Santo Mierda
Spierred
You claim automatic weapons are no more dangerous than any other firearm, but if you look at the US Army Center Of Lessons Learned when choosing the M16 as the replacement for the M14, their studies show that rifles used throughout WW2 and Korea caused negligible casualties. The majority of kills during these two wars were the result of automatic weapons fire. It was often that your average infantryman was ineffective with a rifle, especially considering that most engagements happen within the 300 meter range, which continues to be the optimal engagement range for line infantrymen to this day. Rather, it was the soldier armed with the machine gun or submachine gun that often actually made kills, being able to put more rounds down range in situations where overwhelming firepower was more desirable than accurate, single shots.
While today the average US military infantryman carries a semi-automatic carbine rifle, the Lessons Learned is applied in doctrine and force structure, with infantry being trained to close within 300m and engage the enemy with mass, concentrated fire supported by machine guns and IDF to destroy enemy forces during decisive action, force on force engagements.
Apply this civilian sector - an average civilian with a rifle probably won't be killing many people who are not very close at hand, and then will have to deal with lower rates of fire, smaller amounts of ammunition, and the aim or luck to hit their target. A civilian with a machine gun can simply hold down the trigger and cause catastrophic damage with less regard to aim or ammo.
Is it worth the risk to introduce machine guns to the civilian market? I don't think violent gun crimes would become more frequent, but the ones that do happen would probably be more harming. Also, why would anyone need a machine gun? The only reason I could think of is for fun, but you can go to a range and shoot the ones that have there. It'll get old, trust me.
Anyways, there is a way to own a machine gun as a civilian. I don't know how or why, so you'll have to look that up yourself.
What are you smoking, Bro, and why aren't you sharing?
The army adopted the M-16 because it has greater capacity, and less recoil than the M14 due to the cartidge being downgraded from a full power round to a intermediate round.
Last I checked, the US military used fully automatic M-16s and M4s, Not their semi automatic father, the AR-15. In WW2, I believe American Doctrine was 1-2 MGs, 1-2 SMGs and then the rest get Garands and M1Carbines in a squad, while tanks and other vehicles were equipped with machine guns it is ridiculous to think that the Machine gunner's got most of the kills, especially when you throw in things such as artillery and air support, I want you to provide a link backing what you're saying about machine guns getting most of the kills.
You still have to aim with a machine gun, and does the fact that is's fully automaticautomatic mean you dont have to "worry about ammo", last I checked a full auto fires at 600+ round per second, whereas a semi automatic might be able to reach 90 rounds per second if the user has a fast trigger finger. Criminals don't care about breaking the law, and if you look around hard enough you can find illegal full autos, Do they cost a pretty penny, yes, But they're there. I personally know of 3 floating around in my area. Semi automatics are more deadly in a mass shooting due to the fact that the magazine or belt will run dry slower than a full auto, what does this mean? Less targets engaged, But more potential hits per target engaged, meaning potentially less wounded.
Reason why firing a rented MG gets old quick is because of the cost, pay to rent the gun for a hour and then you have to pay a crazy amount of money for ammo? I'll almost guarantee your bank account will be empty from renting and firing the gun before you're tired of the gun, then there's the fact it would almost be guaranteed cheaper to buy your own machine gun and use your own ammo in it than it would be to rent a gun every time you decide to go full auto. $9 vs $25 per 20 shots of 5.56? Hell yes, I'd buy my own just to be able to afford the shooting of it when I want to. Also >Need
It's not the bill of "needs" it's the bill of Rights. You don't "need" high speed internet you exercise your first amendment rights, do you, Just write a letter
Fun fact, rifles aren't like they are in Call of Duty, You can hit a target at 25 yards just as easily as you can hit one at 300 yards. Slower rate of fire? Perhaps with a bolt or break action.
The entire purpose of the OP was to point out that current "legal" machine guns are hard and expensive to acquire essentially banning them, Could I go out and drop 9K on a registered Sten MK3? Sure, But there are so many to go around and not everyone wants to spend the entirety of their savings on something like a machine gun
The original M16 used in Vietnam had the exact same cartridge and the exact same ammo capacity as the M14 it replaced. Colt Arms suggested that a smaller round be used, but the Army continued to use the 7.62x51mm round until late in the Vietnam Era because they wanted to retain the more powerful round. It wasn't until late in the Vietnam War era that they switched over to the 5.56x45mm. The idea of more rounds being carried is why the US continues to use the 5.56 Ball round as the standard cartridge, and that's because the Army found that more ammunition being fired was more effective than trying to hit a single target with a rifle.
