They use semi auto here,because thats all they can get in most cases.In Mexico where the Cartels have the option of full auto,they take the full auto,as do the worlds miltaries.
What happens when there are too many guns in America
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
They use semi auto here,because thats all they can get in most cases.In Mexico where the Cartels have the option of full auto,they take the full auto,as do the worlds miltaries.
I guess we'll have to disagree. The real reason to use full auto is suppressive fire. Criminals have literally zero need for this.
Alright, I'm just going to have to stop - because this is a lack of knowledge of how the mechanics of firearms work that I'm trying to argue against. You can take the opposite side of the argument, that's fine.
1. No solider would prefer to shoot on auto unless there are specific applications that are not seen in "urban" scenarios. Period.
2. The "extra" benefit of those minimal situations from use of full auto is no where near worth the extra work in acquiring guns capable of doing that. 99.9% of applications a criminal would need are just as easily solved by a semi-auto application.
3. Because there is no real demand in such application, there is no supply of similar. If there was a great demand for automatic weapons in urban scenarios with criminals, they'd get them. They don't care about a law stopping it. Organized crime elements would provide for them.
Its really that simple. Feel free to have the last word on the semi-auto/auto subject.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're responding to. I asked you to compare Texas law of illegal possession (which you posted which is really light, I agree) to California and Illinois.
California:
"Unlawful firearm possession can result in up to $10,000 in fines and up to 3 years in jail – and you could lose your right to possess a firearm in California for the rest of your life. For all these reasons, you need a good defense."
So if properly enforced, you could put someone away for 3 years if you chose to. DAs don't choose to. Thus, the weakness is in the enforcement.
Illinois:
"A class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year of jail time and a fine of up to $2500. If you fall into one of the above categories that exclude eligibility for a FOID card, you will be charged with a Class 3 felony. A class 3 felony is punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $25,000."
Since almost all criminals would fall into the exclusion of a FOID card category, that means they'd be subject to a 5 year sentence - which coincidentally is what you said would deter criminals if it were implemented. That doesn't seem to be deterring criminals in Illinois (Chicago), so either they know its not going to be enforced (my argument) or they aren't deterred by it. Or both.
I think criminals would love to have it if they could,as the cartels show and past mobsters who loved Tommy guns showed.But yes,we can respectfully disagree on this one.
Do those states have the mandatory minimum gun law sentencing that the feds do?
In CA,like Texas and many other states its still a misdemeanor.
https://www.tarmanlaw.com/criminal-defense/gun-possession/
That the Feds currently do? I thought we said the Feds don't have that.
The point here is that if states wanted to they could be tough on illegal gun crime, which would then get the word out that if you committed a crime with a firearm, you were going away for a while. But they don't.
And all I'm asking is what's the use of passing laws if you're not going to enforce them?
Right. But in CA and IL where these laws are much tougher, they don't deter criminals. That's my point.