Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Formless]

Are you trying to be clever, shithead? You know damn well what I mean when I say dangerous; show us the goddamn harm, or shut the fuck up!

[Alyeska]

I love statistics.

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

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Some very interesting numbers in there. A quarter million fully automatic weapons. But only 125,000 of them are civilian owned. Of two known murders with legal fully automatic weapons, one was by a police officer. And you know damned well that a ban on fully automatic weapons would not have stopped that murder.

So the director of the ATF himself testified before congress that there have been a total of two murders from the moment of his testimony to 1934. Tack on the years since then. 75 years. 2 murders. One of them that definately would not have been prevented by banning said guns. So one definitive murder that we lack details.

You would overtly punish the civilians who own 125,000 of these weapons for a single fucking crime and because of what they MIGHT do, but have not done in 75 fucking years.

[Ryan Thunder]

So, I've confronted you with what guns are designed from the ground up to do to people and you continue to argue with a straight face that they aren't dangerous.

Your entire argument boils down to "Taking weapons away from people is punishment" and "They aren't dangerous because people happen not to be using them for their intended purpose".

What the fuck does that do to stop the jackass who owns the thing from using it? You expect me to just trust him not to abuse it.

[Lusankya]

So essentially, what you and others are talking about is no different than requiring that every owner of the gun be properly and legally registered. And here I was thinking you were talking about levying severe penalties on someone for the act of giving a gun as a gift, thus my impression that it could be taken to absurd extremes. Evidently, I was mistaken.

Well of course not - banning giving a gun as a gift would be impossible as there's nothing stopping the gifter from just gifting money instead of a gun, and then having the giftee go and buy it themselves.

The issue with the way gifting guns works at the moment (in the US) is that the gifter is not qualified to make any proper legal checks on the person they are gifting too.

[Formless]

So, I've confronted you with what guns are designed from the ground up to do to people and you continue to argue with a straight face that they aren't dangerous.

I misspoke the first time. I meant they clearly are doing no harm to society. In a sense, yes, they aren't dangerous because the chances of you ever facing a man armed with a machine gun on the streets are almost astronomically slim. Also: I know what guns are for asshole, or I wouldn't think the population has a need for them. But simply saying what its for isn't an argument for banning guns, let alone machine guns specifically. The point of the law is to protect the population from actual threats to their safety, not to make people feel good by jumping at shadows and imagined dangers taken from paranoid fantasies where thugs with machine guns lurk behind every corner.

What the fuck does that do to stop the jackass who owns the thing from using it? You expect me to just trust him not to abuse it.

The fact that no one IS fucking using them that way isn't reason enough? God you are stupid. Also, in this thread someone already pointed out possible reasons they aren't used in crime: the cost of ammo, the fact you can't conceal them on your person, the fact that they are bloody expensive, the fact that there are existing regulations that have kept them out of the criminal world, etc.. This isn't a black/white world where our only options are blind trust or banning the shit out it, we can figure out who IS trustworthy pretty easily and *gasp!* only let THOSE people own one! How is this so hard to figure out? Or is Alyska's accusation that you're just biased against guns really what's going on here?

[loomer]

So, I've confronted you with what guns are designed from the ground up to do to people and you continue to argue with a straight face that they aren't dangerous.

Your entire argument boils down to "Taking weapons away from people is punishment" and "They aren't dangerous because people happen not to be using them for their intended purpose".

What the fuck does that do to stop the jackass who owns the thing from using it? You expect me to just trust him not to abuse it.

Yes, we do expect you to trust him, douchebag, since in pretty much ALL of our proposed scenarios he would be a fully licensed individual, having undertaken safety classes for his class of firearm, and be lacking in mental instability, substance issues, and a criminal record.

Further, a 5.56mm round could easily be utilized in a bolt action firearm, as well as a semi-automatic or automatic, rendering that element of your argument, in conjunction with the graph, invalid.

[Alyeska]

So, I've confronted you with what guns are designed from the ground up to do to people and you continue to argue with a straight face that they aren't dangerous.

No. My position is that their danger is irrelevant. Or rather, their danger requires restrictions to ensure safety. Blanket bans are fucking stupid. Explosives aren't even banned. They are regulated and restricted, but not banned.

