Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

How many killings have been made with machine guns?

What is the gun death rate in the UK? In Canada? In Australia?

Why do you avoid the obvious answer?

Since machine guns can be owned, why aren't they used in mass shootings??

Now, cry harder you ignorant dumb ass bitch. :D



It's still legal to own a machine gun (it's also extremely difficult and especially expensive)

In May of 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which among other things, made the sale of fully-automatic firearms, manufactured before that year, illegal. Owning the guns are still legal. It's just exceptionally difficult and very expensive.

After the Las Vegas attack which left at least 50 dead and more than 400 wounded, calls for banning full-auto firearms, along with plenty of misinformation, has become rampant. Radio host Andy Cohen, for painful instance, asked why we don't ban machine guns all together.

Thankfully a number of knowledgeable authors have helped clear the intellectual chamber— Christian Lowe of the Weekly Standard, Sean Davis of the Federalist, and Stephen Gutowski of the Free Beacon. To legally own a fully-automatic weapon requires three things: money, time, and an absolutely pristine criminal record.

Anyone who wants one must first…

Understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns:

While a semi-automatic gun shoots a single bullet with a single pull of the trigger, a fully-automatic firearm shoots multiple, repeated rounds with a single trigger squeeze.

Have a raft of cash:

When Reagan made owning a fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 illegal, the federal government capped the supply making the guns left in circulation prohibitively expensive. For instance, while a brand new semi-automatic AR-15 can cost as little as $450, fully-automatic weapon cost tens of thousands of dollars regardless of their condition. At the Weekly Standard, Lowe writes that the guns can cost upwards of $20,000.

Any gun for sale must have been manufactured before 1986 and must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records database. There are less than 500,000 full-auto weapons in circulation as opposed to the millions of semi-auto rifles.

Find a licensed dealer:

Back in the 1930's machine guns, big belt-fed machines like those fired in the First World War, could be ordered through the mail. That's not possible today. Anyone who wants to own a fully-automatic weapon must find a dealer who possesses not only a Federal Firearms License, they have to find a dealer who has gone through additional background checks and who pays increased licensing fees.

"These dealers are referred to as FFL/SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL dealers," Davis explains over the Federalist. "It is a lengthy and burdensome process that requires extensive investigation by ATF."

Have a clean record:

Before buying a fully-automatic weapon, a person must pay a $200-dollar tax and register an application with the federal government. That means filling out a 12-page application, submitting fingerprints, and sending photos to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Are you a felon? Are you or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? Are you a domestic abuser? Then good luck getting approval. Other than a few parking tickets, are you a citizen in good standing? Also, good luck getting approval. A record of civic responsibility isn't a guarantee of immediate approved. Click here to read the entire application and click here to read the accompanying questionnaire.

Have a lot of patience:

Every application apparently varies but the average time seems to be between 9 months and a year. The good folks at the ATF take their time because they make certain that applicants dot their I's cross their T's and are considered safe and responsible to own the fully automatic firearm.

Abide by local, state, and federal gun regulations:

Assuming one has the record and the patience to pass the background check along with the actual cash to purchase the firearm, that person now finds themselves subject to a host of new regulations.

As the Free Beacon's Gutowski explains, the ATF registers the new fully-automatic gun owner. They notify local law enforcement of the name and address of the person who owns the firearm. And they strictly regulate the transportation of these weapons. If a civilian wants to cross state lines with their new purchase (say to attend the Big Sandy machine gun shoot in Arizona), they'll have to apply for permission.

Any more schooling needs to be done at your own time and expense.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
I’ve pointed this out uncountable times, idiot. Automobiles are necessary in modern societies. Guns are not.

You’re a fucking halfwit.

The fact that you continue down this path, is just more examples of your stupidity; because you thought owning a machine gun is illegal.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
OR it could mean that law abiding citizens aren't using them to commit crimes, like criminals do; because by paying for the Federal tax stamp, someone can own them/

Since they are able to be owned, how has a law stopped them??

When did you have your traumatic brain injury?
 
Since machine guns can be owned, why aren't they used in mass shootings??

Now, cry harder you ignorant dumb ass bitch. :D



It's still legal to own a machine gun (it's also extremely difficult and especially expensive)

In May of 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which among other things, made the sale of fully-automatic firearms, manufactured before that year, illegal. Owning the guns are still legal. It's just exceptionally difficult and very expensive.

After the Las Vegas attack which left at least 50 dead and more than 400 wounded, calls for banning full-auto firearms, along with plenty of misinformation, has become rampant. Radio host Andy Cohen, for painful instance, asked why we don't ban machine guns all together.

Thankfully a number of knowledgeable authors have helped clear the intellectual chamber— Christian Lowe of the Weekly Standard, Sean Davis of the Federalist, and Stephen Gutowski of the Free Beacon. To legally own a fully-automatic weapon requires three things: money, time, and an absolutely pristine criminal record.

Anyone who wants one must first…

Understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns:

While a semi-automatic gun shoots a single bullet with a single pull of the trigger, a fully-automatic firearm shoots multiple, repeated rounds with a single trigger squeeze.

