Falsehoods used by a few pro-gun DUers

[intaglio]

Whenever there is another gun outrage in the US I am accustomed to seeing the same arguments being rehashed by the proponents and opponents of gun control. Being British I am generally on the side of those who want stronger gun control, as you might expect, but being reasonable I can see that there are huge obstacles to such control in the US. Given my general equanimity on this matter I find it surprising that my dander can be got up by one particularly meretricious attack used by the pro-gun group against their opponents.

This attack always follows the use of the term “automatic” and takes the form that the weapon used was not or could not be automatic but was, rather, semi-automatic.

Firstly this is a false distinction but used by the pro-gun group to say the the news organisation, blog or DU poster who uses it knows nothing about guns. The counter argument, rarely deployed, is the the pro-gun supporter using it knows little about English. The true distinction is between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons; the term automatic on its own means both.

Next, the point will be raised that automatic weapons (i.e. fully automatic handguns) cannot be sold to private citizens of the USA and that the conversion of semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic ones is also illegal. Well I am sure that I am missing something when I believe that any extreme right wing, left wing or criminal group will, of course, refuse to honour this law.

The final argument deployed is that it is incredibly difficult to modify a legal semi-automatic weapon to an illegal fully automatic one. One person even wrote that he was an armourer and that such conversions would require a fully fitted machine shop with CNC mills and lathes.

This is a lie. There are many proofs of this but I will satisfy myself with 3.

Firstly let me introduce DU to the craftsmen of Darra Adam Khel. This is a township in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan and for centuries the gunsmiths of this town have been copying the finest weapons of East and West. This is a tradition they are happy to keep up using little more than old fashioned lathes and mills, good eyesight and engineering files. You can read more about them on the net but the Wikipedia page is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darra_Adam_Khel .

Secondly, presumably because the US has such poor engineers of the old fashioned variety (this is very heavy sarcasm), you can see that a CNC lathe would cost a huge amount. Well not really, read about home made CNC devices here http://hacknmod.com/hack/build-your-own-diy-cnc-milling-machine/ as well as many other places on the internet.

Lastly a very brief search found several US and Canadian sites that outlined how to convert AK47 and similar weapons to fully automatic fire using little more than a $100 pillar drill, there is even one that advises that you can use a twist tie for the same effect.

OK, I have finished my little rant and no doubt I will be roundly attacked for it. Feel free but those of you against gun control please do not use falsehood and condescension against your opponents.

[villager]

1. oh, the condescending, snarky proliferationists will go after you...

but thanks for posting...!

[paulsby]

102. do you accuse people who are pro choice

of being proliferationists?

of course not.

fundamentally, this is not about GUNS. it's a civil rights issue and is about CHOICE

much like the abortion debate is about CHOICE , not about proliferating abortions.

i love the double standard of the anti-civil rights anti-gunners.

[fascisthunter]

2. Kick....

[Tim01]

3. In America automatic does not mean seim-automatic. The english language is a living language.

In America the word gay means things other than happy no matter if it is grammatically correct or not.

Are you going to say the word gay doesn't mean homosexual?

[intaglio]

13. No I am going to say that sexual is not the complement

to homosexual, hetrosexual is the appropriate word.

Yes english is a living language but mugging it so you can take only what you need from it is another matter...

/edit for spelling

[Tim01]

16. I don't even understand most of whatever it is you say. I am a gun guy.

I'm not a student of the Queens English or whatever it it. I am somebody who uses guns, tests guns, fixes guns, and lives with guns and lots of gun people.
Automatic does not mean seim-automatic in American any more than gay means happy in America. Feel free to walk around in America and tell everybody how gay you are.
But don't try to tell me my pistol is a machine gun. People are confused about it enough as it is with the intentional campaign of misinformation admitted by the Brady group.

[intaglio]

46. Gun Guy does not mean dumb

but it does mean you use the language in a shorthand form, perhaps - and I repeat perhaps - incorrect for a more general forum.

[Tim01]

82. You are not an American and you don't know guns. But you are trying to correct us.

Automatic does not mean semi-automatic in America. I don't know what automatic, or bonnet or windscreen means in Britain and I don't care, I don't live there.

[intaglio]

91. Fine, for you I'll make an exception n/t

[panader0]

4. I hope the day comes when weapons will not be needed

Wishful thinking.
"and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Micah, Chapter 4 verse 3 I'm no Christian but I always liked that verse.

[Tim01]

18. Wow, that's pretty awsome.

I've never heard it before. It sounds great.

Of course, like you said. Until that day I'll carry a gun.

[Will E Orwontee]

5. Well . . .

And nowhere in that diatribe have you explained by what authority you will remove my guns from my possession.

Are you going to come over here and take my guns?

American hot lead has always trumped the queen's English for gettin the shit done that needs to get done . . .

Toodle-oo and piss off!

[dickthegrouch]

7. Only a complete idiot could believe guns get anything done

Guns might remove the opposition, temporarily, until a new opponent arises, but I challenge you to prove that use of a gun got anything truly done.

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov.

[virginia mountainman]

9. Tell that to the man killing your family.....NT

[moodforaday]

101. You're in the la-la land.

The only men (and I guess women) that are killing me and my family are the CEOs of corporations that pollute the environment; the CEOs of corporations that produce deadly food (aspartame, anyone?); CEOs of corporations that build shitty cars; government and local officials too dumb or too corrupt to build good new roads and keep existing roads in good condition; as well as CEOs of corrupt, lowest-bidder roadwork businesses that are hired to build and fix roads, CEOs of Monsanto and all other GM industry companies, along with their PR and science teams; CEOs, lawyers and PR people working for all the big pharma companies as well as theie lobbyists, all pro-war politicians everywhere, all weapons manufacturers everywhere... the list goes on. These are the people who have the power and, in some cases, you might say the intent, to kill me and the people I love.

A burglar? Spare me. Yes, it's possible. Statistically unlikely. There are other ways to die, like a car accident or a fatal illness, that are a million times more likely.

My father was a hunter. My parents were divorced, and dad would sometimes take me to his place and teach me how to handle a gun. I was 12, maybe 14 then. It was fun. I never got to shoot at any living thing, thank heavens. And since then I've never felt the urge to so much as hold a gun in my hand. There's nothing cool about it, unless you consider it cool to threaten another human being with death. I see absolutely no redeeming value in having the potential power to kill a person. Zero.

And if the need really comes, there are better ways of fighting for your freedom than an armed insurrection. What was good in the 19th isn't anymore. Look at the Palestinians - they have no-one to turn to, they're all "terrorists" now. Compare and contrast with how the apartheid was overcome in South Africa. Take your pick.

[paulsby]

104. you just lost all credibility

as soon as you made the aspartame reference

r u betty martini?

[dairydog91]

19. Ultimately, nothing will get anything "truly done".

So, yes, guns can't permanently solve a problem, but neither can anything else. Diplomacy? Temporary. Love? Temporary. Reconciliation? Temporary. The only thing that can permanently solve an Earthly problem would be God, and in case you missed Nietzsche's memo, the Good Lord kicked the bucket a long time ago.

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent"
A quote is not a fact of life. Many of the most violent people in history were extremely competent, their wars arising from greed and viciousness rather than stupidity or an inability to do stuff peacefully.

[Tim01]

22. The girl down the street was raped, strangled and her house set on fire.

This what did actually happen to an innocent female who did not have a gun. Her family got there and the house was on fire and she was hanging in the basement.


What a gun would have "got done" is spare an innocent from rape and murder.

