Concerning Full Auto Guns

ancjr · Mar 23, 2022

Rest assured that no one is wanting to take your H&R break action single shot away from you. So, whatever enemy combatants have entered the country smuggling God only knows what kind of weapons and munitions with them, or where they have set up shop, you'll be able to scare them all the way back to wherever they came from with a single blast out of your second story window.

VulpesForge · Mar 23, 2022

Tombs said:
You need to shoot a full auto before you really pass judgements.

Semi-automatic fire is more effective for causing mass harm in a target rich and defenseless environment.
Automatic fire is very capable of being very well aimed and deliberate, it is not an indiscriminate weapon.

After shooting some, I see no intellectually honest way to consider it more of a risk to society than semi-automatic fire. It's actually lower risk, as it's giving you 1-2 seconds of fire before you're having to reload.

The only danger I see would be present on shooting ranges with people who are less responsible, shooting automatic handguns. But the reality is that they'd be a greater risk to themselves than anyone around them. (Or any very low flying aircraft, lol)

I've shot a few auto's and played with my fair share of nfa toys. I can hold a 45 ACP Uzi in an 8-10" in box from 30 yards until it runs out. I could deal reasonable damage with full auto and plenty of mags, but sustained accurate semi automatic fire will always be king if you're trying to hurt as many people as possible. I think taking a high position with a good magnification scope would do the most potential damage, but no one is talking about banning 30-06 bolt guns or shot out sks's. It's funny how when black rifles are getting down to reasonable prices again some looney starts shooting up places with a black rifle, isn't it?

VulpesForge · Mar 23, 2022

BJHay said:
The problem isn't the NFA but rather the Hughes amendment. It was passed on a very sketchy voice vote in 1968. That law bans civilian ownership of new full-autos. The vote recording is available online and it doesn't sound like it passed to me yet the democratic leader of the vote (Charlie Wrangle???) said it did....so it did. That amendment cut off supply and drove prices to the level we see today.

Arguing against the Hughes amendment is probably an easier sell because it wouldn't make a difference in what or who could own over the current situation.

Even if the Hughes amendment could be repealed politically there would be huge pushback back from some of our own. Full-auto owners today have spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on their firearms. The value of those very expensive items would drop to nearly zero overnight. If faced with a six figure loss some current owners would not be happy with the change.

One more time for the people in the back.

Leadeye · Mar 23, 2022

How many people are injured in the US by full auto guns every year, legal or otherwise? I think you'll find those numbers are so low they aren't even on the radar compared to handguns. Full auto requires some practice and training to use it effectively.

The Hughes amendment was just congressional log rolling to get FOPA passed and it ended what I've always felt was the "golden age" of NFA. By the late 70s inflation had devalued the $200 tax to the point where you could by an M-10, pay the tax, and spend less than you would on some top drawer handguns like a Python. In those few years lots of NFA stuff was manufactured and sold.

GodFearinGunTotin · Mar 23, 2022

Leadeye said:
How many people are injured in the US by full auto guns every year, legal or otherwise? I think you'll find those numbers are so low they aren't even on the radar compared to handguns. Full auto requires some practice and training to use it effectively.

The Hughes amendment was just congressional log rolling to get FOPA passed and it ended what I've always felt was the "golden age" of NFA. By the late 70s inflation had devalued the $200 tax to the point where you could by an M-10, pay the tax, and spend less than you would on some top drawer handguns like a Python. In those few years lots of NFA stuff was manufactured and sold.

If I'd known then what I know now...

Creedmoor · Mar 23, 2022

BJHay said:
The problem isn't the NFA but rather the Hughes amendment. It was passed on a very sketchy voice vote in 1968. That law bans civilian ownership of new full-autos. The vote recording is available online and it doesn't sound like it passed to me yet the democratic leader of the vote (Charlie Wrangle???) said it did....so it did. That amendment cut off supply and drove prices to the level we see today.

Arguing against the Hughes amendment is probably an easier sell because it wouldn't make a difference in what or who could own over the current situation.

Even if the Hughes amendment could be repealed politically there would be huge pushback back from some of our own. Full-auto owners today have spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on their firearms. The value of those very expensive items would drop to nearly zero overnight. If faced with a six figure loss some current owners would not be happy with the change.

It was Reagan that stopped new manufacturing of transferable machineguns in 1986.

AndreusMaximus · Mar 23, 2022

Tombs said:
You need to shoot a full auto before you really pass judgements.

Semi-automatic fire is more effective for causing mass harm in a target rich and defenseless environment.
Automatic fire is very capable of being very well aimed and deliberate, it is not an indiscriminate weapon.

After shooting some, I see no intellectually honest way to consider it more of a risk to society than semi-automatic fire. It's actually lower risk, as it's giving you 1-2 seconds of fire before you're having to reload.

The only danger I see would be present on shooting ranges with people who are less responsible, shooting automatic handguns. But the reality is that they'd be a greater risk to themselves than anyone around them. (Or any very low flying aircraft, lol)

I guess I'd always taken it for granted that full auto would be more dangerous against a crowd of innocent people, without even really thinking about it. Now you lay it out like that, though, I see how that really does make sense.

