common use." "Assault weapons," and AR15s in particular, are the most common rifles sold today. I don't know what definition of "common" that anyone could use to describe the AR15 as an uncommon firearm. I have yet to see a solid argument of how an AWB would be legal.

 

The magazine capacity ban is a relatively simple subject, in my opinion. The anti-mag argument is typically:

 

Premise: High capacity magazines lead to more deaths in mass shootings.

Conclusion: Eliminating high capacity magazines will lead to less deaths in mass shootings.

 

Going back to what I said earlier: In order to ban something new, there should be an overwhelmingly convincing argument to justify it. There is already a glaring flaw in the premise: high capacity magazines are only related to the amount of time a shooting can take. The Newtown shooter was alone in the school for 11.5 minutes and managed to shoot 26 people. He also reloaded many times, even when he had up to half of a full magazine left. Considering that I can change an AR mag in a matter of seconds, it's hard to say that a magazine capacity limit would have significantly impacted the number of deaths, if at all. Two of the most common limiting factors mass shooting is: suicide, and external resistance (which often leads to the former).

 

Additionally, in New York, shortly after they passed the SAFE act, a state legislator was asked what a homeowner should do if the 7 round magazine capacity was not enough to subdue the threat. His response? "Change the clip." It does not follow that a magazine change is negligible for a law-abiding citizen, yet it's a major limiting factor of a school gunman.

 

I live in a very liberal part of my state, and I've discussed gun control with many people who oppose it. By and large, the biggest factor in their motivations is ignorance. They don't grow up with guns; many have never set foot in a gun shop, much less touch a firearm. My advice? Be respectful when discussing it with them, and offer to take some of the mystery away if you can. After a few discussions with a fairly liberal co-worker about firearms and clearing up some of his misconceptions, I offered to take him shooting. He was open-minded enough to accept, and enjoyed himself. It shows in plain sight how an AR15 is just a modern firearm- not a mega death ray. He's shifted his opinion on gun control and is now generally pro-gun and pro-concealed carry. All it took was some first hand experience, respectful discussion, and accurate instruction.

 

So to sum it up- try to avoid emotionally-driven points if you can. Stick with subjects that have solid support and little hearsay. But even moreso, try to understand the arguments of the other side. It lets you have a respectful debate, and respectful debates lead to education instead of anger and calling the other an idiot. As much as I'm pro-gun, a lot of the pro-gun arguments brought up in this thread are either poorly supported, inaccurate, or simply false. Make sure you research the issue for yourself in order to avoid some bad parroted arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to be mean, but "machine guns" are easy to get. I can buy a Bren for $300. Well I could before all this shizz got talked about.

 

I have an anti-gun, vegan friend. And if I talk about guns to ANYBODY, all she hears is "Dirka Dirka, death to America".

 

If you think I'm kidding, go talk to a vegan about how Joe Biden talks out his :censored2: about gun safety. You'll get an interesting response that I cannot post on here.

Edited by Coyote98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hate to be mean, but "machine guns" are easy to get. I can buy a Bren for $300. Well I could before all this shizz got talked about.

 

I seriously doubt that. Do you mean a Sten? If so, Sten kits are disassembled and chopped to be legal to possess. You need to make (or buy) a new receiver to go with it (and then in order to be legal, it needs to be modded to semi auto, which is no small task since the ATF requires it to be modified to be fired from a closed bolt). And this would essentially be considered manufacturing a firearm. If we're talking about manufacturing illegal firearms, then yes, making a fully automatic firearm is not difficult. However this is irrelevant, because criminals tend to buy cheap guns rather than manufacture their own. I have not heard of a crime committed with a full auto Sten.

 

I have an anti-gun, vegan friend. And if I talk about guns to ANYBODY, all she hears is "Dirka Dirka, death to America".

 

If you think I'm kidding, go talk to a vegan about how Joe Biden talks out his :censored2: about gun safety. You'll get an interesting response that I cannot post on here.

 

Not sure what your point is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not illegal, it's more than 50 years old so you can get a license to build the Bren and you get the parts. ATF license. It's legal, and it's how WWII gun collectors get their guns. My old boss has a Maxim machine gun.

 

And my point is that all of the anti gun people are over defensive. Most anti gun people are hippies. Although that might just be my redneck side talking, I've been busy lately and last time I got a good night's sleep was before all this started. Because teenagers going to NRA rallies really annoys the lawmakers.

 

Sorry, I have become a ranting fool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not illegal, it's more than 50 years old so you can get a license to build the Bren and you get the parts. ATF license. It's legal, and it's how WWII gun collectors get their guns. My old boss has a Maxim machine gun.