[Chulanowa]

36. Would the gun be flying around, wearing a cape?

Does it have its own theme song as it would magically race to the rescue of its owner? And why does Supergun need to be bought, couldn't these heroic machines just travel on their own, doing good and stopping crime by their own magical powers of protection and absolute goodness?

or are you just doing the gun nut equivalent of a chain letter? "This girl did not buy a gun, and she was raped, strangled, and burned! If you and ten friends don't buy a gun, YOU COULD BE NEXT!"

[dairydog91]

40. No. In her hand would have sufficed.

[Chulanowa]

44. Oh, okay

So in order to be safe, we should walk around our own home with at least one gun in our hands at all times?

Sounds like it would be tricky to cook dinner like that.

I guess we could just go the Sex Machine route...

[dairydog91]

47. Again, no.

She'd have been no worse if she had had a gun in the house. If she'd heard a window breaking, she might have had time to grab it. If not, well, you really can't be worse off than being raped and strangled. Basically, the presence of a gun couldn't have been a negative, and might have been a positive.

[Chulanowa]

55. I can grant that

Having a gun around wouldn't have made her situation worse.

But Tim01's assertion is that if she had owned a gun, this would not have happened to her. Period. Not that it might not have happened to her, if she had it in her hand. Not that she could have tried to get it and defend herself. No, he asserts that simply owning it would have protected her.

Presumably, sprinkling salt on her windowsill would keep brownies from rearranging her furniture, too.

[Tim01]

48. I'll spell it out for you since you are having trouble.

Girl picks up gun before she answers front door.


That better?


Are you keeping up now?

[Chulanowa]

52. I think I'm beginning to understand...

Though the "gun" could be anything ranging from a bottle of household cleanser, to a candlestick, to the family's cat (throw a cat at someone, tell me they don't back the hell off!)

So it would seem that the answer isn't "gun" so much as it is "constant paranoia"

I sure know I don't answer the door without kitting out like John motherfucking Rambo!

[Tim01]

61. Then some badass like you should have talked to the dead girl, before she became dead.

Household cleaner or a candlestick wielded by a female against a male murderer who loves violence and blood. That would give the bad guy something to laugh at before he killed the girl.
Such a ridiculous fantasy.

While you joke about innocents getting killed, I live near the murder house. And I live near the family of the dead girl.

[spin]

64. Well good for you! May you journey through life safely...

chances are you will.

What you call "constant paranoia" is what some people call situational awareness.

When I lived alone in a fairly bad neighborhood in Tampa, I used sensible precautions. For years when someone knocked on my door, I owned a very protective Norwegian Elkhound. I would open the door with my left hand firmly holding his collar.



But he got old and died. When I answered the door after, I usually had a Colt 45 auto in my hand hidden under a newspaper or a magazine. I could always let a visitor into my house if he/she was an honest visitor and just innocently place the magazine and the weapon on a table. This preserved my image as a kindly old gentleman.

Eventually I bought a S&W Model 642 snub nosed revolver for carry. When someone knocked on the door, I would drop the weapon into my pocket and answer.

One time, I had fallen asleep on my couch when I heard a loud banging on my door. I dropped the revolver into my pocket and opened the door. I found a female police officer standing there asking if I was OK. It seems my daughter had been unable to wake me up with a phone call and was concerned. The first Gulf War had just started and CNN was broadcasting live from Baghdad. She knew I was a news buff and would want to watch.

So I never have had to use a firearm for self defense and to be honest I never expect that I will have to. Still there is always the slim chance that I might face a criminal intruder. I fell it's better to be prepared rather than find myself at someone's mercy. It's my mindset. I wasn't raised to be a victim.

Nor was my daughter. One night she had an encounter with an intruder forcing the sliding glass door of our home open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him. He left.

I have no problem with you living your life as you choose. In the end hopefully neither of us will ever find ourselves in harms way. Good luck, and I would hope you would wish me the same.

[paulsby]

105. chances are, one;s house will not burn down

yet, i still have fire insurance.

i've been driving for decades, and never NEEDED my seatbelt. but i wear it anyway.

etc.

taking precaution against unlikely, but devastating events is called being prudent, not paranoid.

i've carried on duty over 20 yrs. and concealed off duty (not all the time ) for 20.

only needed it once OFF DUTY in 20 yrs, and all i had to do was display it .

it's my choice.

i've never needed my fire insurance, and chance of my house burning down is LOWER than the chance i will be faced with a situation where i'll use my gun (off duty).

[Tim01]

67. 911 recording. Woman shoots intruder as he strangles her in her own home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY


Do you wish she hadn't had the gun?

[oneshooter]

29. They did a pretty good job

being used to defeat the Axis Powers in WW2. If a new opponent arises I carry 2 extra mags.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

66. Read this forum and you will find plenty of examples...

where a firearm resolved the problem, sometimes permanently.

Just check out the posts by Fire_Medic_Dave.

Come back when you are through reading.

[paulsby]

103. isaac asimov was a great sci-fi writer,

but how that gives him credibility on this issue is not established.

heck we have a scifi writer who created his own religion (scientology).

should i assume it's valid because a writer created it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

114. Tell that to the people of Carthage and Troy

I believe that was from Heinlein, another great SF author.

[dairydog91]

120. Starship Troopers

"...I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that 'violence never solves anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

[intaglio]

12. I have said nothing about removing your guns

I have merely asked that some sense be talked rather than foolishness.

[X_Digger]

6. A few replies..

Next, the point will be raised that automatic weapons (i.e. fully automatic handguns) cannot be sold to private citizens of the USA and that the conversion of semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic ones is also illegal. Well I am sure that I am missing something when I believe that any extreme right wing, left wing or criminal group will, of course, refuse to honour this law.

Actually, no, you can buy a full-auto machinegun- if you have $7,000+, wait 4-6 months, undergo an FBI background check, get fingerprinted, etc. The assertion that someone says they _can't_ be gotten is a straw man. Rather, they're _hard_ to get, and getting harder every day (the registry of civilian-transferrable items was closed in 1986.)

Regarding conversion- there have been a handful of converted firearms in the last 20 years used in crime. After 1986, any gun that is 'easily convertible' is considered to have already been converted and thus falls under the strict regulation above. Were it as simple as your implying, surely you can find some credible news stories of this proliferation (and no, a reporter calling something an AK-47 doesn't make it so, no more than your assertion that semi-automatic and automatic mean the same thing holds water.)

Not according to LAPD Detective Jimmy Trahin, testifying before the California State Assembly (Feb. 13,1989):

Now, in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms that we have taken into custody, and that's over fifty-thousand, I would say, and these inlcuded ones from the hardcore gangs, and from the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever, had one AK-47 converted, one Ruger Mini-14 converted, an H&K 91, 93 never converted, an AR-180 never converted. So this media blitz of many of these assault weapons, or supposedly military style weapons are being converted to full automatic is not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=

[dickthegrouch]

8. If it takes less than 10 seconds to reload it's automatic

(I know, that may not be a legal definition) but it gives the opposition (who may be the good guys) a fighting chance to re-assert control.

The thing that most bothers me about the use of guns currently is the complete randomness of who shoots at whom and how little warning the target may be given. In both drug and gang wars the majority of the victims we hear about were uninvolved bystanders.

In the gentlemanly days of war there were rules and those rules were followed. Anyone not interested in following the rules has already, in my opinion, given up the right to a trial.

The rules should include yearly re-registration of the gun with a test bullet fired and kept by the state. No gun death should go unpunished. We have the technology and the mechanisms to track the weapons. Apparently we lack the will to use it. As a car driver my potential weapon is licensed, insured, registered and has multiple tracking mechanisms. I fail to understand why the pro-gun lobby won't allow those thing for their potential weapons of choice.

[dairydog91]

15. This is somewhat unrelated...

But war has never been "gentlemanly". It was always, and will probably always be, an incredibly gory and savage enterprise.

