Whoo FUCKING HOO!

[StimNeuro]

Apparently full auto's were banned in 1934. I've got no idea where to look for stats before that.

Fucking hell

*pulls out Uzi and fills BS full of fucking LEAD*

They weren't banned. You had to register them and pay a $200 tax for
transfer

At this point, I don't think anyone's going to learn that automatics aren't banned. You're better off just killing them all now instead of when the screw up... again...

[BoredShirtless]

Apparently full auto's were banned in 1934. I've got no idea where to look for stats before that.

Fucking hell

*pulls out Uzi and fills BS full of fucking LEAD*

They weren't banned. You had to register them and pay a $200 tax for
transfer

Don't nitpick. From http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. [BoredShirtless: Already pointed this out]Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) )

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely. For further details see NRA state firearm law summaries.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Look I know you're joking but I want to make a point. The UZI pistol has an effective range of around 50 feet.

You mean a maximum of 300 feet for the Mini-Uzi mentioned in the article, and 600 for a full one. Only the micro-Uzi has a small effective range-90 feet.

[BoredShirtless]

Look I know you're joking but I want to make a point. The UZI pistol has an effective range of around 50 feet.

You mean a maximum of 300 feet for the Mini-Uzi mentioned in the article, and 600 for a full one. Only the micro-Uzi has a small effective range-90 feet.

UZI pistol is otherwise called the micro-UZI.

[Nathan F]

Hehe, I am not going to even comment on this argument, except for one thing:

If you rabid anti-gunners would at least half research the topic you are talking about and attempt to learn about the firearms you want banned, people would really take your arguments more seriously.

[BoredShirtless]

Ah we have a water walker, we are truly blessed. Bestow your wisdom on us, smite our flower power with logic and knowledge.

[Nathan F]

Ah we have a water walker, we are truly blessed. Bestow your wisdom on us, smite our flower power with logic and knowledge.

What? It is a friggen fact. Learn what the hell you are talking about and people will take you seriously. Every argument you have come up with has been struck down as fallacious because you don't know the material. Dammit, people, learn about what you are talking about.

[BoredShirtless]

Ah we have a water walker, we are truly blessed. Bestow your wisdom on us, smite our flower power with logic and knowledge.

What? It is a friggen fact. Learn what the hell you are talking about and people will take you seriously. Every argument you have come up with has been struck down as fallacious because you don't know the material. Dammit, people, learn about what you are talking about.

What are you talking about? What arguments?

[Alyeska]

BoredShirtless, you do not use a fully automatic weapon to commit a crime because the weapon itself is going to be worth more than four times the potential take from your standard crime. Its the same reason why people with high speed cars do NOT run from the police.

Here is an interesting statistic. Since the early 1980s only ONE CRIME has been commited with a legaly owned and obtained fully automatic weapon. In twenty years just ONE crime. There are hundreds of thousands of fully automatic or other banned "assault weapons" and in 20 years it was just a single crime.

Criminals do not use legaly bought weapons because that costs money they do not have. Banning fully automatic weapons removes them from law abiding citizens, it does not stop criminals.

[MKSheppard]

Since the early 1980s only ONE CRIME has been commited with a legaly owned and obtained fully automatic weapon. In twenty years just ONE crime. There are hundreds of thousands of fully automatic or other banned "assault weapons" and in 20 years it was just a single crime.

And it was a COP who did it.

[BoredShirtless]

Well thanks Alyeska for that tidbit of information. Now, what's your point?

[HemlockGrey]

...

Gee, 1 crime, in 20 years, committed with automatic weapons, and that one by a cop. I suppose the Mafia is just hoarding these things for their final assault on City Hall, eh?

[BoredShirtless]

You'll let me know when you make a point, right?

[RedImperator]

How was it a straw man? He used "fun" and "cool" as justification for legalising full auto weapons. Why can't we apply this to RPG's too?

Because unlike automatic weapons, it's nearly impossible to safely fire an RPG and its effects are not necessarily confined to whatever the projectile hits. While an Uzi can be safely used on a private range and even if misused, the damage it can do is relatively limited, an RPG is essentially a demolition weapon in the hands of an untrained amateur. A private citizen can't own a working RPG for the same reason he can't own dynamite.

[Nathan F]

Hmm, Here is what I am seeing:

Ferrous Cranius (aka Bored Shirtless):
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

Now, dude, listen to reason and either contribute to the debate or stay the hell out of it.

[Vympel]

Because unlike automatic weapons, it's nearly impossible to safely fire an RPG and its effects are not necessarily confined to whatever the projectile hits. While an Uzi can be safely used on a private range and even if misused, the damage it can do is relatively limited, an RPG is essentially a demolition weapon in the hands of an untrained amateur. A private citizen can't own a working RPG for the same reason he can't own dynamite.

Well, if you had a firing range ... it would be pretty fun to try it out

Of course, you can safely fire an RPG, and an automatic weapon is pretty dangerous in the hands of an untrained amateur as well, no? The effects on what it hits and the purpose for which it's designed (anti-armor weapon) are the real reasons why not, IMHO.

