Should civilians be allowed to own machine guns?

[its_always_beets]

Okay, so Texas has a big hog problem. Still, do you really need something resembling a machine gun to kill boars? Wouldn't a hand gun suffice?

[dead0man]

Okay, so Texas has a big hog problem. Still, do you really need something resembling a machine gun to kill boars? Wouldn't a hand gun suffice?

do you know how hard it would be to hit something with a hand gun from a helicopter?  sheesh



(yes I understand that's not what you were asking, it's just such a bad question that I had to try and make at least the response funny....most hand guns would only piss off a boar.  Large handguns can only be fired by giants and strong people.  A 8 year old could kill a boar with a proper rifle and he would eventually hit it if he was using a full automatic one.  Plus the point is to kill as many of those things as possible, and doing it humanely would be a plus.  Handguns are going to kill slower and more painfully.  Why hamstring the hunters doing this very valuable service for non-hunters?)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

^the post above belongs in the simple truth mine/good post gallery

[its_always_beets]

(yes I understand that's not what you were asking, it's just such a bad question that I had to try and make at least the response funny....

Ha, I get it!!! SO funny! Thank you so much for saving my post!!!

most hand guns would only piss off a boar.  Large handguns can only be fired by giants and strong people.

I meant this hypothetically. Texan hunters seem to know how to kill boars without machine guns, so I would assume that they don’t need them. Rifles, handguns, and even bows and arrows are sufficient in killing a boar.

A 8 year old could kill a boar with a proper rifle and he would eventually hit it if he was using a full automatic one.

Who in the right mind would give a rifle to an 8 year old? And why do my children need fully-automatic firearms?? Anyways, what does it say about you if even an 8 year old with a rifle can kill something you would need a machine gun for?

Plus the point is to kill as many of those things as possible, and doing it humanely would be a plus.  Handguns are going to kill slower and more painfully.

Not if you know how to aim.

Why hamstring the hunters doing this very valuable service for non-hunters?)

Because banning machine guns wouldn’t just affect hunters; banning machine guns would also take them out of the hands of potential killers.

[dead0man]

none of this matters for two reasons.

1.It's VERY hard to be able to own a legal fully automatic weapon.  The hoops you have to jump through and the dollars you need to purchase are both enormous.  If you want to cause a lot of damage there are MUCH cheaper ways than legally buying a machine gun.  Because of that, the people that own them keep them very well protected so there is little chance of them getting into the hands of bad guys.  If a bad guy wants a gun it's much easier for him to just get one on the black market.

2.because of all that, they are almost never used in crime.  And not like "10/year" almost never, or "1/year" or even "1/decade"...we're talking twice in 80 years almost never.


trying to further restrict them isn't going to change anything other than harden pro gun people's position.  If you care about gun crime or mass shootings or school shootings or whatever goal posts you're focusing on this afternoon, it would be best to target something that might actually do something.

[its_always_beets]

none of this matters for two reasons.

1.It's VERY hard to be able to own a legal fully automatic weapon.  The hoops you have to jump through and the dollars you need to purchase are both enormous.  If you want to cause a lot of damage there are MUCH cheaper ways than legally buying a machine gun.  Because of that, the people that own them keep them very well protected so there is little chance of them getting into the hands of bad guys.  If a bad guy wants a gun it's much easier for him to just get one on the black market.

If you know so much about firearms, explain bump stocks.

[its_always_beets]

it would be best to target something that might actually do something.

What do you suggest will work?

[Grassroots]

Ok, machine gun is a little too far. We aren't all Arnie.

[dead0man]

If you know so much about firearms, explain bump stocks.

I don't know all that much about firearms, I've just been doing this exact same argument for the last 20 years.  I think bump stocks are stupid.  But since they've only been used in one crime ever (I've never looked that up, but I've said enough times and nobody has ever questioned it, feel free to prove me wrong), I think it's dumb to ban them.  But since they're dumb, I'm not going to argue against banning them (ya know, compromising.  The thing both sides have to do sometimes.).

it would be best to target something that might actually do something.

What do you suggest will work?

punishing people harder that use guns in a bad way.  Punishing people that are not supposed to have guns but get caught with guns much harder.  Punishing grandma more when she buys a gun for Tommy because Tommy can't buy a gun because Tommy has a habit of knocking over 7/11s (straw purchases).