Oh, and you apparently view anything more advanced than a muzzleloader as "automatic". I imagine any law that proposed that 1800s era lever-actions and bolt-actions were "automatic" would be laughed out of existence.

[dickthegrouch]

25. Absolutely correct about muzzle loaders

That was my intent.
And apparently I missed the quotes around "gentlemanly", to show I was being at best sarcastic.

If someone shoots at me and I don't have a gun, I want to be able to go over and bash his stupid brains out before he has the chance to reload. I didn't say I wouldn't defend myself, it is precisely because I want the *chance* to defend myself that I consider an impromptu gun battle, on anyone's behalf, an act of extreme cowardice.

I view guns as merely an intermediate step in the utter cowardice of fighting. At least in the days of spears the target had a chance. Today we have ever escalating versions of weapons that can disable and kill ever larger numbers of uninvolved bystanders from half way round the world and the idiots firing them think they are more safe because they are removed from the action.

That humans have survived this long is a wonder. If we can't overcome our culture of violence, I despair for our ability to survive much longer.

And never forget that the pen is far mightier than any sword, or gun.

[dairydog91]

28. A couple things.

If someone shoots at me and I don't have a gun, I want to be able to go over and bash his stupid brains out before he has the chance to reload.
And if someone is willing to shoot indiscriminately into a crowd or at an innocent, I imagine that he'd also be willing to purchase an effective weapon through the black market, so restricting law-abiding citizens won't do very much.

And never forget that the pen is far mightier than any sword, or gun.
This is a quote, not a fact of life. As old Joe Stalin mockingly put it, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Sometimes brute force is more effective than eloquence. Hell, several hundred years ago, a bunch of barbaric Asian herdsmen managed to snatch up the world's largest land empire using nothing but force, conquering several highly-advanced cultures in the process.

[X_Digger]

30. You seem to assume that a shooter will always and only have one gun. n/t

[dairydog91]

32. Or, for that matter, that he's alone. nt

[Howzit]

54. "I view guns as merely an intermediate step in the utter cowardice of fighting."

You may just have insulted the president's secret service body guards with that statement. Their very existence and the fact that they have guns underlines the legitimacy and effectiveness of using guns for defense.

[X_Digger]

17. less than 10 seconds to reload covers..

.. every semi-automatic pistol, all revolvers (speed loaders), all shotguns (tube-fed speed loaders) and all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.

A ballistic fingerprint is only useful if parts are not available to make that fingerprint meaningless. I can replace the barrel on any of my firearms quite easily, and legally.

I don't agree with registration because I value anonymous firearm ownership. We've seen in California and New York that guns once registered may be confiscated or otherwise targeted for removal (SKS rifles in CA, some assault weapons in NY).

[rrneck]

26. How about

a New York reload?

"New York reload" is used to refer to the action of drawing a second gun when the first jams or runs empty, rather than reloading the first, often providing a slight speed advantage. It originated with New York City Police Department who would carry a backup revolver rather than an unwieldy speed loader.

[oneshooter]

34. I can reload

My Enfield #1Mk3 with 10 rounds, fire all ten with aimed fire and reload in 30-40 seconds. My Springfield is a little slower, as the mag only holds 5 rounds. J.M Browning once designed, and built, a full automatic lever action rifle!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Tim01]

33. Video. REVOLVER accurately fired,reloaded, an emptied again in 2.99 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKsaPUfdIys

So that would be like 5 reloads in 10 seconds. And I am positive I get about 3 shots with my single shot break action pistol.

I'm going to bet that if you actually understood this subject you would hold different views than you do now.

"Gentlemanly days of war" Wow. Just wow. Goodguys being slaughtered and leaving their families to the monsters because they think they are morally superior. Welcome to reality.

[spin]

53. By your definition, my revolvers are automatic...

It takes me far less than 10 seconds to reload them. My Mauser bolt action rifle would also quality as an automatic.

The gun lobby will never buy into your registration idea as you gun grabbers have already shown that you will use registration to confiscate weapons in the United States.

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

Then there was the gun confiscation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina:

In a stunning reversal, the City of New Orleans revealed yesterday to attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association that they do have a stockpile of firearms seized from private citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The disclosure came as attorneys for both sides were preparing for a hearing in federal court on a motion filed earlier by SAF and NRA to hold the city in contempt. Plaintiffs’ attorneys traveled to a location within the New Orleans city limits where they viewed more than 1,000 firearms that were being stored.
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-orleans-admits-to-gun-confiscation.html

Which led to many new laws which prohibit seizing firearms during martial law:

NASHVILLE (AP) -- A person who legally possesses a gun would not have it seized during periods of martial rule under a proposal that has been signed into law by the governor.

The measure was signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen on Thursday and takes effect immediately.

Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.wate.com/global/story.asp?S=10413744

You can stick a fork into any nationwide registration scheme. It matters not how good an idea it is, you guys killed it by misusing it to confiscate firearms.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Do you have a link to your source for most victims are innocent bystanders?

[beevul]

111. This has been covered before...

But for your own benefit I will cover it again:

"In both drug and gang wars the majority of the victims we hear about were uninvolved bystanders."

I'd really like to see a cite verifying that, since nobody hereabouts, even the most vehement "anti-rights where firearms are concerned" folks have never said such a thing. Without one, its just so much bullshit.


"The rules should include yearly re-registration of the gun with a test bullet fired and kept by the state. No gun death should go unpunished. We have the technology and the mechanisms to track the weapons. Apparently we lack the will to use it. As a car driver my potential weapon is licensed, insured, registered and has multiple tracking mechanisms. I fail to understand why the pro-gun lobby won't allow those thing for their potential weapons of choice."


Wrong, on many levels.

As a car driver, your "potential weapon" is licensed, insured, registered ONLY if it is to be driven on public roads - at least thats how it is in the great majority of places in America. I have 2 vehicles on my property that are uninsured and one unlicensed, and all are legal just as they are.

As far as a parallel, concealed carry IS the equivalent of licensed and registered. I very much doubt you are for concealed carry, however. In fact, the pro-gun lobby is ALL FOR licensed concealed carry, and the bozos at brady and vpc oppose it.

Perhaps you'll be wanting to tell them how wrong they are, no?

[intaglio]

10. Please read rather than spout NRA talking points

Easy is a relative term. With fair quality steel a person with a minimum of engineering experience, a vise, a file and a vernier can do the job but that does not classify as easy.

I am assuming that most of the gun owning community are not uneducated idiots and those that are would know someone who is educated.

[X_Digger]

21. Modern firearms are made in such a way..

.. that it doesn't require _removal_ of material, but _addition_ of material.

So the idea that taking a file to the fire control parts of a modern firearm to achieve full auto fire is a falsehood in it's face.

You would have to manufacture a sear of some kind that trips the disconnector after the bolt has been pushed fully into battery while the trigger is depressed. Removing the disconnector, or filing down the disconnect sear surface will result in what's called a 'hammer follow', which more often than not results in an OOB (out of battery) discharge. This occasionally happens- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWygoxV_ApM . If the hammer follows the bolt as it travels forward, the result is that the firing pin is against the primer as the round is pushed forward into the chamber, and it can fire at any point in that forward stroke.

Above that, I stand by my point- if this 'conversion' were so easy, why wouldn't criminal gangs (not known to be very law abiding) hire a competent machinist to convert their arms to full auto?

[paulsby]

106. in 20 + yrs of police work

i have never seen a firearm that had been converted to full auto.

and i have seen scores of firearms (legal and illegally possessed)

i have a greater chance of seeing the snuffalufagus on patrol.

