Those have basically been banned since 1986.

It kind of skews the poll since most people wont vote to allow automatic weapons.

They are aware of that fact. How many automatic weapons have been used in crimes?

They are banned. Now lets ban a few more and give the average, sane, unarmed American, living a normal life in the most advanced nation on earth, a little bit more chance of survival in the event that another good guy gone bad decides to shoot up a public space for some idiotic reason.

Here's a good guideline: "If you can't get it done in six, reload, candy-ass"

Not just the same law, the exact same clause, with the same penalties.

Just like handguns are used orders of magnitude more often than shotguns. In all three of those cases the usefulness of the gun for the crime is probably the biggest determining factor...

Like I said in a different post, the issue is a lot more complicated than "gun control works" or "gun control doesn't work". It can work, in some circumstances; the trick is figuring out how.

that was far more effective in removing the incentive for organized violent crime (and the need for heavy weapons to protect that profit).

why would the add that … its not like FA weapons are used in a lot of crimes.

....that gun control works.


(Gun Enthusiasts: Post standard "post hoc/ergo propter hoc" response here.)

It's still just as much fun as the first time. Go forth and do likewise.

Banned by the exact same law, the exact same clause in fact.

Automatic weapons are used in crimes essentially never; sawed off shotguns are used fairly frequently.

Where does the difference come from?

For-real full autos are expensive as hell and have a stack of government forms following them around; obtaining a cheap, legal shotgun and then hacking part of the barrel off is an easy action, by comparison.

And I wonder about your "used fairly frequently" characterization of sawed-offs. There are plenty of short-barreled shotguns out there, with barrels just long enough to not break the law. But you knew all that, didn't you?

My point was that the issue is more complicated than "gun control works" or "gun control doesn't work". Gun control can work, in some circumstances.

with a hacksaw. Making an automatic weapon from a semi-automatic is more involved. I have played with both. Legally.

They are too busy getting nervous about an online poll!

It's really more proof that large, bulky, difficult-to-conceal firearms aren't all that useful to ordinary criminals.

But +1 for employing a philosophical term (and not making a hash of it). Too rare...

The difference is probably instructive.

so perhaps the point is that criminals don't often use large hard to conceal weapons to commit crimes.

before the NFA as compared to the years afterward? Pre-1934 crime statistics seem quite difficult to locate, particularly anything before 1930,.

Moreover, be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. Much of the violent crime of the period before the NFA involved the illegal sale and transport of alcohol during prohibition (and one of the reasons for the passage of the NFA). This crime mostly ended upon repeal of prohibition in 1933, mere months before the NFA went into effect.

To the extent that there was indeed any notable reduction of crime using fully automatic weapons around the end of 1933 and beginning of 1934, it could just as easily be attributed to the legal sale of alcohol and resulting diminishment of organized crime than anything to do with the NFA.

Of course, I would be most interested in reading any scholarly works that discuss the issue or, as you assert, prove that the historic and contemporary lack of crime involving fully automatic weapons is the direct result of the NFA.

You made the conclusory allegation that "The fact that full autos aren't used in crimes is proof positive that gun control works."

Would you care to produce the actual data concerning causation, no just potential correlation (to the extent there was even any demonstrable difference in rate of crimes with automatic weapons before and after the passage of the NFA)?

Full auto is a niche market, really. There is no real demand for full auto outside of the war trophies market and the Rambo wannabes.

Now try taking away the alternatives.

Don't let it get you down---you've got a considerable amount of company around here......

Sure the 30's had lots used in crime but really very few were used in crimes before the ban as well.

In this nation such weapons are rare, hard to get and extremely expensive.

They are a lot of fun to shoot but unless you fire two or three round busts they are difficult to control with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Fully automatic weapons also burn up a lot of ammo and ammo ain't cheap. A full auto weapon is an excellent way to turm money into noise.

A terrorist might use one in a crowd but for your average street criminal or member of a drug gang involved in turf warfare, a revolver or a semiautomatic weapon will work just fine. A semi auto weapon is also cheaper and if you want to throw it in a river after the crime, you are not out much.

I'm not a criminal so I use firearms for target shooting and self defense. I can't think of one advantage a fully automatic weapon could offer me over a semiautomatic except as a long term investment. Perhaps if an angry crowd were to attack me, I could empty a 30 round magazine to cause them to duck and take cover. The chances of that ever happening are about the same as my winning the lotto this week if I don't buy a ticket.

"Rock and Roll" is a lot of fun but as I said it is just an excellent way to turn money into noise.

I knew a guy who owned a Thompson submachine gun. He said it was too expensive to shoot when using factory ammo and it took too long to reload enough ammo for just one short session at the gun range.