Have a raft of cash:

When Reagan made owning a fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 illegal, the federal government capped the supply making the guns left in circulation prohibitively expensive. For instance, while a brand new semi-automatic AR-15 can cost as little as $450, fully-automatic weapon cost tens of thousands of dollars regardless of their condition. At the Weekly Standard, Lowe writes that the guns can cost upwards of $20,000.

Any gun for sale must have been manufactured before 1986 and must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records database. There are less than 500,000 full-auto weapons in circulation as opposed to the millions of semi-auto rifles.

Find a licensed dealer:

Back in the 1930's machine guns, big belt-fed machines like those fired in the First World War, could be ordered through the mail. That's not possible today. Anyone who wants to own a fully-automatic weapon must find a dealer who possesses not only a Federal Firearms License, they have to find a dealer who has gone through additional background checks and who pays increased licensing fees.

"These dealers are referred to as FFL/SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL dealers," Davis explains over the Federalist. "It is a lengthy and burdensome process that requires extensive investigation by ATF."

Have a clean record:

Before buying a fully-automatic weapon, a person must pay a $200-dollar tax and register an application with the federal government. That means filling out a 12-page application, submitting fingerprints, and sending photos to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Are you a felon? Are you or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? Are you a domestic abuser? Then good luck getting approval. Other than a few parking tickets, are you a citizen in good standing? Also, good luck getting approval. A record of civic responsibility isn't a guarantee of immediate approved. Click here to read the entire application and click here to read the accompanying questionnaire.

Have a lot of patience:

Every application apparently varies but the average time seems to be between 9 months and a year. The good folks at the ATF take their time because they make certain that applicants dot their I's cross their T's and are considered safe and responsible to own the fully automatic firearm.

Abide by local, state, and federal gun regulations:

Assuming one has the record and the patience to pass the background check along with the actual cash to purchase the firearm, that person now finds themselves subject to a host of new regulations.

As the Free Beacon's Gutowski explains, the ATF registers the new fully-automatic gun owner. They notify local law enforcement of the name and address of the person who owns the firearm. And they strictly regulate the transportation of these weapons. If a civilian wants to cross state lines with their new purchase (say to attend the Big Sandy machine gun shoot in Arizona), they'll have to apply for permission.

Any more schooling needs to be done at your own time and expense.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

You just proved my point, stupid fuck. Machine guns are not used because they are highly regulated and difficult to obtain.
 
[emoji38]up:

The always predictable bullshit automobile comparison. What a fucking mental lightweight.
Your usual denial. You only see problems as a monolith, with only one possible solution. When the reality is that what you see as one big problem is actually multiple smaller problems, each of which requires its own set of solutions. Your monolithic solution might help some of those problems, but would make others worse. You also insist on seeing any risk as being spread evenly across the country, when the actual risk depends quite heavily on location. You are completely unable to view problems rationally.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
How many killings have been made with machine guns?

What is the gun death rate in the UK? In Canada? In Australia?

Why do you avoid the obvious answer?
Again you're obsessed with inconsequentials. Why does it matter how many killings have been made with machine guns when the killings that were made were a barely noticeable portion of the total homicide rate? And is the gun death rate in any of those countries any different than it was before they had any gun control laws? Is their total homicide rate any different? Is there any indication that those laws made things better? Or were they completely unnecessary?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Banning abortions won't make them stop or go away. This will only cause women to choose alternative, unsafe methods to cause an abortion. Abortions have been happening since people figured out how to end an unwanted pregnancy. Cod liver oil, anyone? More women are going to die if these bills are allowed to stand.

I don't believe in abortions at all, but I do believe that it's not my place to make someone else's decisions for them. I am not pro-abortion, but I AM pro-choice. Women need to be able to have abortions in a safe, legal manner.
 
I’ve pointed this out uncountable times, idiot. Automobiles are necessary in modern societies. Guns are not.

You’re a fucking halfwit.
And you are, again, assuming that the only possible answer to our problem with automotive fatalities is banning automobiles. You epitomize the solution in search of a problem.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Your usual denial. You only see problems as a monolith, with only one possible solution. When the reality is that what you see as one big problem is actually multiple smaller problems, each of which requires its own set of solutions. Your monolithic solution might help some of those problems, but would make others worse. You also insist on seeing any risk as being spread evenly across the country, when the actual risk depends quite heavily on location. You are completely unable to view problems rationally.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The solution is obvious, idiot. Start heavy regulation of guns, and at some point, our gun death rate will start to fall in line with the rest of the civilized world.

But, you stupid fucking barrel strokers won’t allow that to happen. So, get used to 40,000 deaths per year. That blood is on the hands of shitstains like you.
 
And you are, again, assuming that the only possible answer to our problem with automotive fatalities is banning automobiles. You epitomize the solution in search of a problem.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Where did I ever advocate banning automobiles, illiterate dumbfuck.

Goddam, English is difficult for you.
 
Again you're obsessed with inconsequentials. Why does it matter how many killings have been made with machine guns when the killings that were made were a barely noticeable portion of the total homicide rate? And is the gun death rate in any of those countries any different than it was before they had any gun control laws? Is their total homicide rate any different? Is there any indication that those laws made things better? Or were they completely unnecessary?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The point that machine guns are highly regulated and difficult to obtain goes right over your head, doesn’t it, stupid fuck?
 
Back
Top