[intaglio]

14. In detail you are correct

In practise I am. The fact I saw fit not to include the minutiae of the law because those to whom it applies are likely to be problematic gun owners does not alter the thrust of my argument, which is that guns can be modified and that, despite the manipulation of the correct terms, automatic is inclusive of both fully automatic and semi-automatic

[X_Digger]

24. If wishes were fishes, beggars would feast.

See above post for why this kind of conversion is non-trivial (by design).

Your attempt to change the language notwithstanding, try telling a doctor that his terminology is off because you're a linguist and he's merely a medical professional. Technology has its own terminology, and the practitioners get to set the terms, you don't.

[Euromutt]

98. What does that even mean?

"In detail you are correct, in practice I am"? What does mean other "I'm right... because I am"?

Details matter. In common parlance, an "automatic weapon" is a weapon that, by design, can discharge multiple rounds with one press of the trigger: sub-machine guns, assault rifles, machine guns, automatic cannon, etc. The term "semi-automatic" was created specifically to eliminate confusion between the aforementioned firearms and ones that can only discharge one round with each press of the trigger, but automatically load the next round into the chamber.

To compare, a spider and an octopus both have eight legs. But if you call a spider an "octopus"--even though you're etymologically correct, "octopus" meaning "eight feet"--people will not understand what you mean.

And yes, semi-automatic firearms can be modified to fire on automatic, but the key term here under U.S. law is "readily converted." Your standard legal semi-auto-only AR-15, Kalashnikov derivative or Uzi variant has a bolt or bolt carrier that has certain bits removed (compared to the selective-fire version) so that it cannot cycle more than once before the trigger is reset. As X_digger rightly point out, it takes the addition of material to the bolt/bolt carrier to make capable of automatic fire, which in practice means you need a new bolt/bolt carrier. In addition, some receivers are made to not accept the automatic-capable bolt/bolt carrier (there's bits that get in the way of the additional material). An automatic sear might be fairly simple (and highly illegal) to make, but again, some new receivers are made to not accept the automatic sear without some machining.

As other posters have aid, by the time you've converted one of those to fire full auto, you'd have been better off making an original selective-fire model from scratch.

But if you don't like it, take it up with the ATF; they're the ones who decide whether or not firearms are "readily convertible" to automatic fire.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Not at all, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Automatic is not inclusive of semi-automatic. But that's ok, you're probably a civilian. You wouldn't understand military nomenclature for WEAPONS OF WAR. Basic grammar rules do not really apply to military terminology. If you want to use said terminology, I suggest you learn it's proper usage. There are books and other authorities on the subject, if you are genuinely interested.

In the traditional military sense, an 'automatic' handgun, is actually an auto-loading handgun. Pull the trigger, and the energy bled off to cycle the bolt, ejects the empty shell, and chambers a new cartridge. It is not inclusive of a MACHINE PISTOL, or a pistol capable of select-fire, also commonly referred to as 'fully automatic'.

On your modification point, SOME guns can certainly be modified. I own an AR-15 that happens to be old enough, it was built in a time that did not require considerable modification to insert the fully automatic bolt, and trigger group from an M-16 to convert it to fully automatic fire. The parts cannot be modified in such a way to make it fully automatic, because it has no sear, and metal has been REMOVED, not added. But yes, get me the parts from an M-16 and I can readily convert it. On an AR-15 I have that was made AFTER 1986, this is not the case. The M-16 parts simply will not fit, and cannot be made to fit. I would have to machine, or forge a brand new upper, and probably the lower half of the action as well, to get everything to line up. Meaning, I would need everything one would need to manufacture a brand new M-16 from the ground up, to modify that AR-15 into a fully-automatic or select-fire weapon. Metal does not need to be removed, metal needs to be ADDED where none exists, and the reciever needs to be narrowed. You cannot easily modify either the reciever, OR the parts, to make them fit. If a manufacturer produces a weapon that can be, the BATFE automatically regulates it AS a machine gun, whether it's been modified to fire full auto or not.

SOME model weapons, from SOME time periods are modifiable, with varying levels of effort. But for the most part, this issue was fixed via legislation in 1986.

The vast majority of initial news articles about criminal events that utilize firearms are completely erroneous about the weapon manufacture, type, and mode of fire. It IS important that these things be corrected, because when someone says 'hey we need more regulation of machine guns, because people keep getting these automatic assault rifles', they are asking for something that has been tightly controlled since 1934. Almost 100 years ago. (1934 National Firearms Act)

It is difficult to propose new, worthwhile legislation, when the problem that the media presents has no bearing on reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Dupe, delete

[Euromutt]

76. That WAS before the North Hollywood shootout, mind you

That involved one converted AK derivative, and one converted AR, IIRC. But that incident was notably to a large extent precisely because it involved weapon converted to fire on automatic.

[X_Digger]

81. Yup, that was the one that came to mind, hence my 'handful'

.. there was an assassination with an uzi clone, and one incident with a law enforcement officer.

There have been a handful of seizures of unregistered machineguns, and a few smuggled into the country from central and south america.

[dairydog91]

11. In response

The counter argument, rarely deployed, is the the pro-gun supporter using it knows little about English. The true distinction is between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons; the term automatic on its own means both.
It would be rarely deployed because it's not a very good argument. Depending on the type of gun, "automatic" has different meanings. An "automatic pistol" is generally understood to be a semi-automatic weapon; An "automatic rifle" is generally understood to be a machinegun, an assault rifle like an M16 or a light machinegun like a Browning BAR (In the USMC, for example, light machinegunners are referred to as "automatic riflemen").

Well I am sure that I am missing something when I believe that any extreme right wing, left wing or criminal group will, of course, refuse to honour this law.
Correct. American groups can get full auto stuff through South America, while Brits can get it through arms dealers operating in Eastern Europe. Other than demonstrating that government bans do not make things go away, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Firstly let me introduce DU to the craftsmen of Darra Adam Khel.
Well, yes, if you train under a master craftsman for many years, you can do quite a lot. You could convert a Prius to a machinegun with a sufficient amount of mechanical skill. Not to mention, these guys are building firearms in a region that is borderline anarchic. You try setting up a collective group of armourers and see how long it lasts before the Feds show up. Building/converting machineguns in any Western country must be done in secrecy, making instruction extremely difficult.

Secondly, presumably because the US has such poor engineers of the old fashioned variety (this is very heavy sarcasm), you can see that a CNC lathe would cost a huge amount. Well not really, read about home made CNC devices here http://hacknmod.com/hack/build-your-own-diy-cnc-milling... / as well as many other places on the internet.
Even if one actually manages to make an extremely precise CNC machine, you often would still stuck in a situation where you would have to manufacture new parts through precision drop forging.

Lastly a very brief search found several US and Canadian sites that outlined how to convert AK47 and similar weapons to fully automatic fire using little more than a $100 pillar drill, there is even one that advises that you can use a twist tie for the same effect.
Did you test these techniques? Getting rednecks excited is one thing, giving good mechanical advice is another. The few instructions I've seen required the gun in question to be minimally-modified from full-auto, while all semi-auto guns sold in the US now have to be engineered so that they don't fit full-auto parts.

[intaglio]

20. Have you ever met an engineer?

A fair, not good, but a fair one can machine with metal to within 1/1000th of an inch. Even an apprentice, if they are fitting to an existing engineered case can use the old process of lapping to fit. You do not need to have 40 years of experience. Consider the weapons; the M16, the AK47 and their derivatives were not designed to be manufactured on CNC machines. they were designed to be manufactured in bulk by poorly paid, badly housed workers - the tolerances ain't that critical.

As regards testing the advice on the web, the fact that it is out there is enough. What is more have you seen any criticism on the lines of "Jim Rednik's M16 mod sux"? In other words tho' such mods may not be best practise, or even downright dangerous, they work.

