May I Have An Atom Bomb?

[McGroarty]

Related to a comment made in another thread --

From an Objectivist point of view, am I able to own a personal atom bomb, provided I don't intend to set it off?

Project X was built through forcible appropriation and used as a threat against innocents. If neither of these were true, would Objectivism have any complaint with it?

[Praxus]

From what I understand, no. This is because it is not a weapon of self-defense. If it were to be used in retaliation against an initiater of force you would not only be using force against said initiater of force, you would be initiating force against thousands of innocent people. Therefor the act of owning a nuclear weapon poses an unreasonable threat to your neighbors and is tantamount to threatening force against them.

I'm sure others will come along and correct me and/or expand on this.

[Oakes]

I agree with Praxus. Citizens can own weapons that are built for specific targets, but not weapons built to obliterate everything within its blast radius. Oh, and a virus-spreader, even if it initially targets only a single individual, can also be considered an illegal WMD because of the damage it can cause to others over time.

[AwakeAndFree]

Not only did Ayn Rand oppose individuals posessing nucelar weapons... she spoke against them posessing machine guins as well.

Those are machines of mass murder in the hands of civilians. No other possible purpose.

[DavidOdden]

From an Objectivist point of view, am I able to own a personal atom bomb, provided I don't intend to set it off?

This is a difficult question. Property rights are not trivia to be thrown in the trash can on a whim; on the other hand, you don't want to be reduced to the ridiculous position that you can only defend yourself against a nuclear attack once the bomb has gone off and killed you. One important point, though, is that your claims about your intent are irrelevant. Despite popular misconception, we can't tell if you are lying by looking for flames on your pants.

Praxus gives the argument that you can't because an atom bomb is not a weapon of self defense. I disagree with this reason, as such, but there is a related argument that makes sense to me, which is implicit in the second half of his argument, that owning a nuclear weapon poses an unreasonable threat to others. Recently, we had some discussion of this point yesterday (Godless Capitalist raised the relevant questions: my brain blinked and I can't remember the title of the thread). That is, that threats are the same as use of force, with an epistemological smokescreen mixed in. A threat is a prediction about a future act of force, and differs from an actual application of force only in that you can axiomatically determine that force was applied in the latter case, whereas we canot see into the future so we cannot axiomatically predict.

The argument then is not the fact that an atom bomb is not a weapon of self defense, but rather that there is almost no reasonable construal of the intent behind owning an atom bomb that is not a clear and undeniable threat to kill. Almost. Now I have little to say on the science of thermonuclear mining, but it at least makes perfect sense to say that thermonuclear devices can be properly be used for non-killing reasons, and smaching large volumes of rock underground is one. The correct conclusion, I argue, is that it is not the ownership of the atom bomb that is wrong, but that threatening others is what's wrong. Thermonuclear devices are usually weapons, but just in case there is proof that the owner will not using them as a weapon, they can be owned and therefore used privately.

[DavidOdden]

Citizens can own weapons that are built for specific targets, but not weapons built to obliterate everything within its blast radius.

First, you vastly overestimate the power of nukes. This is an unsurprising consequence of the "Nukes are horror weapons, to terrible to even speak of" POV that you have, unfortunately, been subject to all of your life. Second, TNT also "destroys everything" or at least screws it up totally, within its blast radius. Are you arguing that all explosive devices should be made illegal?

[Zeus]

Not only did Ayn Rand oppose individuals posessing nucelar weapons... she spoke against them posessing machine guins as well.

Those are machines of mass murder in the hands of civilians. No other possible purpose.

I agree with this position, provided that it is a free or semi-free society. However, there are some countries where a machine gun is the most - perhaps even the only - effective way to defeat armed killers who come to people's houses in large numbers.

Most of these countries are to be found in the worst segment of the Third World. I daresay that were I to be posted to any of these, a machine gun would be perfectly in order. In other words, I wouldn't frown at or convict an otherwise rational person who was found to have taken such license.

[Oakes]

Second, TNT also "destroys everything" or at least screws it up totally, within its blast radius. Are you arguing that all explosive devices should be made illegal?

Yeah, after I posted that I realized it'd be better to define the problem as one of the threat posed, rather than of it being an explosive.

[Godless Capitalist]

Not only did Ayn Rand oppose individuals posessing nucelar weapons... she spoke against them posessing machine guins as well.

I'm very surprised at this. I'd really like to see the quote.

edit: I found this site, which claims that AR said very little about gun control, and what she did say opposed it. There is no mention of machine guns or nukes.

http://www.noblesoul.com/rl/essays/guns.html

Those are machines of mass murder in the hands of civilians. No other possible purpose.

David has pointed out that even nukes might have a legitimate nonviolent purpose.

The same is true of machine guns. Some people enjoy firing them for fun (I've done it; it really is fun!) And they do potentially have legitimate self-defense uses.

There are two wider points, though:

First, why should you have to prove that you have a legitimate reason to own a weapon in order to have permission to own it? The burden should be on the government to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force. Otherwise there is no use or threat of force, no rights violation, and no reason to restrict ownership of the weapon.

Second, one reason for private citizens to own various weapons is not just for personal self-defense when police are not around but also for potential defence against a possible tyrannical government. In order to do that, you need more than small arms; you need machine guns, tanks, nukes, etc.

[Praxus]

Not only did Ayn Rand oppose individuals posessing nucelar weapons... she spoke against them posessing machine guins as well.

Those are machines of mass murder in the hands of civilians. No other possible purpose.

The only difference between a machine gun and say a G-36 Assault rifle is that the Machine Gun has a larger magazine capacity. The ammount of rounds you could get on target is not that significantly different. Most machine guns fire the same ammunition as rifles/assault rifles.