Your entire argument boils down to "Taking weapons away from people is punishment" and "They aren't dangerous because people happen not to be using them for their intended purpose".

No. My entire argument is that your a fucking moron who has a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.

What the fuck does that do to stop the jackass who owns the thing from using it? You expect me to just trust him not to abuse it.

Why do we trust police and military to have these guns but not private citizens? What special thing do government service people have that a civilian could never have?

I suggest you actually read the law before you make a further joke of yourself. Fully automatic weapons are HEAVILY regulated. They are expensive and they are hard to get. Why should we trust these people? Because in 75 fucking years they have a crime rate lower than that of baseball bat owners and have killed fewer people. READ THE FUCKING STATISTICS YOU INBRED PIECE OF SHIT.

[Serafina]

In defense of Serafina, Coyote, it seems as if her cutoff isn't itself arbitrary. It seems that she is advocating a cutoff of ownership of all "weapons of war" where the term "weapon of war" is a legal term in Germany that encompasses tanks, automatic weapons, and other things. Germany's legal definition may be somewhat arbitrary but banning civilian ownership of "weapons of war" is, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable.

Pretty much, yes.
I am advocating german weapon laws because they seem pretty reasonable to me.

However, if you can conclusevly show that automatic weapons are not more dangerous than semiautomatic ones, then i DO see NO reason to ban them.

Statistics are a part of it. But the mere fact that automatic weapons amount for a smaller amount of crime is not enough.
As we all know, a number of other factors may very well play into that statistic.

You would have to show that an automatic weapon does not make an criminal more dangerous, that the automatic weapon is not better than a semiautomatic one.

Other than that, you could show that in countries with unrestricted access to automatic weapons, they are still not use for crime.

Another angle: Terrorism, especially domestic terrorism.
It may well be that the typical criminal has next to no use for automatic guns.
But what about people who do not want to gain money, but political goals?
Right now, i am thinking about groups like the german Rote-Armee Fraktiojn (RAF), or other domestic paramilitary groups.
Since that thematic is not too unreasonable in the USA right now, i am suggesting that a ban on automatic weapons would reduce the threat of such groups by a significant margin.

[Coyote]

People are talking past each other here.

Ryan, when people are saying "guns aren't dangerous", they don't mean that a gun is like a Nerf toy. They mean that in the hands of law abiding citizens, a gun is not a danger to society and not an instrument of crime/terror.

As to if a gun, by function, is dangerous, of course it is. It would be pretty fucking useless for self-defense or hunting if it was. It certainly would not be able to perform its advertised functions if it were functionally harmless. The argument that they are not causing harm to society is the argument that "they exist, but they are not being used in a criminal manner" not that "they are harmless objects". In the case of legally owned automatic weapons and privately-owned armored vehicles and even fighter aircraft, this is true-- their use in crime has been so infrequent as to be insignificant.

As to the "weapons of war" argument, a lot of those weapons described are area-effect and explosives, or special-purpose weapons. Those typically are not seen in the same light as a firearm because a firearm has to be aimed, which means that the shooter cannot claim a lack of control or responsibility over the destructive force unleashed. An explosive of any sort, however, cannot be controlled. That is why a gun can be argued as a legitimate home-defense weapon (you can target only the attacker) and a grenade cannot (you target the attacker, but others are in the effect as well). Same with rocket launchers: sure, you aim the projectile, but the target is enveloped in an explosion, which cannot be contained to selected targets.

Now, another thing about Ryan's argument is that he seems to think that otherwise sane, normal people, in the presence of a gun, will become bloodthirsty homicidal maniacs waiting to blaze away at the first sign of perceived insult. Anecdotally, I have been cut off on freeways and suffered minor insults a number of times while carrying my legally-concealed handgun and not once did I feel the evil grip of Satan's dark, icy talon on my heart and words whispering to "kill...kill..." in my head. I know a few other CCW permit holders as well, and they seem to be pretty well-balanced types also. In fact, I've never seen anyone succumb to Rage Virus by being in the presence of a firearm, so I'd be curious to know where you get this notion, if not as a projection of your own fears.