My response about language further up the page still applies.

[dairydog91]

23. Yes, I know machinists

The problem with the argument is that a talented machinist can make machineguns from scratch, hence laws do not prevent much (Unless you also ban possession of aluminum/steel or of CNC machines). In the current US market, Joe Schmoe can't get a machinegun (Unless he has lots of money, or a machinist friend who's willing to commit a felony for him), a machinist could. If all guns were banned, that would still be the case.

[intaglio]

31. Did I say or imply talented?

I think not.

Have you admitted that weapons made prior to the recent laws regarding conversion can be easily retrofitted?

I think so

Joe Schmoe does not need to do everything himself; all he needs is to know someone who can read and follow engineering drawings. This is not an uncommon skill, in every township in the US there will be several people capable of this. All Joe needs to do is to wonder how an M16 feels to fire on full auto and his good friend Mike Smith will help.

As for committing felonies, so far the RW have shown no disinclination to avoid that

[dairydog91]

37. Then strike "talented". Any qualified machinist can do it.

Have you admitted that weapons made prior to the recent laws regarding conversion can be easily retrofitted?
A law passed in 1986. Not to mention, it made those guns legally machineguns anyway. You either registered them then, or they're illegal to own whether or not you wish to tinker with them.

This is not an uncommon skill, in every township in the US there will be several people capable of this.
They also have to willing to commit a felony. I certainly don't think that I could convince my chemistry qualified friends to whip me up some meth, and I doubt a machinist would be any more willing to take a crack at doing something that could land him in jail for a long time (10 years per weapon). Some guys would do it, but many more would be deterred by the thought of jail.

All Joe needs to do is to wonder how an M16 feels to fire on full auto and his good friend Mike Smith will help.
And then Joe shoots off the gun, everyone within several miles hears the distinct sound of a weapon cycling at 600RPM, someone calls 911, and Joe heads off to prison for some good old-fashioned American prison rape.

[intaglio]

57. Is every machinist law-abiding?

Is any gun manufacturer? (sorry, low blow, please ignore or laugh as you feel fit)

Ask yourself this "How does a gun manufacturer change the design of a weapon so that it complies with the new law?"

The answer will alway be as little as possible. In respect of the law you see as so critical, as long as the conversion cannot easily be made the least change possible will be to the production process and this will be especially true where the manufacturer is not based in the US. Some will have a cam changed to ensure it must interupt the automatic firing process and then make sure the frame is machined only to take this cam. All other parts will be kept the same because any other change would require an entirely new production process.

As for your last point, do you really think that would happen? There are a lot of people who would be happy to ignore that sound - or assume that someone had bought a "grandfathered" weapon

[dairydog91]

75. Well, since you asked...

Ask yourself this "How does a gun manufacturer change the design of a weapon so that it complies with the new law?"
In order to modify the M-16 into the civilian AR-15, the manufacturer:

1. Made the lower receiver tighter, so that it could not accept a sear. They also, needless to say, did not distribute the rifle with a sear or sear pin. The sear itself is a precisely made piece of steel (In a rather unusual shape), with a fine, tightly wound spring.

2. Distributed all rifles with a hammer that will only be useful for semi-auto. This hammer is just a straight piece of metal, full-auto hammers are shaped like an L (The additional part catches the sear). Without the full-size hammer and the sear, the gun couldn't be safely fired in full-automatic because the internal parts would not be synchonized.

3. Also used modified disconnects, triggers, and selectors.

So, to convert an AR-15 to an M-16, one would have to mill out the receiver so that it can accept a sear, then forge from steel a brand new sear, sear pin, hammer, and disconnect. One might be able to modify the trigger, but I'm not sure. I do know that the sear, hammer, and disconnect are all larger parts in the M-16 than in the AR-15, necessitating manufacturing new ones (Unless you want to risk grafting new sections onto parts of the weapon that will receive a lot of stress, particularly the hammer). Other manufacturers also move around the main connection pins between the lower and upper receivers, which would probably necessitate modification of the uppers.

As for your last point, do you really think that would happen? There are a lot of people who would be happy to ignore that sound
All it takes is one. Hell, most people who live in the countryside are familiar with the type of person that would most likely phone in the call: The Rural Suburbanite. This is the type of person who moves into the countryside because it's "pretty and peaceful", then complains about the dust from the tractors, or the sounds of heavy machinery, or the hunters in the fields. Hell, I've heard of people calling the cops because the neighbor fired off a shotgun a mile away. God only knows what they'd do if someone let rip with something on full auto. To emphasize: it wouldn't matter if 99% of the neighbors didn't care, because the 1% phoning in the anonymous tip or complaint are going to be the ones sending you to prison.

[intaglio]

89. Excellent points

and a fine explanation of how to modify an AR16 - but you have identified nothing that is not possible for a competent amateur to achieve. The 2 most complex items, the auto sear and receiver are difficult but very far from impossible. The forging of the other items could either be done by machining or even by hand though I suspect that the thoroughly modern criminal would use laser cutting for some of the flat pieces.

OK I'll agree that the post '86 AR is complex but even that is not impossible - but it is complex enough that criminals would just bring in unmodified ones from South America. Your Wingnut though, would they be that unprejudiced?

I really hope you are right about the rural suburbanite, perhaps you have more faith in human nature than I do ... :-(

[dairydog91]

95. It's not a matter of faith in my neigfhbors.

I really hope you are right about the rural suburbanite, perhaps you have more faith in human nature than I do ...
They're really out there. They like the "peace" of the country, but they complain incessantly about any number of things. I know one who lives near me called the cops because they heard two or three loud bangs from the rifle range. Another tried to shut down a farm because they were kicking up dust while the tractors were out tilling the fields. Others are shocked at the idea that bears will rip down bird feeders or that coyotes will kill dogs that are chained outside without anyone around. All stuff most rural people deal with as some of the basic annoyances of the country.

The 2 most complex items, the auto sear and receiver are difficult but very far from impossible. The forging of the other items could either be done by machining or even by hand though I suspect that the thoroughly modern criminal would use laser cutting for some of the flat pieces.
Not impossible, but improbable. For example, the hammer and the sear have to be machined so that they reliably catch, but also so they can disconnect easily when the bolt carrier engages the sear on its return trip. And by the time you're discussing laser machining, the debate has completely left the realm of gun control. Sure, you can make a gun from scratch using them, but you can do that pretty much anywhere, including in a London basement. Possible? Yes. But laws can do very little about that level of manufacture, they can only effectively punish people once they've revealed those weapons by using them.

OK I'll agree that the post '86 AR is complex but even that is not impossible - but it is complex enough that criminals would just bring in unmodified ones from South America. Your Wingnut though, would they be that unprejudiced?
Absolutely. Of course, a RW loon is unlikely to have ties to the Gulf Cartels or MS-13, but he'd probably use an opportunity. What does come up is probably stuff that the US sold them in the first place, since various administrations have puked thousands of machineguns into the region.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Um..

I would not want to fire a modified AR-15 (which would really be an M-16) which had just mild steel milled or laser cut trigger or bolt carrier group parts. Getting it into the proper shape is easy enough with a hand file, if you have the time. Making it perform under stress is another. Timing is critical when cycling the weapon, and there is stress involved. Using metal that is not forged to the manufacturers tolerances is a recipe for having the rifle energetically dissasemble itself in your hands. Next to your head.

Pass, thanks.

In fact, I wouldn't even consider using an AR-15 reciever with fully re-engineered select-fire guts. No thanks. I like all my extremities intact. (Williams Arms aluminum FAL reciever debacles, for illustration, http://www.dsarms.com/safety_warning.asp)

If the rifle is not machined, and milled or forged from the ground up to tolerance for select-fire operation, you are risking a lot trying to get it to fire in full auto mode. Fingers, nose, teeth, jaw, hell, even your LIFE.