Of course if he still has the Tommy Gun it is worth a small fortune.

Even in states with strict limits on handguns (the most common weapon by far), rifles are less restricted.

It's an amateur survey and as a former professional I can say that there's a lot wrong with support question, principally that it uses collapsed categories that may make it hard for respondents to choose. There should be a long list of potential gun control measures and unless they're trying to test knowledge of existing laws, the controls should be presented with reference to whether they would be status quo or additional controls. Then the responses can be collapsed into categories for results presentation.

For a bunch of high schoolers though it's not a bad little survey.

As long as firearms are available to civilians, these types of attacks will continue to occur.

Look at Anders Breivik. Many people point toward Europe as a good example of common sense gun control, and yet Breivik was still able to obtain several weapons through legal channels and then kill 69 people and injure over 100.

Obviously total prohibition wouldn't magically make all guns disappear into thin air. The best we could hope for is that the number of illegal guns in circulation would be decreased over a long period of time.

I think we're too far from any relatively quick solution. Regular gun control doesn't work, and the fantasy of having a substantial number of people carry concealed to prevent/stop crimes is also unrealistic.

...by long?

Except that guns are easier to smuggle, since they have no distinct odor, they smell like iron and oil, just like washing machines.

Supply will meet demand.

Hey, it worked for me!

but some guys/gals like automatic weapons so I would not ban them....but would like extensive background checks (including medical and physical) AND references who vouch for their stability and personality, and political leanings....

Sounds like a lot, but if they come thru with all that stuff, the auomatic weapons should not be a problem.

Shooting a 50 cal is amazing.

I've often thought the best way to demystify guns to teenagers is require them to clean them.

Lcpl Recursion, 0331 (for a hot minute until I could lateral).

of "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" to me.

If you lean Democratic is that 'good' for your background check (as presumably less crazy) or bad (as more crazy for being out of the norm for D leaning people)?

maybe someone has been radicalized....do they pledge allegiance to America? Do they hate: Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Football, Women, Gays, Men, Children, Cops, Priests, Hobos, Bankers, Congress, the President, Democrats, Republicans, Moslums, Bus Drivers, Schools ......

You know - things that most people have little gripes with, but these leanings may be so sharply bent as to endanger the object of the hate...

So I guess I didn't mean "political" leanings, I guess I meant "leanings," but they stem from government protected entities.

by hating have done anything illegal or that would allow the government to curtail their rights. Plenty of people right here on DU would be precluded from firearm ownership by such a broad definition ( lots of hate toward R's and religion here - justified or not).

Would anyone who hates conservatives/Republicans (or liberals/Democrats) fail your proposed background check?

Would anyone who hates Blacks (or Whites) fail your proposed background check?

I think what you propose is close to what many Americans want which is to keep the 'wackos' from getting firearms and shooting up places but the problem is determining who decides who/what is 'wacko', how we go about determining who those 'whackos' are, and what things other than firearm ownership those 'whackos' should be restricted from doing (should they be around kids, should there be a publicly accessible 'whacko' directory, would the info be shared with schools/employers?) Lots of pitfalls once you try to see how it would work in real life.

but with some, it's an obcession that can't be hidden.

It's a problem that I can't solve because to save some lives some lives have to be ruined, perhaps in error.

That leaves us with the 2nd Amendment. Amend it.

Gun folks will revolt and the country would fall apart....

No wonder poor Obama is frustrated. We all are.

That many with "left" leanings have committed mass killings? Right off the top of my head I can think of several.

Lee Harvey oswald, Vester Lee Flanagan (appeared on TV as a new reporter on election night with Obama buttons on his jacket), the navy yard shooter, the virginia tech shooter, James Holmes (worked as an Obama volunteer) and the Ft hood shooter, where all Democrats, or had "left" ideology

There are several more but those are the ones I can think of right off hand, we have our share of whack jobs too.

Do you really want to use "Political Leanings" as a reason to restrict civil liberties? What would happen when the other party gets into power?

I can miss all the people I've lost because of them but what the hell huh Skippy ?

Only a very small percentage of those who voted favor a total ban, while a majority favors some control within what are likely constitutional boundaries.

"Even on DU...."

Enjoy your stay.

Or perhaps I didn't properly articulate my point. There are some fairly vocal members of DU who repeatedly post that they favor gun bans/confiscation and repeal of the 2d Amendment. However, even on DU, which I believe largely represents the opinions of the more liberal members of the Democratic party, there is very little support for a complete ban on firearms. Based on the number of posts I see calling for a ban -- probably by the same small group of people -- I expected greater support for a ban.

Usually the more extreme the viewpoint the louder it is declared.