 

You're mixing up a few things.

 

Firearms more than 50 years old are Curio & Relic firearms. You can get a Curio & Relic FFL to allow you to deal with C&R firearms. Here is the Wikipedia information on that. Note this:

However, as long as the receiver (the part of the firearm that is regulated by the BATFE) is over 50 years old (was manufactured before 1963) the firearm qualifies as a Curio & Relic

 

A Bren that you build from a parts kit has a demilled receiver. You need to manufacture a new receiver for it, and because the receiver would now be newer than 50 years old, it would not qualify for C&R. Additionally, if you refer to this, you'll see:

 

10.1.3 NFA firearms classified as curios or relics. NFA firearms may be classified as curios or relics under the same requirements discussed in Section 10.1.1. NFA firearms classified as curios or relics are still subject to the provisions of the NFA.

 

Your new receiver would not be able to be added to the NFA registry, and thus would be an illegal machine gun. Also, parts kits (not including receivers) are $800, a far cry from $300.

 

Now, if you manage to find an original Bren receiver fully intact, then yes, it is legal to own. However it still requires the NFA tax stamp, which is $200 alone. Adding that to the cost of a true C&R Bren will be extremely expensive. Nowhere near $300:

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem....?Item=334935038

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem....?Item=334997715

 

And my point is that all of the anti gun people are over defensive. Most anti gun people are hippies. Although that might just be my redneck side talking, I've been busy lately and last time I got a good night's sleep was before all this started. Because teenagers going to NRA rallies really annoys the lawmakers.

 

Sorry, I have become a ranting fool...

 

Dismissing someone as a 'hippie' is counterproductive to any reasonable discussion you might have with them. Labels are just doorways for strawman arguments. Some people are just defensive, but I tend to find that giving some respect to anti-gun people and listening to what they have to say keeps them from feeling like they have to get defensive. YMMV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said they were $300, as in they were last November.

 

And I listen to them, but after a while it generally gets annoying. They always have the wrong facts.

 

And YMMV? Does that mean "you make me vomit"? I'm not an expert on the language of lawlz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said they were $300, as in they were last November.

 

What were? C&R Brens? Those have been thousands of dollars for years.

 

Bren kits? I've not seen one in the last 2 years for less than $500, but even if you buy a kit, you need a receiver and cannot make it fully automatic legally.

 

You cannot buy a legal machine gun in the US for $300.

 

And I listen to them, but after a while it generally gets annoying. They always have the wrong facts.

 

That's when you correct them by citing sources. A bit of patience and clear explanations go a long way.

 

And YMMV? Does that mean "you make me vomit"? I'm not an expert on the language of lawlz.

 

Nah, it just means your mileage may vary. I don't personally know who you talk to, so they could very well be people you can't have a discussion with. But speaking in general, I find that those kinds of people tend to be the exception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am not going to argue about the Bren stuff because it's confusing and I may be wrong.

 

But yeah, most people I talk to aren't talkers. The ones who talk I will have a conversation with, but most people I run into are freaks. And that's saying something when I call them freaks :a-laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What were? C&R Brens? Those have been thousands of dollars for years.

 

Bren kits? I've not seen one in the last 2 years for less than $500, but even if you buy a kit, you need a receiver and cannot make it fully automatic legally.

 

You cannot buy a legal machine gun in the US for $300.

 

 

 

That's when you correct them by citing sources. A bit of patience and clear explanations go a long way.

 

 

 

Nah, it just means your mileage may vary. I don't personally know who you talk to, so they could very well be people you can't have a discussion with. But speaking in general, I find that those kinds of people tend to be the exception.

Legal machine guns are harder to get than have been in the past. key word is legal. Machine gun receivers don't make weapons fully automatic. A sear that can be made for $3 in a machine shop however does.

 

Once again a law abiding citizen who wants a fully automatic machinegun will jump through the hoops to get what he wants legally. A murderous thug will do what he wants as always. Regardless of what law is in place.

 

.com/ghettomyspace/[/url] NWS!! should shed some light on what criminals actually use to perpetrate crimes anyways. not what you might think...

Edited by GoLgo 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legal machine guns are harder to get than have been in the past. key word is legal. Machine gun receivers don't make weapons fully automatic. A sear that can be made for $3 in a machine shop however does.

 

On most firearms, full auto modification requires more than a single sear. You still need to modify the receiver. An AR15 needs its 3rd FCG hole drilled in addition to a full auto FCG. A legal, semi auto G3 needs its FCG housing milled out in order to fit full auto sears. Additionally, machining a new sear will cost more than $3.

 

But this digression is tangent to my original point: a ban on machine guns has lead to less machine guns available.