Edit: Williams Arms, not Imbel

[Taitertots]

69. I know a ton of engineers

and almost none of them could operate a CNC mill let alone to 1/1000 of an inch.


You must not be a machinist if you think 1/1000 an inch tolerances are easy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. I am an engineer and the OP's ignorance is overwhelming

[oneshooter]

27. There are only 4 or 5

"fully automatic handguns" built. Two are rare, the "Artillery Model" Luger and the "Broomhandle" Mauser. Neither of which have been built in over 60 years. The others are the Glock 18,and the Beretta 93R( out of production.




http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1450301/glock_18/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBXk7qlRjp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0arGVi2pwz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiN4vcZ41jc

All of them are somewhat rare, only 2 Glock 18's in the US, and very expensive!!!

"craftsmen of Darra Adam Khel" Are building full auto arms from scratch!! They are not modifying modern semi-auto rifles into full auto!! I have seen and handled Afgan (actually Pathan)built weapons. The internals are soft and the actions and barrels lack proper heat treatment to handle full auto.

"Lastly a very brief search found several US and Canadian sites that outlined how to convert AK47 and similar weapons to fully automatic fire using little more than a $100 pillar drill, there is even one that advises that you can use a twist tie for the same effect."

Please show us these site. I would like to see how this is done on a modern (in the last 20-25 years}made receiver or lower.
I am a former Marine Corps small arms instructor and armorer.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[intaglio]

35. So you are saying it is easier to manufacture from scratch

in a shanty on the Northwest Frontier than it is to retrofit or alter an existing weapon in the US?

Please do not give those who want to outsource all manufacturing from the US even more ammo - bad pun I know but appropriate

[dairydog91]

39. It's easier to make a really lousy machinegun, that will likely break down rapidly. nt

[X_Digger]

41. Oooh, bad pun!!

An open bolt SMG like a british sten would be easier to make than it would be to fiddle with the tight tolerances of most guns in the US.

[oneshooter]

43. The weapons made

by the smiths of the frontier are the easier manufacture AK and SKS variants. Sheet metal receivers with simple fit internals. They are made of whatever steel is available and are poorly heat treated if at all. It is actually easier to build from scratch than to modify an existing modern made receiver. All you need are the tool, equipment, material and the knowledge to use them.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

118. You didn't understand anything he just said.

You seem to have read it, but the words you arranged in response show a clear lack of understanding.

[old mark]

38. Outright lies are frequently used by anti gun shits on DU as they are elsewhere. nt

[intaglio]

45. Am I telling lies?

[dairydog91]

50. Not necessarilly.

But you are definitely leaning towards performing a Semantics Salsa.

Some popular outright falsehoods:
1. Gun companies deliberately sold guns designed to evade security (Ceramic or plastic guns).
2. "Regular" ammunition can't penetrate a cop's vest. Only armor-piercing ammunition can do this (And should be banned).
3. Normal rifles aren't in any way related to military designs.
4. "Hunting" rifles are low-powered and short-ranged; Also, they would never be caught up in a "sniper rifle" ban.

[paulsby]

107. i remember when the glock started coming into popularity

the boston globe had an article claiming it could EVADE AIRPORT SECURITY because it was a plastic gun.

lol

also claimed it had NO SAFETY (oh noes). actually, it has 3 iirc. it has no EXTERNAL safety. neither does a revolver fwiw.

when a (careless obviously) boston PD cop shot himself while CLEANING his gun they used that shooting to rail against the glock and semi-autos in general.

here's a hint. unload your gun before cleaning.

[rrneck]

42. Nobody proliferates stuff in general

better than Americans. This is the home of the hula hoop and the pet rock. We have shoes with lights on them, beer hats, and the Sham Wow Guy.

Americans like nothing better than to test our mountains of stuff to "see what it'll do". This impulse has given us various extreme sports, drag races and tractor pulls.

I'm reasonably certain that in a country with some 250(?) million firearms if it were as easy to convert a semi-automatic weapon to full auto as your semantic gymnastics would have us believe, we'd be up to our asses in them by now.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Your post is fundamentally unfactual

The auto/semi auto distinction is appropriate in US and should be elsewhere. Those who use those words inappropriately should be called on it. Its the equivalent of calling single payer health care socialism.

Easily modifiable weapons are illegal to sell in the US for many years, as shown in the BATF forced changes to the IMI made Uzi carbine. Older weapons were much easier to modify. Even the modified weapons only have two settings, safe or full auto.

To build a true selective fire receiver (3 position switch) does requires high end tooling. Good ones are expensive, improvised models are less but the failure rate is much higher. All extremist groups who want illegal weapons most likely have them already.

Anybody experienced in the use of combat weapons knows that knows that high rate of fire automatic weapons are not combat effective. Even the IRA knew that.

[dairydog91]

51. A minor bone to pick...

Anybody experienced in the use of combat weapons knows that knows that high rate of fire automatic weapons are not combat effective. Even the IRA knew that.
Belt-fed machineguns are very effective. However, they must either be acquired from the military or through a complete black-market manufacturing process. If one wished to manufacture them, their high rate of fire necessitates that parts must be made extremely well, both precisely and out of excellent material that can handle extreme temperatures.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. HMGs are not high rate of fire weapons

MAC-9/MAC-10 are high rate of fire weapons (~1200 RPM, IICR). You empty the magazine in two quick bursts, spraying all over the place. The continuous rate of fire for most machine guns is limited mostly by heat buildup. Its the reason they come with 2 barrels. Even then, the crew limits the rounds fired for heat reasons. Checkout http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60e3.htm for some eye opening numbers.

Detailed technical documentation is available for almost any of the older military weapons, selective fire or machine gun. Easy enough to duplicate...if you have the right tools and metals.

[intaglio]

59. Oh dear, What have I posted that is "Unfactual"

Auto/semi-auto, by that logic a fully auto would be known as an auto automatic. In a way using only "automatic" for "fully automatic" is a kind of gun guys geek speak. Not everyone understands geek speak.

"Not easily adaptable" so tell me what would be easy? All "not easy" means is that the average Joe cannot fudge a fitting.

You repeat high-end tooling like some sort of mantra. What do you mean? Do you know? Automatic weapons were cutting edge technology at the end of the 19th century and modern computerised cutting and milling does not alter that. CAD/CAM/CNC cuts down on time, wastage and staff it does not magically ensure that no human agency can amend a weapon.

Please tell me, what is unfactual?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. Just about all of it...

Semi vs Auto is a key point both philosophically and technically. You can not dismiss it and have any credibility.

Drop in sears were the key item in the easily modifiable. Both the sears and the designs that allowed for them were banned in the US. Also sales of open bolt designs were squashed. Again, key points if you understand what they mean.

Updates to modern weapons require that they be done to close to the same tolerances as the initial design. That is primarily for interchangeability and maintenance. Yes things could be done in a manner similar to what you reference, but the cost would be high and repeatability poor. It also takes some skill. The end product would not be selective fire if it was made from semi automatic firearms currently available in the US. Its reliability would be questionable.

You claim that specific words with specific meaning is geek speak is babble suitable only to those who do not understand that words have meaning and should be used properly. You assertions are the equivalent of claiming single payer is socialism. We don't tolerate that out of the repukes, why should be tolerate equivalent claptrap from you?

[gorfle]

56. On falsehoods.

This attack always follows the use of the term “automatic” and takes the form that the weapon used was not or could not be automatic but was, rather, semi-automatic.

Firstly this is a false distinction but used by the pro-gun group to say the the news organisation, blog or DU poster who uses it knows nothing about guns. The counter argument, rarely deployed, is the the pro-gun supporter using it knows little about English. The true distinction is between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons; the term automatic on its own means both.

