Postby Mazder » August 11th, 2016, 3:44 am
I may be late to the discussion and I may be an outsider to the whole "debate" of automatic weapons and guns in general (yeah it's odd how someone who has 0 guns can have any perspective in support of them at all, but I do) but I speak with gun owners on the very subject, one in Vermont, one in Georgia, one in Washington (state, not DC), and a few in Massachusetts. There are one or two from elsewhere as well, a couple from Europe, one from a country that has conscription by way of it's military and gun allowance (Finland), and a couple from Sweden.
So my discussion range is varied.
Here is my opinion on the whole Automatic weapons thing. And this is just an opinion, I am not going to be backing it up with tonnes of facts or surveys and shit, this is simply observation.
No, civilians do not NEED automatic weapons for their personal defense or protection. That is easily overkill. I would go as far to say in some instances a shotgun is overkill, but it's overkill in the right area (one big blast to scare away/deal with one problem, compared to automatic fire which is lots of little rounds to deal with the same problem, but is both potentially very expensive and very destructive). But that doesn't handle the want of owning a fully automatic weapon.
I do notice that given the aspect of the USA being very built around it's rather recent traditions and is shaped very much by the immediate world around it, I can absolutely see how WANT can become NEED. You want, for example, an M4/Automatic AR15 or an AK. if they're made post 1968 I believe (don't quote me on that as I am trying to remember gun laws that on't apply to me that have only been described to me) then you're shit out of luck as by federal law those weapons are 100% illegal to sell, carry or own unless in the military. Any ones made before the '68 cutoff is under federal law only available if you have the necessary licences that cost upwards of (guesswork and trying to remember) $2000, minimum, that's before all the different laws on attachments, and even then that gun is only available in semi-auto. So if you want full auto then you can twist the vague wording of the 2nd amendment to imply you're being oppressed by not having this as an option, let alone an availability. You can classify it as unconstitutional. And then you WANT for owning that gun is now classified under a NEED to be allowed it because of the 2nd amendment.
Now the issue of "when does want and need become a thing and how to differentiate between the two?" is the hardest part. Some would say that if you want it that's all the need you need. Others would say that if you don't have the necessary claim then your want doesn't apply and you shouldn't be able to get it. That's not to mention all the ordinary myriads of arguments, both for and against, in getting a gun.
Myself, I tend to agree more to the latter. Random people like myself (if I were in the USA), and us sans those who have served in the military, don't need automatic weapons, semi-auto weapons do exactly what is needed for practical use, political use and recreational use.
But I will state that I would be prepared for more areas/ranges that provide a "rent an automatic" for an hour or two thing. Like how you rent a bowling alley for a certain amount of time, you rent a range and a full auto weapon for an hour or two and that weapon stays at that range/gunstore with range and the gunsmiths there assemble and disassemble the fully auto feature each day if they can. I dunno, that's more a hypothetical. I could go on for a while with how I would restructure both your weapons system and your health system into a system that supports both and has a structure that brings people together and educates the ignorant.
But I have said enough already.
TL;DR: I don't think civvies need full auto, but need and want aren't always so distinguishable.
