Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[MKSheppard]

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

Because:

1.) It's Fun
2.) Because we can

[Aaron]

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

I mean, i can understand that you would want some kind of weapon for defense, and sports and hunting are legit reasons to have a weapon, too.
But how does any of this justify having an automatic weapon?
You don't need it for self-defense - unless we are talking about taking on half a dozen guys at once
And it has no use in sports or hunting.

So, tell me, what good reason is there to have automativ weapons?

There fun, if you've never fired one before. Until you realize that you blew through your ammo budget in a couple minutes.

As for my stance? I don't have a problem with private ownership, even for handguns. I am a strong believer in licensing and safety training though (provided it doesn't get fucked up *cough*Canada*cough*).

My in-laws are similarly horrified that I own a rifle, to the point that they won't even come out to try it.

Tips?

-Always treat the weapon as if it were loaded.
-Muzzle downrange at all times.
-Finger out of the trigger guard until ready to fire.
-If you pass the weapon off to a friend, demonstrate that it is unloaded before you do so.
-Keep the thing in a safe.
-If you have kids, make sure you instill all the safety practices you use in them.

[Darth Wong]

The pro-gun lobby tries to have it both ways: they use lax enforcement as a way of discrediting gun control activists by saying "hey, the laws are in place, they just need to be enforced", while you know perfectly well that they would punish any politician who tried to actually do that.

Actually, you're wrong. The NRA strongly supports Virginia's Project Exile, which uses existing on the books laws to prosecute criminals, and IIRC has resulted in a crime rate drop in VA inner cities -- to the point where criminals are avoiding using handguns in crimes -- since Exile enforces the five year automatic sentence for use of a handgun in a crime -- in the words of gangers "I'd be an old man when I got out"

I see you decided to completely ignore my earlier post on this exact argument, in which the NRA supports the enforcement of gun laws only when the subject has committed some other crime as well, such as robbery. That is not gun law enforcement; that is the use of gun laws to get tougher sentences against people who break some law in addition to the gun laws.

[Coyote]

I think the current system for automatic weapons is sufficient. You can own one if you want, but you have to get a special license, undergo a thorough background check, and so on.

ACtually, no, it's not sufficient.

Civilians can only buy automatic weapons made BEFORE 1986. So there is a huge premium on transferrable Class III weapons -- cheapest weapon is something like a cheap Uzi for $1,000 or so; a M-16 will cost several grand, a belt fed weapon even more so.

Repeal the ban on buying new machine guns, and slightly loosen up the Class III requirements and we're good to go -- and because people can now buy new made automatic weapons, the government gets MORE tax money -- each time you transfer/create an automatic weapon, you have to pay a one time tax of like $300.

That's an availability issue, and one I happen to agree with. But I was thinking in terms of just qualifying to own a Class-III.

IIRC, isn't there also a sub-class system for the types of automatic weapons themseleves? Such as, a MAC-10 would be in a different sub-category than, say, an M1919 Vickers...

[LadyTevar]

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

Because:

1.) It's Fun
2.) Because we can

I know a lot of collectors who follow that line of thought. If it was possible to make sure that the weapons STAYED with collectors, I'd not have a problem with it. However, far too many weapons get into the wrong hands, so I'm not bothered by the current restrictions on Class III weapons at all.

[Coyote]

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

I mean, i can understand that you would want some kind of weapon for defense, and sports and hunting are legit reasons to have a weapon, too.
But how does any of this justify having an automatic weapon?
You don't need it for self-defense - unless we are talking about taking on half a dozen guys at once
And it has no use in sports or hunting.

So, tell me, what good reason is there to have automativ weapons?

Well, actually, they are a hoot to shoot, as long as you're not paying for the ammo. No one is saying they are for hunting of defense, although there are sport-shoots with MGs held at different locations across the country.

In the case of an MG, it is not so much a matter of "need" as it is one of "want"-- and if some guy with a lot of money really wants an MG, and he's not a criminal or a nut but a law-abiding person (who has a penchant for noisy, expensive hobbies), there's no reason to deny them, legally.

Actually, there are a few thousand people who own MGs and SMGs, and there have always been some since the 1934 Gun Control Act went into effect (the one banning unlimited ownership of full-autos). And in all that time, only one legally-owned full-auto has ever been used in a crime. Statistically speaking, legally licensed full-auto gun owners are the safest of all gun owners nationwide.

[MKSheppard]

And in all that time, only one legally-owned full-auto has ever been used in a crime. Statistically speaking, legally licensed full-auto gun owners are the safest of all gun owners nationwide.

Wasn't that by a cop too?