In the United States, the words used to distinguish between a firearm that fires one bullet per pull of the trigger vs. many bullets per pull of the trigger is "semi-automatic" vs. "fully-automatic". Fully automatic weapons are sometimes colloquially referred to as "machine guns".

Both semi and fully-automatic firearms are "automatic" firearms. "Automatic", in relation to firearms, refers to the loading action. For example, the 1911 handgun designed in 1904 by John Browning is called the "Colt Automatic Pistol". The 1911 .45 is, of course, not fully-automatic (i.e., a machine gun), but is a semi-automatic pistol firing one bullet per pull of the trigger.

Unfortunately, the layman in the United States is typically confused when they here about "automatic" weapons, and they frequently think "fully-automatic" or "machine gun" when they read "automatic". This stems from two things: Firstly, "automatic" weapons are now over 100-year-old technology and the majority of handguns are automatic. Thus pistols are, by default "automatic" and thus hardly ever refered to as "automatic pistols". You have (automatic) pistols and revolvers. When you refer to a pistol it is nearly always understood to be an auto-loading pistol (automatic) much the way that when people refer to lightbulbs today they are almost always referring to an incandescent lightbulb.

Consequently when people hear about an "automatic" weapon they assume that you are talking about a fully-automatic weapon.

Of course the media, especially those with an anti-firearm agenda, love to confuse this issue and love to lace their stories with reports of "automatic" weapons. Firstly, it generates fear and excitement and sells stories, and secondly it makes the public think there are rampant problems with machine guns used in crime, which they hardly ever are. I can't cite the source right now, but one of the prominent anti-firearm groups has been quoted here in the past specifically stating that it was their intention to blur the distinction between fully- and semi-automatic firearms to further their agenda of banning all firearms.

The bottom line is this: It is important to have distinct terms to differentiate between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearms, so that The People know that these two weapons are functionally identical and neither are machine guns:




I highly recommend this very educational video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Next, the point will be raised that automatic weapons (i.e. fully automatic handguns) cannot be sold to private citizens of the USA and that the conversion of semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic ones is also illegal. Well I am sure that I am missing something when I believe that any extreme right wing, left wing or criminal group will, of course, refuse to honour this law.

The simple fact is that fully-automatic weapons are almost never used in crime.

From the video above, Detective Jimmy Trahin of the Los Angeles police department says that in his 12 years of service, having confiscated over 50,000 firearms, he has never encountered a firearm converted from semi-to-fully-automatic.

We can't know for certain if people are secretly converting semi-automatic weapons into machine guns, but we do know that the police aren't finding them and they aren't being used in crime.

Lastly a very brief search found several US and Canadian sites that outlined how to convert AK47 and similar weapons to fully automatic fire using little more than a $100 pillar drill, there is even one that advises that you can use a twist tie for the same effect.

You can, in fact, force a semi-automatic AK_47 to fire fully-automatically with a piece of wire such as a twist tie. What this does is prevents the trigger mechanism from locking the hammer back after a round fires, and instead it allows the hammer to fly freely and freely follow the bolt back into battery, firing the next round. However, this is extremely dangerous, because the hammer can strike the firing pin (and thus the bullet primer) and cause the bullet to go off before the bolt has locked into battery. This is called "firing out of battery" and can result in the receiver exploding.

The bottom line is most commercially available firearms today are not easily convertible to fully-automatic by the average firearm buyer. It is certainly true that firearm manufacturing technology is now some 200+ years old and if you have the inclination and some mechanical aptitude you can absolutely build your own firearms, even fully-automatic firearms, with a minimum of machinery.

Here is a book on Amazon on how to build a Sten machine gun out of pieces of pipe:

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0873649834?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_bod_fc&page=1#reader

And these plans are all readily available on the internet with minimal searching. I have myself downloaded blueprints for the Colt 1911, the 9mm Sten sub-machine gun, and different versions of the Gatling gun all off of the internet.

Of course, building such machine guns without the proper federal paperwork and taxes is a federal crime and will get you in a LOT of trouble:

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/136092
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295211

So, while it is possible that these weapons are being manufactured all over the United States, the fact is they are almost never used in crime or otherwise picked up by the police.

[intaglio]

62. Again you assume that nuts are law abiding

You are not a nut (I hope) so you probably are law abiding.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Nuts are legally barred from possessing firearms.

At least nuts that have been adjudicated as such or those that have been involuntarily committed.

David

[intaglio]

79. So not all nuts then

Come on! you know I mean the far out there wing nuts

[dairydog91]

84. Correct. We don't ban people from owning guns because they've committed thoughtcrime.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. I don't think that's in DSM-IV-TR.

Most of the far out ones have felony convictions or restraining orders that legally bar them from possessing firearms anyway. In a free society there will always be some who slip through the cracks or benefit from a legal ruling.

David

[gorfle]

83. Nope.

Your assertion is that the nuts would not be abiding by the laws about converting semi-automatic firearms to fully-automatic firearms.

Because the crime and confiscation rate for fully-automatic firearms is virtually zero, we can deduce that either hardly anyone is converting firearms or they are very, very, very good at concealing their activities.

Occam's razor is helpful here, but so is the fact that a fully-automatic weapon is not of much use. They draw incredible amounts of attention when they are fired at shooting ranges, and they burn through ammunition at an extraordinary rate. With ammunition prices what they are, a single 30-round magazine for an AK-47 is going to be about $7 worth of ammunition, and in full-auto mode, would be expended in a matter of seconds.

So you have to be a nut willing to risk time in federal prison who also has a lot of expendable income.

Odds are, since we don't find these folks being arrested hardly ever, there are not very many of them.

[Howzit]

58. I hate automatic guns - they waste ammunition

Machine guns have their uses, but I am much more concerned with aimed fire directed at me by a motivated individual. In that instance, it makers no difference if the perp is using a single shot rifle or a select-fire military rifle with 29 rounds to back up the one he just put through my head. The key factor is motivation, not hardware.

[slackmaster]

60. You overlook the fact that a lot of people do not know the difference between semiauto and automatic

Proponents of banning semiautomatic firearms have been intentionally fogging the distinction and exploiting peoples' ignorance for decades.

[spin]

65. Fostering misconception is the hallmark of the anti-gun crowd. (n/t)

[intaglio]

63. Off to play Guildwars. Enjoy yourselves

[spin]

68. Enjoy yourself in your fantasyland...

just realize that your game has little relationship to real life.

[dairydog91]

77. Indeed. We've been waiting for you to pick up your ball and go home. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Heaven forfend you spend some time actually learning about the technology you wish to regulate.

So that you could make a more reasoned, and accurate argument, that withstands scrutiny.

People like you are part of the reason it's so hard to have effective gun control regulation debates, you screw up the signal to noise ratio.

[Taitertots]

70. The old easy to covert fantasy

Put a twist tie in an AK. How long before an out of battery detonation causes it to explode in your face? It is absolute stupidity.

It should be noted that in Pakistan they already have automatic weapon internals and receivers that accept them. They are absolutely not converting American receivers into automatic receivers.

You must know very little about machining based on your link to the laughable DIY mill. So now not only do you have to have a mill, it is so expense that you have to build a mill yourself to even start.

[intaglio]

78. Just tell the guy who thought of the mill how foolish it is

Then learn how to use a vise, a file and some blue to make the 3 types of fit (interference, transition and clearance). Then use vision to see how a proof of principle is not the finished article.

About the Adam Khel, there has been a good deal of denigration of these fine people by posters on this thread but the simple fact that they use available materials to produce finished items is proof of their ability not of any superiority of US manufacturing or law.