[Nathan F]

Now, to what I am saying:

An RPG isn't even COMPARABLE to an AR-15, M-14, or even a P90 or Uzi. An RPG will put a big-arse crater in the ground and utterly destroy most back stops and shooting ranges, while, a .223, .308, 9mm, or (in the case of the P90) .338 Lampua, will simply impact safely inside the back stop.

In other words, your average joe with 5 minutes training can safely shoot most of these weapons, while a fully trained soldier is taking a huge risk in shooting an RPG.

[Vympel]

Now, to what I am saying:

An RPG isn't even COMPARABLE to an AR-15, M-14, or even a P90 or Uzi. An RPG will put a big-arse crater in the ground and utterly destroy most back stops and shooting ranges, while, a .223, .308, 9mm, or (in the case of the P90) .338 Lampua, will simply impact safely inside the back stop.

Well, it's simply a matter of making dedicated RPG shooting ranges

In other words, your average joe with 5 minutes training can safely shoot most of these weapons, while a fully trained soldier is taking a huge risk in shooting an RPG.

I think you're overstating it- a soldier fully trained on an RPG or any other type of manportable anti-tank weapon can have full confidence in his skills when he fires the weapon, with no danger to himself or others (unless they're in the backblast, which of course throws fully trained out the window).

[MKSheppard]

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.

Yeah so? They're not banned, you just have to go through a lot of hoops.

[Sir Sirius]

...a .223, .308, 9mm, or (in the case of the P90) .338 Lampua, will simply impact safely inside the back stop.

Nitpick. FN P90 uses 5.7x28, .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70) is a rifle cartrige. The recoil of a firearm the size and weight of the P90 firing 8.6x70s at full auto would be quite heavy.

[RedImperator]

You'll let me know when you make a point, right?

You'll let us know when you attempt to satisfy the burden of proof that lies squarely on you, right?

[BoredShirtless]

How was it a straw man? He used "fun" and "cool" as justification for legalising full auto weapons. Why can't we apply this to RPG's too?

Because unlike automatic weapons, it's nearly impossible to safely fire an RPG and its effects are not necessarily confined to whatever the projectile hits.

Same argument can be made for automatic weapons. It's practically impossible to resist the pull in full auto, which can cause rounds to spray all over the place.

The effects not confined to whatever the projectile hits? Please elaborate.

While an Uzi can be safely used on a private range

Same can be said of an RPG.

and even if misused, the damage it can do is relatively limited, an RPG is essentially a demolition weapon in the hands of an untrained amateur.

And if misused, you can wipe out more people with a car then an RPG. I don't see why "misuse" should be discussed.

A private citizen can't own a working RPG for the same reason he can't own dynamite.

So where do you draw the line?

[BoredShirtless]

Now, to what I am saying:

An RPG isn't even COMPARABLE to an AR-15, M-14, or even a P90 or Uzi. An RPG will put a big-arse crater in the ground and utterly destroy most back stops and shooting ranges, while, a .223, .308, 9mm, or (in the case of the P90) .338 Lampua, will simply impact safely inside the back stop.

In other words, your average joe with 5 minutes training can safely shoot most of these weapons, while a fully trained soldier is taking a huge risk in shooting an RPG.

So? Why deprive the non-average Joe from owning an RPG? Your average Joe cannot own a full auto anyway.

[BoredShirtless]

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.

Yeah so? They're not banned, you just have to go through a lot of hoops.

Thanks for harping on your nitpick again Shep.

[RedImperator]

Same argument can be made for automatic weapons. It's practically impossible to resist the pull in full auto, which can cause rounds to spray all over the place.

It's not the same because an RPG, unlike a round from an automatic weapon, is a dedicated anti-tank weapon designed to penetrate dense materials. When I say it cannot be safely fired, I mean the round, once launched, won't stop until it hits dense armor, the ground, or runs out of fuel. Plus, there's an exhaust wash from RPGs that can kill a man standing behind the man firing the weapon.

The effects not confined to whatever the projectile hits? Please elaborate.

An RPG round can fragment or, if it's a shaped charge, spray molten metal. A bullet will only kill or destroy what it directly touches; a grenade will kill anyone in the splash zone.

Same can be said of an RPG.

No, it can't. An RPG can be fired by trained personel on a test range operated by the military. The exhaust alone makes it too dangerous for private operators, and a misfire can destroy a vehicle or a building.

And if misused, you can wipe out more people with a car then an RPG. I don't see why "misuse" should be discussed.

A car can't destroy armored vehicles or punch a hole through a concrete wall.

So where do you draw the line?

I'm not entirely sure, but I know damn well it's below explosives and area of effect weapons. It's a total strawman distortion of any responsible gun-rights argument to say that if semiauto or even full auto rifles should be legal, then RPGs and flamethrowers should be too.