Court Ruling on Machinegun Possession

Thermal said:
Anything you like, really.
Click to expand...

It's not what I like. I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're claiming.

The weapons used in our highest fatality mass shootings look distinctively similar in a lineup, and nothing at all like the typical sport shooting or hunting firearm.
Click to expand...

The AR-15 is commonly used for both sport shooting and hunting. How is it not typical? Do you just mean that it doesn't look like guns that are specifically tailored for those rolls? Because that doesn't seem to be a very useful metric.

And yes, I know what you are getting at. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold in the States (not sure if it is #1 in guns overall), so one might expect to see them more often. But as you pointed out, we don't.
Click to expand...

One would be an idiot to expect rifles to be more commonly used in homicides than handguns. But if you're only talking about a small subset of mass shootings, the highest body count ones, then it's not unreasonable to get a shift away from handguns to rifles, because the primary advantage of handguns is less of a factor in those cases.

Most are handguns, till you reach that efficient mass killing stage, then we have our lone standout.
Click to expand...

Is it a standout because it's somehow different than other rifles? Or is it simply that rifles get used more in these dramatic mass shootings you refer to, and it's the most common rifle? I still don't know what you think the expected representation should be, and how the actual one differs from that, and what that even really means.
 
Metullus said:
I guess a more accurate statement is "there is no practical reason why anyone outside the military to own a machine gun". (They aren't necessarily useful in hunting, their usefulness in personal defense is questionable, I am unaware of any significant sport shooting events that would involve machine guns.) Maybe I'm not 'creative' enough, but I can't think of any practical uses a civilian might have for a machine gun. Maybe you can enlighten us?
Click to expand...
Well, they are interesting mechanically. They are fun to shoot...
Click to expand...
That's just variations of "I want one", without stating a practical purpose for it.
...and, while you might be reluctant to recognize the fact, recreational shooting is, in fact, a sport.
Click to expand...
Sport typically involves some sort of competition. (e.g. "I can hit this target more often than my competitor")

Are there any competitions that involve machine guns? I'm unfamiliar with any. (And I am talking about a real, organized event, not just some random gun-nuts who like ot shoot tin cans while drinking beer with their buddies.) Skeet shooters use shotguns, biathilons use 22s, etc. What sport uses machine guns?
It would seem to me that if the claim is that my possession of an automatic weapon is somehow outweighed by the harm it is likely to cause it is not unreasonable to expect that the claim be supported by something more than "just because".
Click to expand...
Well the 2017 shooter used a "bump stock" in his mass shooting. Technically that did not make his weapon a "machine gun", but it simulated the effect.

Giving him access to a real, full machine gun would likely have improved his firing rate and accuracy.
 
Good ol' Americans! Constantly coming up with more efficient ways to kill their fellow citizens. You guys have more ridiculous laws than most theocracies. And most of them are made by courts rather than your elected representatives. Your method of government sucks big time.

And no, paranoid Americans posting here, I do not hate America. My feelings toward your country are mostly a blend of pity and amusement, with just a touch of amazement.
 
Segnosaur said:
That's just variations of "I want one", without stating a practical purpose for it.

Sport typically involves some sort of competition. (e.g. "I can hit this target more often than my competitor")

Are there any competitions that involve machine guns? I'm unfamiliar with any. (And I am talking about a real, organized event, not just some random gun-nuts who like ot shoot tin cans while drinking beer with their buddies.) Skeet shooters use shotguns, biathilons use 22s, etc. What sport uses machine guns?
Well the 2017 shooter used a "bump stock" in his mass shooting. Technically that did not make his weapon a "machine gun", but it simulated the effect.

Giving him access to a real, full machine gun would likely have improved his firing rate and accuracy.
Click to expand...

You can take down a whole herd of deer with little effort at all.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
So what are the cops going to ask for to keep firepower superiority?
Miniguns?
Click to expand...

Steve said:
RPG's
Click to expand...

Citizens should not allow the police to have firearm superiority. Make RPGs legal for the public!

/s

But of course 2A advocates will indeed argue for this. Their argument is that entirely premised on the idea that governments should not have firepower superiority.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not what I like. I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're claiming.



The AR-15 is commonly used for both sport shooting and hunting. How is it not typical? Do you just mean that it doesn't look like guns that are specifically tailored for those rolls? Because that doesn't seem to be a very useful metric.