 

Once again a law abiding citizen who wants a fully automatic machinegun will jump through the hoops to get what he wants legally. A murderous thug will do what he wants as always. Regardless of what law is in place.

 

I think you overestimate the number of murderous thugs that buy firearms and have their 'ghetto gunsmiths' machine up some sears to make them full auto. It just doesn't happen at any significant rate.

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

 

Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

 

A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

 

16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

 

Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes Report 2010

 

Of the 175 firearms reported, there were 158 (90.3 percent) handguns, 12 (6.9 percent) rifles, 4 (2.3 percent) shotguns, and 1 (0.6 percent) full-auto firearm.

 

2011 Firearms Used in the Commission of Crimes

 

No submachine guns or converted firearms were examined this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't suggesting that murderous thugs are obtaining machine guns in mass.

 

I was suggesting that it is in no way hard to make a semi automatic weapon into an automatic one, and someone who wanted to to so, would be able to with ease.

 

Some weapons require a sear, some require milling, some require nothing else than a spot weld to hold the firing pin forward.

 

You seem to be aware that machine guns are not used in the commission of many crimes, so why do you think there should be less on the street?

 

What do you think the 2nd amendment is in place for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't suggesting that murderous thugs are obtaining machine guns in mass.

 

I was suggesting that it is in no way hard to make a semi automatic weapon into an automatic one, and someone who wanted to to so, would be able to with ease.

 

I have not claimed that it's hard to do. I've simply claimed it isn't done in any numbers of significance, therefore machine gun bans accomplish their goal: there are less machine guns available.

 

You seem to be aware that machine guns are not used in the commission of many crimes, so why do you think there should be less on the street?

 

This goes back to my point earlier about people needing to listen to what others are saying. I have never said there should be less machine guns on the street. I have only said that the closing of the machine gun registry (a de facto ban on machine guns) has successfully lead to less machine guns available to the public. Your argument against that is that machine guns can be made from legal guns, which is a parallel argument to "criminals could make their own guns" if guns were banned. The problem with the full auto conversion argument is that it's irrelevant since it doesn't really happen.

 

What do you think the 2nd amendment is in place for?

 

Not sure of the relevance of this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Python, you put the wrath of God into people.

 

Put honestly, if they want to ban full auto guns, they can. Like they've done. But they should still allow collectors to get the old guns, and still allow people to buy Bushmasters.

 

On the subject of how hard it is to make a gun automatic, my father has an old Ruger 10/22. After shooting it for years and years, it wore down and started firing in bursts. We replaced it of course, but it is possible to make something automatic. And don't say I'm a bad person for it happening, I said we replaced it and scrapped the old one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the subject of how hard it is to make a gun automatic, my father has an old Ruger 10/22. After shooting it for years and years, it wore down and started firing in bursts. We replaced it of course, but it is possible to make something automatic. And don't say I'm a bad person for it happening, I said we replaced it and scrapped the old one.

 

On the topic, many guns can go full auto by malfunctioning or simply being dirty. Slam fires (where the firing pin gets stuck forward, often from dirt, or in the case of a 10/22, a broken firing pin spring) are one of the most common ways for this to happen. This would also be the equivalent of spot welding the firing pin forward, as mentioned above. The problem with this is that it takes the fire control group entirely out of the equation, so once it fires, it will continue firing until the firing pin knocks itself loose, or the magazine is empty. This isn't really what I would call a full auto conversion, since the gun would begin firing as soon as it's charged (although the ATF would, and has, disagreed).

 

Another way is for the hammer or disconnect to be worn, either through use or intentionally (it's possible this is what happened to your father's 10/22). This leads to similar behavior of slam fires, leading to unpredictable burst lengths that can easily just dump a mag.

 

Both of these illegal modifications aren't typically done as "full auto conversions" because as mentioned, it negates the trigger entirely. A real full auto conversion is typically not very easy. The easiest I know of is a lightning link for an AR (of which, legal ones do exist). But it still requires an AR ($700+), an M16 bolt carrier, and the link itself. And most people who spend that kind of money on a single firearm aren't about to risk going to prison over making a gun fully automatic. There's a reason Hi-Points are far more common in crimes than USPs- and that's cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, although if you're a crim who just wants to spray a bunch of civilians the slam firing would work great. But luckily that doesn't happen much, if at all.

 

Now on to prices again, I was going to make a cool little tacticool .22, but I just saw they doubled and even tripled the prices of EVERYTHING, not just semi auto AR style firearms. People are overreacting more than before and think that the government will take all the guns away. These people need to realize they can't take every single firearm down the to last Kentucky Long Rifle, if they take anything from people.

 

Society annoys me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...