Oh about the AK fix, as you obviously have no idea of how it works I will explain (Mods, I will edit if you think it the explanation as unsuitable)

The AK has an interupter that stops the return of the bolt assembly when the trigger is held back in the same way as the sear does if the trigger is released. This can be tied down allowing full auto firing. If it fails it fails safe, the AK goes back to semi-auto mode.

[dairydog91]

80. Firing any full-auto conversion without a sear is incredibly dangerous

The AK has an interupter that stops the return of the bolt assembly when the trigger is held back in the same way as the sear does if the trigger is released.
A sear does not stop the bolt. It holds down the hammer until the bolt is traveling forwards on its return cycle. Assuming the AK mechanism resembles the M16 mechanism, firing it on full-auto without a sear carries the risk that the hammer will begin swinging up too early, causing it to hit the firing pin while the bolt is still traveling forward. The result is that the round will detonate early.

Edit: Dude, considering that you identified yourself as British (And the UK has extensive gun control), do you have extensive personal experience with these things? Claiming that letting a hammer free-flow is a smart idea doesn't seem to suggest that you know what you're talking about (At best, it suggests that someone fed you a line of bullshit). This isn't just me being picky, letting the hammer flop around independently is a great way to experience a possibly fatal accident. I've seen an M1A rifle explosion that would have ripped the owner's hand off if he'd been shooting it while holding the foregrip.

[intaglio]

87. Read, do not assume

The interupter is in addition to the sear. All that is being done is returning the weapon to a state where it fires fully automatically

One more point the SMLE used to be fired off sear (trigger tied back, doncha know) and f ... very effective it was too BTW I do know that the smilie was not auto in any way.

[dairydog91]

88. I stand corrected.

However, I stand by my statement that firing full-auto without a sear is a great way to end up in the hospital.

By "interrupter", do you mean the "hammer retarder"? Or perhaps the disconnect (Filing this is also a really bad idea). I'm intrigued, I wouldn't mind if you pointed out the "interrupter" on an exploded parts diagram.

[oneshooter]

96. I believe what you are referring to

when you wrote "One more point the SMLE used to be fired off sear (trigger tied back, doncha know) and f ... very effective it was too BTW I do know that the smilie was not auto in any way. Is the "mad minute" that the Brits used. The trigger was NOT tied back. The bolt was operated by the index finger and thumb, and the trigger was pulled with the middle finger. Done properly a 10 shot mag can be emptied in less than 8 seconds. And this is aimed fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1yN-3n0FU

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. That problem is that people say those auto weapons that spray bullets everywhere. Is that honest?

The implication in that statement is clearly fully automatic weapons. It is not falsehood and condescension to expect people to be informed about a subject before arguing about it.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Surely you realize the debate over gun control is about legally possessed firearms?

Criminals can and do routinely break all kinds of laws, I'm sure some try and convert firearms to fully automatic. What does that have to do with private possession of legal firearms by law abiding Americans?

David

[intaglio]

86. Yes I do and in my OP I acknowledged how difficult that is

What I am trying to do is to get over the idea that perhaps it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the media and the proponents of gun control know nothing when they talk about "automatic weapons" and to further claim how complex it is to convert semi-auto to fully auto.

What I know, and have had a couple of folks admit is that conversion can be done and that it is not particularly complex. It may not be easy (as the law understands it) but it is feasible and there is plenty of info out there to tell you how to do it.

In this thread I have seen all sorts of excuses made, from the obviously foolish idea that it's not done because it's breaking the law, to the equally stupid concept well no-one who knows how to use guns would use full auto because single shot is more effective. I have an idea that this person suggesting this might be from the same family as those thought guns with magazines would let soldiers waste ammunition, back in the 19th century. Additionally I wonder how such a moneysaving idea would be received by the armed services - but somehow I think they might want to keep the fully automatic option. On a more serious note full auto is considerably more accurate than bump firing, a practise that is very well documented.

There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the case but as I have said I am in favour of control but I will not have people accused of ignorance by a clique that displays it's own ignorance.

[X_Digger]

90. You've consistently dodged the question..

.. if it were so easy to do, why aren't criminals doing it? And on the flip side, since we don't have numerous reports of converted weapons being used and/or seized, wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that it's not easy to do?

[intaglio]

93. Perhaps they are buying them from Southern America

Perhaps they don't want to waste ammunition, as suggested elsewhere, perhaps they don't want federal charges added to any other state charges. I do know that you don't have numerous reports of conversions - but there are such reports few as they are. This means that it is being done but on a piecemeal basis as you would expect from craft conversions. What is more the fact that a BATF feels the need to address it means they know it does go on.

There, an answer, but not one you will like

[X_Digger]

94. You mean a non-answer?

Few reports means what.. a huge conspiracy to cover them up? (I would apply occam's razor here.)

Obviously it's not being done on a regular basis, otherwise the media would be jumping up and down all the time. (Or is it that the criminal smart enough to convert a semi- to fully-automatic is so super-smart that he never gets caught. Riiight.)

Hell, there have been only a handful of full auto weapons (conversions or not) used in crimes in the US in the last 50 years. What does that tell you about your assertion that conversion is easy, eh?

[paulsby]

112. i've been a cop 20 + years

i have never seen or known of an incident where a converted auto was recovered.

i've recovered/seen 100's of guns.

not once.

in 20 + yrs.

to say its exceedingly rare, is an understatement.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Of course the BATF needs to address illegal guns, that is their job.

These particular illegal guns are very rarely used in crimes and very rarely confiscated by law enforcement.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. It's own ignorance, some research on your part may be in order before such accusations..

from wikipedia:

The M16A2 rifle entered service in the 1980s, chambered to fire the standard NATO cartridge, the Belgian-designed M855/M856 cartridge.<3> The M16A2 is a select-fire rifle (semi-automatic fire, three-round-burst fire) incorporating design elements requested by the Marine Corps:<3> an adjustable, windage rear-sight; a stock 5/8-inch longer; heavier barrel; case deflector for left-hand shooters; and cylindrical hand guards.<3> The fire mode selector is on the receiver's left side. The M16A2 is still the primary rifle in the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and still is in heavy use in the Army and Marine Corps.
The M16A3 rifle is an M16A2 rifle with an M16A1's fire-mode control (semi-automatic fire, automatic fire) used only by the U.S. Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

You see the US military found that the average soldier couldn't fire their personal weapons accurately in fully automatic mode, wasted large amounts of ammo and switched to a 3 round burst. For you to suggest that this was an "equally stupid concept" that the US military studied for years before deciding on the change, smacks of ignorance. Of course the military still uses light and heavy machine guns but those are primarily crew served weapons or weapons specifically designed for more accurate automatic fire. Also the various special operations units obviously use whatever weapons they choose to suit their particular mission. If people don't want to be accused of ignorance then they should educate themselves. For you to suggest that the pro 2nd Amendment advocates here are as uninformed as the pro gun control advocates is disingenuous at best.

David

[intaglio]

97. Fine, so US grunts can't handle it but the navy can

My apologies for being ignorant of US military training, Yah got me.

Funny how special forces can still handle full auto mode ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. That might be because mostly only SEALS are using them.

It takes practice, training and discipline to fire fully automatic weapons accurately, not hard to believe that the specials operations soldiers would do better at that than soldiers who have a week or two of firearms training.

David

[dairydog91]

110. Not at all funny...

Considering how much more they spend to train any operator, it shouldn't be surprising that they entrust them with more stuff. Besides, the M16A3 was meant to function as a light machinegun, not an assault rifle. It had an extremely heavy barrel, a bipod, an open bolt, and I believe that some were belt fed (I've never had the chance to shoot one, but I did see one in an armory). It's since been dumped for better guns like the Mk 48.