During the Vietnam War Era, the standard issue rifle was the M16/A1. It was capable of Fully Automatic fire. From the early 80's to the late 90's, the standard issue weapon of the US Army was the M16A2, a lightweight, easier to repair version of the M16A1. It was capable of Semi-Automatic and Three-Round Burst action. The Fully Automatic capable M16A3 was developed alongside the M16A2 for use by Special Operations Forces and security forces. I have never seen an M16A3 in my life, and apparently they were primarily used by the CIA, Air Force Security Forces, and SEALs. The M16A4, the rifle I used in my Basic Training, was developed in the 90's and was used primarily by the USMC until the US Army adopted it shortly for the opening stages of OEF and then OIF. It is the exact same as the M16A2 except that it has more metal parts, making is slightly heavier, comes standard with an adjustable stock, and features a rail system. The current standard issue weapon of the US Army is the M4. The M4 was chosen to replace the M16A4 as it was found that carbines were more effective for close range engagement and were especially effective for COIN. The M4 fires in Semi-Automatic and Three-Round Burst. The M4A1, currently the primary carbine used by Special Operations Forces is the Fully Automatic version of the M4, and also features an upgrade package that can be used to change certain features of the carbine. Not since Vietnam has the standard issue rifle for the US Army been capable of Fully Automatic fire, which is odd.
Sorry for not being clear, the most infantry kills were made with automatic weapons. Remember that over 2/3rds of the soldiers that served in WW2 were draftees and received minimal training, which added to the ineffectiveness of the M1 rifle.
Have you ever tried to aim a machine gun? You can get your sights on target initially, but once you pull that trigger, it is damn near impossible to keep your sight picture, even when mounted to a vehicle. Every... Seventh, I believe, round in a machine gun belt is a tracer. That is how you aim your sustained fire. You look for where the tracer is hitting, and adjust off of that. You should not be firing sustained though. You should be firing in a three to five second burst. In BCT they teach you a phrase, such as "die terrorist die", which should take you that 3-5s to say. When firing in this way, you find your target, pull the trigger, reacquire your target, do it again until it goes down.
Firing more slowly does not mean you will hit more targets. Have you ever fired a rifle? Have you ever fired one at a moving target? Most people cannot hit a moving target with a rifle. The US Army's rifle qualification has a total of 40 targets. On a pop-up range, the lowest possible score while still qualifying is Marksman, the average score is Sharpshooter, and the highest score is Expert. You must hit 30-35 targets at ranges of 10-300m in order to get Sharpshooter. These are immobile, large, inanimate targets in a controlled environment where you're prepped to shoot, using optics and still most people are incapable of hitting just 40 of these. Many only score Marksman, and even some don't qualify at all. Some of these targets are 10m away. I could throw my magazine and hit them at that range. You don't even need to actually shoot the target to make it go down. If you hit the berm in front of the target, the rocks and dirt you kick up are enough to make it go down. You can miss and still score. Most trained, battle-ready soldiers cannot hit a transversing target at under 300m. It's hard. It's really hard. Now imagine trying to do that with a human being who is running, in a stressful environment, with presumably little time. That would be hard for even a military trained combat veteran.
It doesn't matter if you're firing more slowly if 2/3rds of your shots are missing anyways. Take a soldier armed with an M16A3 and a soldier armed with an M16A4. They're both the same soldier, same marksmanship ability, same amount of experience, etc. Put them into a combat zone and see who hits more of their targets. Guarantee the one with the A3 will be hitting more, because he finds his target, and puts four rounds across its path. The one with the A4 will be expending just as much ammunition, but also still missing his shots. Remember how the US Army switched to the smaller 5.56mm round so they could carry more ammunition? This is why. Because the Army is expecting you to miss most of your shots. Putting more ammo down range is tried and tested true more effective than hoping you can hit a single target with a single round.