[[R_H]]

Another angle: Terrorism, especially domestic terrorism.
It may well be that the typical criminal has next to no use for automatic guns.
But what about people who do not want to gain money, but political goals?
Right now, i am thinking about groups like the german Rote-Armee Fraktiojn (RAF), or other domestic paramilitary groups.
Since that thematic is not too unreasonable in the USA right now, i am suggesting that a ban on automatic weapons would reduce the threat of such groups by a significant margin.

What evidence is there that militant groups in the USA have legally obtained automatic weaponry and are prepared to use it? Look at what Timothy McVeigh did, his attack did not involve any sort of automatic weaponry, it was a fertiliser bomb in the back of a truck. Until 2001, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building was the deadliest act of terrorism in the USA.

Did the RAF use any automatic weapons during their rampage? Was the Waffengesetz changed because of them?

[Coyote]

However, if you can conclusevly show that automatic weapons are not more dangerous than semiautomatic ones, then i DO see NO reason to ban them.

Well, now, that leads to the question, "more dangerous for what?". Most legally-owned automatic weapons in the USA are owned by hobbyist collectors, and they are used for target events. In that case, they most certainly are demonstrated to be "not dangerous" as the instances of one of these weapons being used in crime is virtually zero. So what do you want? It seems like you don't really want to give a fair hearing; instead you have your decision --based on emotion, IMO-- and you're going to search for meandering terms until you get what you want. That's not logic.

Statistics are a part of it. But the mere fact that automatic weapons amount for a smaller amount of crime is not enough.
As we all know, a number of other factors may very well play into that statistic.

But you already asked if they are a danger to society, and it has been shown that they are not, when sold to properly trained and licensed people. This is why it seems to me that you're going to keep throwing curve ball after curve ball until you get what you want.

You would have to show that an automatic weapon does not make an criminal more dangerous, that the automatic weapon is not better than a semiautomatic one.

"More dangerous" in what way? Most crimes committed with firearms are robbery, and the gun is never fired, only displayed. Does it matter if the gun used is a musket or a machinegun? The end result is still robbery, and that in fact is also carried out with knives, bats, broken glass, and just threat of force with no weapon displayed. By that criteria, an automatic weapon is no more or less dangerous than any number of potential display weapons for robbiers. People have even robbed stores with toy guns.

Also, an automatic weapon is not "better" than a semiautomatic one... "better" at what? There is only one type of crime that someone might feel is better facilitated by automatic weapons, and that would be spree-killing. Like at Columbine. But the truth is, automatic weapons fire is not better for something like that, in fact, it means the would-be spree killer will burn through a lot more ammunition more quickly. Please get your head out of the notion that what you see in Hollywood movies is real: a machinegun is not a magic death wand that just knocks over rows of people like dominoes. Automatic fire is hard to aim, and runs through a lot of heavy ammo very, very quickly.

People think an automatic weapon will make them better killers, but the truth is farther from that.

Other than that, you could show that in countries with unrestricted access to automatic weapons, they are still not use for crime.

Kind of an unfair example to set, since no one, not even here, is arguing for unrestricted access.

Another angle: Terrorism, especially domestic terrorism.
It may well be that the typical criminal has next to no use for automatic guns.
But what about people who do not want to gain money, but political goals?
Right now, i am thinking about groups like the german Rote-Armee Fraktiojn (RAF), or other domestic paramilitary groups.
Since that thematic is not too unreasonable in the USA right now, i am suggesting that a ban on automatic weapons would reduce the threat of such groups by a significant margin.

Now this is just silly. First off, you're comparing licensed civilians to a group of people who openly have violent revolutionary combat as their goal, and trying to say that they are one and the same. Secondly, name me a revolutionary group in America that has used automatic rifles to further their goal. I don't think we've seen one since the 1960's or 1970's, and even then it was small; the Symbionese Liberation Army was about 5 people and they were a joke, quickly stopped by authorities.

By the way, there have been violent domestic anti-government groups that carried out attacks against the US in recent history, guess what their weapon of choice has been? Pipe and truck bombs. You're chasing shadows.

[MKSheppard]

As to the "weapons of war" argument, a lot of those weapons described are area-effect and explosives, or special-purpose weapons.

Flamethrowers in a lot of the US are rather....loosely regulated. AAs in you can get one to clear your driveway.