One would be an idiot to expect rifles to be more commonly used in homicides than handguns. But if you're only talking about a small subset of mass shootings, the highest body count ones, then it's not unreasonable to get a shift away from handguns to rifles, because the primary advantage of handguns is less of a factor in those cases.



Is it a standout because it's somehow different than other rifles? Or is it simply that rifles get used more in these dramatic mass shootings you refer to, and it's the most common rifle? I still don't know what you think the expected representation should be, and how the actual one differs from that, and what that even really means.
Click to expand...

Don't want to turn this into another "what's wrong with the AR-15? It's so tacticool!" sidebar, but to answer most of your points concisely: the AR is not much good at anything. There are much better target and hunting rifles available. Yet the AR is popular. Why? Simply because it's tacticool and the army guys use them. I don't find that to be a good reason to have them available to the public. Many people do. I guess they figure schoolkids are relatively easy to replace, I dunno. For my part, the bad doesn't outweigh the benefit, and yes, I take that balance very seriously, considering what thd bad and benefits are.

Eta: it could be said "the AR-15 and its high capacity semi auto kin" to be more precise, but as the army guns are the most popular ones by far, it suffices as shorthand
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Don't want to turn this into another "what's wrong with the AR-15? It's so tacticool!" sidebar, but to answer most of your points concisely: the AR is not much good at anything. There are much better target and hunting rifles available. Yet the AR is popular. Why? Simply because it's tacticool and the army guys use them. I don't find that to be a good reason to have them available to the public. Many people do. I guess they figure schoolkids are relatively easy to replace, I dunno. For my part, the bad doesn't outweigh the benefit, and yes, I take that balance very seriously, considering what thd bad and benefits are.
Click to expand...

What is the bad? That they're tacticool? You haven't explicitly said.

Eta: it could be said "the AR-15 and its high capacity semi auto kin" to be more precise, but as the army guns are the most popular ones by far, it suffices as shorthand
Click to expand...

I don't think it does suffice. If you mean the broader category, then say the broader category, and specify what does and does not qualify under that category.
 
Ziggurat said:
What is the bad? That they're tacticool? You haven't explicitly said.
Click to expand...

I refuse to explain what might be considered "bad" when the discussion is about their extremely high prevalence in high fatality mass shootings.

I don't think it does suffice. If you mean the broader category, then say the broader category, and specify what does and does not qualify under that category.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to give a **** about the distinction in this context. I really am.
 
angrysoba said:
“Registered” machine gun? Is that because they are illegal unless grandfathered in? The thread is about legalizing machine guns.
Click to expand...
Machine guns have always been legal in the USA at the federal level. A $200 tax and ATF approval is required for a transfer involving an unlicensed civilian and all machine guns owned by unlicensed civilians were registered by May 1986. Some states prohibit possession by unlicensed civilians.

It is legal for civilians to make machine guns for the government. They are obviously possessed during the manufacturing process.

This ruling might open up the civilian machine gun registry to new machine guns for civilian possession. The other transfer requirements would remain in affect.
 
a_unique_person said:
That's not a meaningful statistic. The gun in question is the preferred style of weapon of the mass shooter.
Click to expand...
Why is it not meaningful?

Firearms that were illegally modified to be machine guns have been used in violent crimes at times.

As far as I know semi-auto rifles and handguns of any type are the overwhelmingly preferred style of weapons of the mass shooter.

What evidence do you have that actual machine guns, registered or not, are the preferred style of weapon of the mass shooter? I am aware of some, such as Paddock in the 2017 Vegas shooting and the North Hollywood bank robbers.
 
Thermal said:
Anything you like, really. The weapons used in our highest fatality mass shootings look distinctively similar in a lineup, and nothing at all like the typical sport shooting or hunting firearm.
Click to expand...
The AR-15 is a typical sporting rifle in the USA.
 
Thermal said:
Don't want to turn this into another "what's wrong with the AR-15? It's so tacticool!" sidebar, but to answer most of your points concisely: the AR is not much good at anything. There are much better target and hunting rifles available.
Click to expand...
Why is the AR-15 not much good at target shooting or hunting? Are only the very best rifles acceptable for those activities? What kind of accuracy (in MOA) do you require for target shooting and hunting?
 
Ranb said:
Why is the AR-15 not much good at target shooting or hunting? Are only the very best rifles acceptable for those activities? What kind of accuracy (in MOA) do you require for target shooting and hunting?
Click to expand...

Did you not understand the post you are quoting? I specifically did not want to have this discussion again. It goes nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom