Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by Hirlau

.........and Wikipedia is wrong, as it often is.

From the wikipedia article in question:

"An automatic firearm is a firearm that loads another round mechanically after the first round has been fired.

The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger (like the .45 "automatic"), or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition until the trigger (or other activating device) is released, the ammunition is exhausted, or the firearm is jammed."

So the term "automatic" refers to the loading, not firing. What's wrong about that?

----------

On the main topic, this is all just about where we as a people draw the line, right? Otherwise, if you try to interpret the 2nd amendment in some absolute fashion, why can't we privately own Stinger missiles?

Originally Posted by AxelH

Well, that's disturbing, pixelfixed. Do you have an article or something to back up how easy it is to modify these rifles that are originally designed as assault rifles (i.e. military purpose) and sell them to the unscrupulous lollygaggers outside the gun shows? No doubt they can be modified, they were all designed to be capable of fully automatic fire. That they also function very well as varmint and large game rifles is also beyond question.

I'd like to know if our current media sweetie-pie, Holmes, was using the converted, fully-automatic kind.

I agree I had a guy in my unit that converted a m-4 into a full auto it's simple really. Some guns in my opinion should not be accessible to the public. Since such simple modifications can be made to those weapons

Originally Posted by northpaw

From the wikipedia article in question:

"An automatic firearm is a firearm that loads another round mechanically after the first round has been fired.

The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger (like the .45 "automatic"), or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition until the trigger (or other activating device) is released, the ammunition is exhausted, or the firearm is jammed."

So the term "automatic" refers to the loading, not firing. What's wrong about that?

First of all, I don't use Wikipedia as a source for any of my information gathering.

If you are going to push the above "cut & paste" as the definitive source for the meaning of the words "automatic & semi automatic", in their relationship to weapon function; then please give me the name of the individual who "up loaded" this to Wikipedia, so I can review his qualifications.

This is only fair, is it not?

WOW the amount of misinformation flying around is staggering.

Originally Posted by Tylerbrycen

I agree I had a guy in my unit that converted a m-4 into a full auto it's simple really. Some guns in my opinion should not be accessible to the public. Since such simple modifications can be made to those weapons

An M-4 is already set up for 3 round burst. It's not hard to go from there.

Heck, the first time I did a trigger job on a 10/22 I stoned the sear a bit too much and one trigger press resulted in a mag dump.

And yes, technically speaking a handgun of the glock type persuasion or an AR 15 is an autoloader. But it does not a fully automatic firing weapon make. Heck, there are some sweet autoloading revolvers out there.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

First of all, I don't use Wikipedia as a source for any of my information gathering.

If you are going to push the above "cut & paste" as the definitive source for the meaning of the words "automatic & semi automatic", in their relationship to weapon function; then please give me the name of the individual who "up loaded" this to Wikipedia, so I can review his qualifications.

This is only fair, is it not?

I mentioned it because I found it interesting, since I'd always assumed that auto/semi-auto referred to the firing, not the loading. Feel free to disagree with Wikipedia, and to explain why, or not. I'm not personally invested in it in the slightest.

I sincerely disagree with you here Jimmy. Apprehension of criminals is more than to punish them, it is also to learn about them. I think the fact that there have been a few of these horrid events in the history of the US means more needs to be understood about the people who undertake these horrific acts. Studying this individual could save lives in the future.


Also while it is true that crazy people who wish to do harm can do so without guns, don't they just make it a hell of a lot easier for them. Bundy confessed to 30 murders over 4 years, this guy killed 14 (?) people in minutes, and injured scores more. Would he have been able to do that without some sort of ballistic weapon? I very much doubt it.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

It is a semi auto. If you have a government stamp and maybe $30,000 dollars you can legally own one with a selector switch to go selective fire or full auto. I was thinking of the Palestinian a few years ago, in Israel. He didn't have a gun at all. Only a huge front end loader which he used to crush cars and run over pedestrians until the LEOs finally shot him dead.

Serial killer BTK (bind, torture, kill) caught after thirty years or so of being on the loose. He never used a firearm in any of his gruesome murders. Neither did Richard Speck or Theodore Bundy. When a crazy man wants to do bodily harm they will find a way. The killer of those poor folks in that theater should have been killed on the spot by the LEOs who caught him.

Bharner, would firearm proficiency classes have stopped this chap. NO! They would have made him more dangerous.
as you can see in this link

"http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/07/Gun-ownership-gun-deaths-correlation.jpg"

The USA has the greatest intentional firearms deaths compared to gun ownership numbers in the world. I think this has a greater relationship to the ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor in the USA if I am honest.
"Quite honestly there is no need for anything beyond a bow/crossbow for hunting and traps for small game. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain lazy."
I agree wholeheartedly.

Hirlau ... The greater issue here isn't whether he should have had access to automatic weapons ... but whether he should have had access to guns at all. I know that isn't what the OP said but it is what I think.
"I totally agree, but with one minor exception, " Let one of the deceased victim's parents kill him. ""
This is one of the most moronic and neanderthal statements I have ever had the displeasure of reading. An eye for an eye, in modern society, what would this really achieve? The people who are gone, are gone. It is very sad and I feel for the families of the fallen, but killing the perpetrator doesn't achieve anything at all. Death is no punishment, if I were to face life imprisonment or death I know my choice.

I have no issue with hunting, I have serious issue with weapons being readily available for the masses. I don't think there is a readily governable method of distributing firearms to those who will use them properly, so why allow anybody to have them?

Originally Posted by HarleyFXST

WOW the amount of misinformation flying around is staggering.

Well then share your vast knowledge?

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

...I have no issue with hunting, I have serious issue with weapons being readily available for the masses. I don't think there is a readily governable method of distributing firearms to those who will use them properly, so why allow anybody to have them?

So what would you say to the argument that the genie is already out of the bottle? We have millions and millions in circulation, and people argue that they need firearms to protect themselves against others with firearms.

You can change the law, gun amnesties really do work. There would be people who fought it but if you change the law, the law is changed. People have to get used to it, make sure people know they can turn their guns in, and that if they don't they will be given lengthy prison sentences for not complying.

Originally Posted by northpaw

So what would you say to the argument that the genie is already out of the bottle? We have millions and millions in circulation, and people argue that they need firearms to protect themselves against others with firearms.