[Serafina]

Well, now, that leads to the question, "more dangerous for what?". Most legally-owned automatic weapons in the USA are owned by hobbyist collectors, and they are used for target events. In that case, they most certainly are demonstrated to be "not dangerous" as the instances of one of these weapons being used in crime is virtually zero. So what do you want? It seems like you don't really want to give a fair hearing; instead you have your decision --based on emotion, IMO-- and you're going to search for meandering terms until you get what you want. That's not logic.

More dangerous in the hands of a criminal, obviously.

But you already asked if they are a danger to society, and it has been shown that they are not, when sold to properly trained and licensed people. This is why it seems to me that you're going to keep throwing curve ball after curve ball until you get what you want.

Thing is, even restricted acces tends to increase the number of avaiable black-market items.
This can be limited with sharp regulations, but not completely stopped.

Note that i am not advocating a complete ban of automatic weapons - i am advocating the german laws, which actually allow automatic weapons for very limited purposes in the hand of civilians - apparently, even for sport.
I did not notice that, but since i am advocating these laws because i think they work and not because of what they say, this does not change my position.

"More dangerous" in what way? Most crimes committed with firearms are robbery, and the gun is never fired, only displayed. Does it matter if the gun used is a musket or a machinegun? The end result is still robbery, and that in fact is also carried out with knives, bats, broken glass, and just threat of force with no weapon displayed. By that criteria, an automatic weapon is no more or less dangerous than any number of potential display weapons for robbiers. People have even robbed stores with toy guns.

Also, an automatic weapon is not "better" than a semiautomatic one... "better" at what? There is only one type of crime that someone might feel is better facilitated by automatic weapons, and that would be spree-killing. Like at Columbine. But the truth is, automatic weapons fire is not better for something like that, in fact, it means the would-be spree killer will burn through a lot more ammunition more quickly. Please get your head out of the notion that what you see in Hollywood movies is real: a machinegun is not a magic death wand that just knocks over rows of people like dominoes. Automatic fire is hard to aim, and runs through a lot of heavy ammo very, very quickly.

People think an automatic weapon will make them better killers, but the truth is farther from that.

Not an expert on that subject, i will readily admit that.

But if there is no difference for self-defense, then why is it important that you are able to have automatic weapons at all?
Sports and collecting are points, but rather weak ones.

Other than that, you could show that in countries with unrestricted access to automatic weapons, they are still not use for crime.

Kind of an unfair example to set, since no one, not even here, is arguing for unrestricted access.

Um - no.

If that would be the case, that would be an increadibly strong argument.
Kinda like showing that this "unbreakable watch" can survive a fall on stone from 10.000 feet - if it can do that, any other situation will be harmless, too.
So, if you can show that your statistics apply in unrestricted areas, too, then you are strenghening your point. Does not mean that you HAVE to do it.

Now this is just silly. First off, you're comparing licensed civilians to a group of people who openly have violent revolutionary combat as their goal, and trying to say that they are one and the same. Secondly, name me a revolutionary group in America that has used automatic rifles to further their goal. I don't think we've seen one since the 1960's or 1970's, and even then it was small; the Symbionese Liberation Army was about 5 people and they were a joke, quickly stopped by authorities.

By the way, there have been violent domestic anti-government groups that carried out attacks against the US in recent history, guess what their weapon of choice has been? Pipe and truck bombs. You're chasing shadows.

Hm, and those "violent groups" can not consist of formerly apparently trustworthy civilians?
And again, the point of increased black-market acces stands, too.

Granted, that is not necessarily a point where citizens have to worry about, but it is a good reason for the goverment to outlaw them.

[Sarevok]

Hm, and those "violent groups" can not consist of formerly apparently trustworthy civilians?
And again, the point of increased black-market acces stands, too.

Granted, that is not necessarily a point where citizens have to worry about, but it is a good reason for the goverment to outlaw them.

I think you are missing Coyotes point. Going lead farming with an automatic weapon looks cool tv but is actually very inefficient in real life. Terrorist groups every where prepare and train to use bombs. Hell even in a direct assault they prefer firing RPGs or hurling grenades. I can't recall a successful attack in a country not at war with nothing but automatic rifles. It makes sense in that every second in a gunfight is potentially going to cost them their lives. Which the terrorists can't afford when they have so few members to begin with. Even in the middle east where there is a large contingent of fanatics they prefer bombs to going guns blazing.