[Mr Bean]

To back up what Coyote said. It's not easy to commit a crime with a automatic weapon. Rare is it you find a criminal who thinks a crew serviced machine gun is the appropriate weapon to rob a bank. It's again the reason for wanting to restrict handguns as the criminal weapon of choice.

[Darth Wong]

The reason for MGs not being used in violent crimes is simple: they're so expensive and have so many hassles attached that the criminal type won't get one. This ties back to an earlier point about targeting low-income people. It rubs populists the wrong way, but yeah, I'll say it: keep guns out of the hands of poor people and you'll have less crime.

[LadyTevar]

The reason for MGs not being used in violent crimes is simple: they're so expensive and have so many hassles attached that the criminal type won't get one. This ties back to an earlier point about targeting low-income people. It rubs populists the wrong way, but yeah, I'll say it: keep guns out of the hands of poor people and you'll have less crime.

I truly wish I could argue this point with you, Mike, but from what I've witnessed even in my tiny city, it's the honest truth.

[Commander 598]

I've heard that the most common criminally used firearms are generally cheap old shitty low caliber pistols. For example, my .32 auto FN Browning 1910, IIRC, came from a police confiscation many years ago. It's functionally fine but someone took very poor care of it at some point. You probably couldn't get a $100 out of it from anyone other than a collector (But then it's not all that rare). Also note it's huge hicap magazine capacity of six. :p

Also if you were banning the ownership of "easily concealed" firearms, what would be the minimum barrel length? Because there are some rather large handguns out there...

[Coyote]

See, this is where I'm coming from-- most gun crime is low-net robbery-- hitting a convenience store, for example. You don't get a lot of money from that, so you don't want to spend $800.00 on a semi-auto rifle to hit a store for $70.00. When push comes to shove, banning (or seriously restricting) the sale of super-cheap handguns is probably the best way to go.

[Coyote]

Well, obviously under my proposed scheme all gun shows would be banned...

I don't know about that; people probably just wouldn't bother to go to third-party sales points and would just sell direct to one another, even if they're otherwise not criminals. A portable NICS computer that can hook into a network when a gun show comes to town is workable. Banks sponsor portable ATM machines for county fairs, at least out here (we're so quaint).

[Coyote]

In my opinion the self defense arguement depends on where you live. When I lived in Galway, Ireland it was the most nicest, safest place in the world I ever seen. It was really a case of a small town with friendly people and helpful police. If a lot of people had guns there it would only introduce unnecessary risk from abuse.

That doesn't make sense to me. If the town is quiet and full of friendly, helpful people, why do you believe that having guns in the neighborhood would turn them into a pack of killers? If they're nice people, they'd be just the types of folks you'd prefer to see allowed to buy guns if they wished, whereas the stereotypical "yob" type that we hear about in the news already comes across as a total waste of flesh, even without the "benefit" of having a gun to "turn him bad".

I think that is not what Sarevok was saying.

Instead, as he said, more guns add additional risks.
You know, the occassional raging father or husband - if he has a gun, he might shoot someone. If he has not, the worst he will do is beating someone. The triggers do not change, but the same event leads to different outcomes.

That's what i meant earlier. If you want to kill someone, you do not need a gun.
But if you have a gun, it is way easier to do so, so easy that it is quite likely to happen by accident and/or without previous planning.
That can happen without guns, but guns increase the risk.

I see your point, but at the same time, it seems the situation has come full circle. Domestic violence can (in the USA) disqualify someone from a CCW or gun ownership, for example. I own a lot of guns and I've had some pretty heated arguments with significant others but the thought never occurred to me to shoot them. I don't think shooting a wife or girlfriend you're arguing with is a normal reaction; reasonable people in relationships will have the occasional argument and not feel the need to resort to shooting.

[MKSheppard]

A portable NICS computer that can hook into a network when a gun show comes to town is workable

Did you read my earlier post? Gunshows already do NICS through the magic of cell phones to the FBI's hotline. (at least they did in 1999); I'm sure that by now they've improved it with TECHNOLOGY

[MKSheppard]

When push comes to shove, banning (or seriously restricting) the sale of super-cheap handguns is probably the best way to go.

The problem is, super cheap handguns are also the only handguns some people can afford for protection -- e.g. they can't afford to drop $400 onto a Beretta 92F, but they can afford $138 priced .380 ACPs by Stnadard Arms.

EDIT: I also believe cops also buy cheap .380s as ankle guns -- because if the gun gets messed up in the line of duty, oh well, buy another one, they're cheap.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In the short-term, here and now, though, the gun show loophole could be obviously and easily closed.

Other than banning them, what's your idea for easily closing the loophole? Most of the merchants are following the law, there's only a few bad apples in the bunch it seems. From what I understand, the merchants try to police themselves as well and stop inviting those gun merchants who are known to cross the line.