Thanks for giving me a new perspective!

And hopefully one day I will actually get to shoot a full auto weapon

AndreusMaximus · Mar 23, 2022

ancjr said:
Rest assured that no one is wanting to take your H&R break action single shot away from you. So, whatever enemy combatants have entered the country smuggling God only knows what kind of weapons and munitions with them, or where they have set up shop, you'll be able to scare them all the way back to wherever they came from with a single blast out of your second story window.

Single shot? No, I took Joe Biden's advice and got a double-barrel. That way I can scare them away with TWO blasts!

ancjr · Mar 23, 2022

AndreusMaximus said:
Single shot? No, I took Joe Biden's advice and got a double-barrel. That way I can scare them away with TWO blasts!

Science revealed that double barrels were twice as dangerous as single shots, so they are a public health hazard.

Leadeye · Mar 23, 2022

Another thing that's changed with FA guns is the price of ammo. Shooting SMGs can still be fun, especially if you reload. Shooting an MG-42, or an M2 you'll go through money faster than Lamar Odom in a Vegas whorehouse.

HoughMade · Mar 23, 2022

GodFearinGunTotin said:
There's a reason militaries adopted auto weapons--for both offensive and defensive measures, no doubt.

Army infantry training circa 1990: "Some of your rifles have full auto capability. Never use it."

Shadow01 · Mar 23, 2022

placing meaningful limits on ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel and the size of cargo trucks kept Timothy Mcveigh from being a mass murderer.

gregr · Mar 23, 2022

AndreusMaximus said:
I agree with everything you just said. I think the most powerful argument against any sort of gun control is that it just doesn't work; criminals who don't care about the law will always get their hands on illegal weapons no matter what.

But there are people out there who are dead set and convinced that the government can do anything if we just give it enough money and enough tries. How do you debate with those sort of people?

Or perhaps to put in another way, suppose some brilliant mind came up with a gun control measure that DID work, that could keep full auto weapons out of everyone's hands, and had been tried and proven to make it virtually impossible for anyone, law abiding or not, to get their hands on full auto guns. (Yes, I believe this is impossible too, but let's just pretend for moment, for the sake of discussion.) Are we effectively going to say to people, "Okay, in an alternative universe where gun control DID work, we'd be okay with it (at least as far as banning full auto goes, just for this case.)" Or is there a better reasoning we can use to explain why full auto should be allowed for everyone, regardless of talking about the lack of efficacy of gun laws?

Maybe I'm just being too hypothetical and overthinking the question, but it's interesting to me to go down these sort of lines of thought...

In the hypothetical scenario you present, gun control is STILL unacceptable, because the Second Amendment states very clearly; shall not be infringed. In any given case of gun control, the premise is to constrain the law-abiding in an effort to somehow control the criminal. Has never worked and obviously, never will.

gregr · Mar 23, 2022

AndreusMaximus said:
True, and I see your point, but just for the sake of discussion...

I think it can be argued that most militaries are likely to find themselves in combat against large numbers of enemies, with not innocent civilians in the line of fire, or in situations requiring an advance that must be covered with suppressive fire. I would think civilians are almost never going to be in this sort of situation while defending themselves against ordinary threats.

Whatever a law-abiding civilian might encounter has zero to with with anything. Shall not be infringed means exactly that.

jcj54 · Mar 23, 2022

Be aware that there was only 1 yes 1 instance of a legally owned registered full auto firearm used in a crime from 1934 when the NFA was enacted to 1986 when full auto firearm manufacture for civilians was outlawed.
Also, the person who committed the crime was an undercover cop who murdered a drug informant.

flatlander · Mar 23, 2022

Biggest argument for me is that more are not being made. I remember $500 MAC's and $2000 M16's. That and a less than a 90 day wait on ATF permission slips :oldwise:

Keith_Indy · Mar 23, 2022

All the laws we have against them and a criminal can obtain a small chunk of metal, machined just right, that defeats the purpose of the law

BJHay · Mar 23, 2022

Creedmoor said:
It was Reagan that stopped new manufacturing of transferable machineguns in 1986.

Yup, he signed it.

cbhausen · Mar 23, 2022

If bump stocks truly are machine guns why the hell did ATF compel everyone to destroy them rather than donate them to the military? I’m sure our fighting forces would’ve loved all those free machine guns!

Add purple as desired.

xwing · Mar 23, 2022

I live in the real world, not a hypothetical one. This question is akin to "if unicorns could fly and farted rainbows full of gold, what would be your preferred method for picking up the gold?"

Concerning Full Auto Guns

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

1 Kings 18:17-18 KJV

Marksman

Marksman

Grandmaster

Super Moderator

Grandmaster

Master

Master

1 Kings 18:17-18 KJV

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Master

Master

Master

Marksman

Master

Master

Sharpshooter

Grandmaster

Expert

Log in

Site Supporter

Forum statistics