I know many people can get a hold of an automatic weapon anyways. I know many criminal elements horde automatic weapons. That doesn't mean giving everyone else a machine gun will make anything any better. Look at the Cold War. The Soviet Union builds tanks, the US builds tanks. The Soviets build jets, the US builds jets. The Soviets build nukes, the US builds nukes. No, we never got into a shooting war because of the mutual fear, but did it actually make the world any safer? Do you think people back then felt safe, with the constant threat of conventional or thermonuclear war? And now the world is saturated with post-Soviet weaponry and hardware because of the mass stockpile of weapons that simply vanished once they dissolved. Think of the places those weapons went. Look at Sudan. Most of the population of Sudan has an AK. Does that look like a safe place to you? Or how about Afghanistan? That look like an ideal place to live? Everyone in Afghanistan has a gun. Everyone. If we search a house and they don't have an AK somewhere, that's suspicious. It means they're hiding it with all the other guns in the walls somewhere. Everyone there has a gun, and how safe do you think that place is?
Machine guns are not cheap. You can go through a hundred rounds in an instant. You won't even realize it. You'll be firing away, then suddenly your bolt is locked back. Many who don't fire them regularly think there's a malfunction, because they don't realize they've expended all their ammunition. I was just in California for an NTC rotation with the 1/25 Infantry BCT, and we had a rookie gunner. We had to break his belts into 30 rounds so that he wouldn't burn through the little ammo we had. Aside from that, the weapon itself is pretty costly. The US Army gets its weapons in bulk for a contract price straight from the manufacturer. The replacement cost of an airborne 240 is about $7,000. This is how much a soldier must pay if they lose a 240 and it is not written off as a field loss. The Army itself is probably paying somewhere around $2,000 per weapon. For a civilian, I can't imagine you buying one from Fabrique Nationale for less then $20k. No matter how you look at it, it's going to empty your bank account.
You have the right to bear arms. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I feel like your right to own a machine gun threatens my right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. The courts responsibility is to interpret the US Constitution because conflicts, vagueness, and changing circumstances exist. The US Supreme Court determined that my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness takes precedence over your right to own military grade weapons. That's just the way it is in the US. It is a government of, for, and by the people, and the people don't want just anyone to own a machine gun. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere that does allow fully automatic weapons. Like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. Those sound like lovely places.
Fun fact, you cannot hit a target just as easily at 25m as you can at 300m. First off, a target at 300m appears much smaller, and is therefore harder to see and hit. At 300m, using the BIS on your rifle, the front sight post covers your target entirely. You can't even see what you're aiming at. Second, movement has a greater affect on bullet velocity over greater distances. If I pull the rifle 2cm to the right as I fire (because I fire right handed), at 25m it will probably hit about an inch from where I was aiming. At 300m, 2cm to the right could mean that my round hits almost two feet from where I was aiming. Third, bullets do not fly on a straight path. That is why you have to zero your rifle. Bullets initially rise, then level out, then fall. If you're planning on firing at a target 30m away, you need to zero your rifle at 30m. To zero your rifle, you find the way you shoot, you find the range you'll be engaging at, and you adjust your sights to compensate. At 30m, you will raise your sight up in order to force your aim down so that the round will still hit what you're aiming at even as the bullet rises. At 300m, you need to adjust your sights down so that you are being forced to aim higher to account for the bullet drop. It is not like Call of Duty at all. It is much, much more complex and much, much harder. Diagrams exist explaining all three of these points. I can find, or even just draw them myself for you. I can do that, because I see them all the time. I study them. I know them. Do not insult someone and then presume to know what you're talking about while spewing false information. Aside from being just rude, it shows just how ignorant you are. I can tell that you have never earnestly fired a weapon. Maybe you've gone to a range or hunted on a tour before, but I can tell from your post that you have never had to hit a target at more than 50m, or had any experience with any military grade weapons.
In conclusion, by historical evidence, military research, and marksmanship principals, you are more likely to hit a target, or multiple targets, when using an automatic weapon. This therefore means that automatic weapons are more destructive. There is no denying that. Any soldier would take a 240 over an M4 any day, and I guarantee that had any of the mass shootings we've been witnessing in the last decade had involved an automatic weapon, the situation could have been much, much worse. Just look at the North Hollywood Shootout of '97. Police responded to the bank robbery almost immediately, and they had a hard time combating these people.
Most of my information comes from experience, but the Lessons Learned information comes from this document.
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331