I know from an SCA merchant friend that anyone wishing to sell their wares in a state have to have a State Business Liscense, as well as charge appropriate local and state taxes for the product. That's why the same item from the same merchant might be more expensive at one event, as the merchant raises the price to cover those fees. A single merchant might be in a different state every weekend, so there's a lot of paperwork to keep track of what fees in what state.

Banning them and replacing them with gun exchanges, which would be fixed locations that can conduct background checks and check other documentation for a sale between private persons for a small fee. Unfortunately I don't see another alternative there.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, obviously under my proposed scheme all gun shows would be banned...

I don't know about that; people probably just wouldn't bother to go to third-party sales points and would just sell direct to one another, even if they're otherwise not criminals. A portable NICS computer that can hook into a network when a gun show comes to town is workable. Banks sponsor portable ATM machines for county fairs, at least out here (we're so quaint).

The idea is that private sales of guns would be banned and you'd have to go through a gun exchange shop to sell a gun. That is open to modification if background checks could be run instantly through an FBI website and the number on the proposed notarized document of completion of a safety course similarly entered, of course.

[Ritterin Sophia]

That's an availability issue, and one I happen to agree with. But I was thinking in terms of just qualifying to own a Class-III.

Last I checked the special license is only on the part of the dealer you're buying it through. Anyone who can legally own a firearm can buy one provided that you fill out the paperwork (I can't remember what it's called), you have a Class 3 weapons dealer who will have the weapon shipped there to be sold, and you pay the $300 transfer tax.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think the current system for automatic weapons is sufficient. You can own one if you want, but you have to get a special license, undergo a thorough background check, and so on.

ACtually, no, it's not sufficient.

Civilians can only buy automatic weapons made BEFORE 1986. So there is a huge premium on transferrable Class III weapons -- cheapest weapon is something like a cheap Uzi for $1,000 or so; a M-16 will cost several grand, a belt fed weapon even more so.

Repeal the ban on buying new machine guns, and slightly loosen up the Class III requirements and we're good to go -- and because people can now buy new made automatic weapons, the government gets MORE tax money -- each time you transfer/create an automatic weapon, you have to pay a one time tax of like $300.

I'd actually support this as part of any proposed reform. If you can go through the hassle of the training I propose and the background check for concealed carry and then go through the further hassle of a Class III, you should be able to buy a new automatic weapon.

[Sea Skimmer]

Banning them and replacing them with gun exchanges, which would be fixed locations that can conduct background checks and check other documentation for a sale between private persons for a small fee. Unfortunately I don't see another alternative there.

I’m surprised you of all people fall for the gun show loophole bullshit. Gunshows are every bit as capable of doing background checks as any fixed store… because the entire system works through freaking phone calls! All you need is a damn phone and you can do a background check from anywhere on earth.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Banning them and replacing them with gun exchanges, which would be fixed locations that can conduct background checks and check other documentation for a sale between private persons for a small fee. Unfortunately I don't see another alternative there.

I’m surprised you of all people fall for the gun show loophole bullshit. Gunshows are every bit as capable of doing background checks as any fixed store… because the entire system works through freaking phone calls! All you need is a damn phone and you can do a background check from anywhere on earth.

I didn't know that the system worked through phonecalls; I assumed it was some kind of modem-like hardwired connection like they use for credit cards.

[Mr Bean]

I didn't know that the system worked through phonecalls; I assumed it was some kind of modem-like hardwired connection like they use for credit cards.

Nitpick, those are also phonecalls to technically.
But no it's pure gun seller talks to live person for license checks and requests.

[Sea Skimmer]

I didn't know that the system worked through phonecalls; I assumed it was some kind of modem-like hardwired connection like they use for credit cards.

Nope, the FBI operates a NICS call center and depending on state laws states have additional call centers. They put the persons name into a computer system for you. It takes about 2 minutes to do and the FBI alone is able to handle a couple hundred calls per minute. It would be stupid to give gun dealers direct access to the system, because that would be a huge hacker/security liability.

[Edward Yee]

I would prefer that easily concealed weapons are outlawed for private use, and that gun companies be vigorously prosecuted for failure to take measures to limit sales of such weapons to the general public. Handguns and machine pistols are far too amenable to criminal activity. The long guns are OK; they're harder to conceal and they're more accurate.

Yes, I know, you can still commit crimes with a long gun. That doesn't mean it isn't easier with a concealed weapon.

This answer intrigues me... where do carbines and short-barrel rifles fit in, regardless of rate of fire, considering how ridiculously cut-down they can get, and by what criteria is that concealability determined?