[Serafina]

Hm, and those "violent groups" can not consist of formerly apparently trustworthy civilians?
And again, the point of increased black-market acces stands, too.

Granted, that is not necessarily a point where citizens have to worry about, but it is a good reason for the goverment to outlaw them.

I think you are missing Coyotes point. Going lead farming with an automatic weapon looks cool tv but is actually very inefficient in real life. Terrorist groups every where prepare and train to use bombs. Hell even in a direct assault they prefer firing RPGs or hurling grenades. I can't recall a successful attack in a country not at war with nothing but automatic rifles. It makes sense in that every second in a gunfight is potentially going to cost them their lives. Which the terrorists can't afford when they have so few members to begin with. Even in the middle east where there is a large contingent of fanatics they prefer bombs to going guns blazing.[/quote

Well, ok, good point.
I am conceeding the "domestic terrorism" point.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Serafina, the point is that the existing restrictions work. You seem to be completely ignoring that angle when you're arguing. The existing restrictions on automatic weapons work, and therefore, it is unnecessary to consider further restrictions. Banning a weapon where restrictions have already succeeded in eliminating its use in crime is a completely absurdist position.

[Serafina]

Serafina, the point is that the existing restrictions work. You seem to be completely ignoring that angle when you're arguing. The existing restrictions on automatic weapons work, and therefore, it is unnecessary to consider further restrictions. Banning a weapon where restrictions have already succeeded in eliminating its use in crime is a completely absurdist position.

Well, good point.

/conceeded

[Coyote]

Well, now, that leads to the question, "more dangerous for what?"

More dangerous in the hands of a criminal, obviously.

That's the crux of the matter. A pocketknife is more of a danger to society in the hands of a criminal than a machinegun is in the hands of a law-abiding, licensed, trained gun owner.

Thing is, even restricted acces tends to increase the number of avaiable black-market items.
This can be limited with sharp regulations, but not completely stopped.

Then what we need is a way to guarantee safe and effective storage (ie, responsible storage) to limit the theft of these weapons, since I assume that is what you're talking about. Maybe make it part of the licensing process. In that, I certainly can agree with you. People who buy a gun then just put it under their pillow are asking for trouble-- either by theft, or if their kid finds it. For home defense, if it is felt necessary, they can keep a firearm nearby as long as it is under their positive control, such as within arm's reach at all times.

Note that i am not advocating a complete ban of automatic weapons - i am advocating the german laws, which actually allow automatic weapons for very limited purposes in the hand of civilians - apparently, even for sport.
I did not notice that, but since i am advocating these laws because i think they work and not because of what they say, this does not change my position.

Which is understandable, it sound slike the basics of the laws are similar in the US and Germany. And over here we also restrict and/or limit explosives and other "special" area-effect weapons as well.

People think an automatic weapon will make them better killers, but the truth is farther from that.

Not an expert on that subject, i will readily admit that.

Don't feel bad, a lot of people are misinformed on the issue. It has been common over here for US news media to blur the lines about semi- and auto- matic weapons during news reports. When talking about semi-automatic "assault rifles", fo rexample, they routinely show footage of people blazing away at target ranges with full-auto weapons, knowingly giving the alarmist impression that full-auto weapons are super common, easy to get, and cheap. It is dishonest sensationalism to hype news stories, and it gives people who are ignoran tof guns a false impression of what's out there.

But if there is no difference for self-defense, then why is it important that you are able to have automatic weapons at all?
Sports and collecting are points, but rather weak ones.

Not to the people who collect them. There are people who collect cars, exceptionally fast ones, cars that are illegal on the street, cannot carry much by way of passengers, fail emissions tests, and if operated to their maximum performance, would be deadly on the roads. But as long as they restrict the use of these cars to race tracks, and are willing to bear the price for this hobby, there is no harm to society that would justify restricting them.

Kind of an unfair example to set, since no one, not even here, is arguing for unrestricted access.

Um - no.

If that would be the case, that would be an increadibly strong argument.
Kinda like showing that this "unbreakable watch" can survive a fall on stone from 10.000 feet - if it can do that, any other situation will be harmless, too.
So, if you can show that your statistics apply in unrestricted areas, too, then you are strenghening your point. Does not mean that you HAVE to do it.

I'm not sure entirely what you mean by this, but part of my argument in this (and the arguments of others) is that automatic weapons are owned by people who are trained and licensed, and these people have caused essentially no harm to society. Please don't focus on just the part about "they have automatic rifles" and focus also on the part about "trained and licensed". It is part of the legal ownership status that cannot be done away with. A background check is done, criminal and mental histories are checked, the person is interviewed, they have to be able to lock up the weapon safely so that it cannot be easily stolen, etc. There is a lot more going on that just forking over some money and handing the guy a rifle.

[Coyote]

Serafina, the point is that the existing restrictions work. You seem to be completely ignoring that angle when you're arguing. The existing restrictions on automatic weapons work, and therefore, it is unnecessary to consider further restrictions. Banning a weapon where restrictions have already succeeded in eliminating its use in crime is a completely absurdist position.

Well, good point.

/conceeded

Oh, whups. Sorry. I wasn't trying to get in a parting shot at you, I was just lazy and didn't read the "new posts" before hitting "submit".

[Serafina]

Oh, whups. Sorry. I wasn't trying to get in a parting shot at you, I was just lazy and didn't read the "new posts" before hitting "submit".

Ah, no problem - except that the use of the word "parting shot" by a Moderator made me nervous for a second.

But my arguments had apparently not that much basis, so chewing me out about them is perfectly acceptable.

Regards
Fina

[Alyeska]

Oh, whups. Sorry. I wasn't trying to get in a parting shot at you, I was just lazy and didn't read the "new posts" before hitting "submit".

Ah, no problem - except that the use of the word "parting shot" by a Moderator made me nervous for a second.

But my arguments had apparently not that much basis, so chewing me out about them is perfectly acceptable.

Regards
Fina

Always be open to learning something. I myself got caught short in this thread by Mike and I ended up reexamining some of my beliefs. An open mind that can look at things rationally is a wonderful thing.

[Serafina]

Always be open to learning something. I myself got caught short in this thread by Mike and I ended up reexamining some of my beliefs. An open mind that can look at things rationally is a wonderful thing.

Well, i try to, and i think i did in this discussion.

Regards
Fina

[Serafine666]

Well of course not - banning giving a gun as a gift would be impossible as there's nothing stopping the gifter from just gifting money instead of a gun, and then having the giftee go and buy it themselves.

The issue with the way gifting guns works at the moment (in the US) is that the gifter is not qualified to make any proper legal checks on the person they are gifting too.

That there is why I think that Duchess' idea, expanded a little, would be awesome and peachy-keen: you can set up some sort of exchange system where you can get a certification that the recipient has been background-checked and include the ID-like registration papers with the gift without needing to have the person go to the store with you.

[Serafine666]

Pretty much, yes.
I am advocating German weapon laws because they seem pretty reasonable to me.

However, if you can conclusevly show that automatic weapons are not more dangerous than semiautomatic ones, then I DO see NO reason to ban them.

I mean no disrespect, Serafina, but your standard is a bit useless. So many things go into the deadliness of a firearm that some vague question like "is automatic deadlier than semi-automatic" doesn't really help the discussion. Is an automatic weapon that fires 5.56mm rounds more deadly than a .50 caliber bolt-action rifle that can seriously damage a lightly-armored vehicle? Is that automatic weapon more deadly than a semi-automatic shotgun that, with new developments in ammunition, can fire explosive or armor-piercing rounds with a very large diameter? I can legally order incendiary 7.62x54R rounds for my semi-automatic bolt-action rifle developed in 1891. Is that 5.56 automatic weapon deadlier than a rifle that can set things on fire with a single round? Or, even better, is it deadlier than a rifle that can kill someone from over a mile away? True, few of my examples are credible dangers with your common garden-variety criminal but in all of my examples, a semi-automatic or slow-shooting firearm is arguably deadlier than an automatic weapon... and definitely more likely to hit the target with less skill.

[Commander 598]

I can legally order incendiary 7.62x54R rounds for my semi-automatic bolt-action rifle developed in 1891.

Wait, WHAT?