If you mean by "machine gun" all guns that fire in full auto, then let me say it is a widespread myth that fully automatic weapons are deadlier then semi-automatic ones. In the military fully automatic fire on the infantry level is almost exclusivly used in the role of supressing the enemy so the riflemen can go in and use acurate semi-auto fire to eliminate them.

There is ZERO evidence that a Machine Gun would be more deadly then a rifle in the hands of a civilian, none. In fact people do own them and not a single machine gun to my knowledge has been used in the commision of a murder or robbery.

Second, one reason for private citizens to own various weapons is not just for personal self-defense when police are not around but also for potential defence against a possible tyrannical government. In order to do that, you need more than small arms; you need machine guns, tanks, nukes, etc.

I don't know about you but if you want to initiate an armed insurrection then nukes are certainly not a viable option. Nuking cities or even military installations certainly isn't going to draw anyone to our side. If we could own tanks, there is no way we could bring the armored forces together for a unified attack against Government forces. This leaves small arms as the most effective means against the Government.

I think one should be able to own a tank just not ammunition for that tank unless they have enough territory where it poses no unreasonable danger to the neighbors.

[stephen_speicher]

Related to a comment made in another thread --

From an Objectivist point of view, am I able to own a personal atom bomb, provided I don't intend to set it off?

Leonard Peikoff has discussed this in some detail in a few of his old radio shows, mostly in the context of why militias should not be allowed. The argument also goes against weapons much, much less destructive than nuclear. I have not looked, but the tapes are probably still available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Personally, the idea of allowing my neighbor to keep a nuclear weapon in his house is simply too absurd to take seriously.

[RationalBiker]

In fact people do own them and not a single machine gun to my knowledge has been used in the commision of a murder or robbery.

If I'm not mistaken, there were automatic weapons used by the bank robbers in North Hollywood. I'm not sure if you are familiar with that situation, but it posed a unique and lengthy threat to police officers and civilians alike for an extended period of time.

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

Also, it actually does happen that we have drug dealer shoot outs with automatic weapons, though infrequently compared to what you see in the movies.

I think we can look back a little further in time when smg's were used more frequently, say the Valentines Day Massacre some other gangster-related killings.

Suffice to say, there is much more than ZERO evidence that smg's ARE and HAVE BEEN used in robberies or murders.

VES

[RationalBiker]

Second, one reason for private citizens to own various weapons is not just for personal self-defense when police are not around but also for potential defence against a possible tyrannical government. In order to do that, you need more than small arms; you need machine guns, tanks, nukes, etc.

How is this even remotely practical? Who would coordinate the use of nukes by civilians during an invasion or some attack or our country? Tanks and mg's are one thing, but the effective launch and deployment of nukes is quite another.

VES

[Praxus]

If I'm not mistaken, there were automatic weapons used by the bank robbers in North Hollywood.  I'm not sure if you are familiar with that situation, but it posed a unique and lengthy threat to police officers and civilians alike for an extended period of time.

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

Also, it actually does happen that we have drug dealer shoot outs with automatic weapons, though infrequently compared to what you see in the movies.

I think we can look back a little further in time when smg's were used more frequently, say the Valentines Day Massacre some other gangster-related killings.

Suffice to say, there is much more than ZERO evidence that smg's ARE and HAVE BEEN used in robberies or murders.

VES

First off, the Hollywood Bank robbers were using Assault Rifles, not Machine Guns. They are two separate classes of weapons. Second off I didn't say anything about Sub-Machine Guns which are again a completely separate class of weapons from Machine Guns.

Your post doesn't address my fundamental point either. Do you honestly believe that the cops would have been safer if the criminals were using semi-automatic rifles instead of full auto assault rifles?

In Iraq the most effective small arm is not the assault rifle or machine gun. It is a bolt action rifle in the hands of Army and Marine Corps snipers. There are a whole host of cases that show that accurate well aimed semi-automatic fire is just as effective if not more so then fully automatic fire. As I am sure just about anyone with military service will show you this.

Furthermore you have not shown that the assault rifle in the Hollywood instance was bought legally, nor have you shown that banning them would stop the bad guys from having them. Nor have you shown that they are more dangerous then any other small arm.

In fact pistols and shotguns are the most frequently used weapons in the commission of a crime, if you want to go by shear number of deaths caused by each weapon to decide what should get banned then you should ban these.

But then this does not address the fact that if you ban all these guns then what is to stop them from switching to explosives?

[RationalBiker]

I'm not really opposed to civilians owning full auto (FA) assault weapons, but I'm not really keen to the idea of people owning nukes.

There is at least one practical consequence that should be considered about civilians more easily and abundantly owning FA weapons though. Although police departments today have FA weapons, they are usually restricted to SWAT teams, and the deployment of those units (and weapons) are rare and have a highly specified purpose. With FA easily available, I think we would see our regular street cops toting FA weapons as standard issue equipment. The question you then have to ask yourself is, do you want you local police officer routinely armed with SMG's?

Praxus states:

then let me say it is a widespread myth that fully automatic weapons are deadlier then semi-automatic ones. In the military fully automatic fire on the infantry level is almost exclusivly used in the role of supressing the enemy so the riflemen can go in and use acurate semi-auto fire to eliminate them.

I suppose if civilian's were trained to use weapons like military units are, then perhaps the use of FA weapons might be limited to supression fire. However, I have been to enough shooting scenes to see that even semi-auto weapons hit bystanders in an urban environment. If that can happen with semi-auto weapons, statistically speaking with more bullets going down range, the likelihood of bystanders being struck increases. I have also seen the difference between a person shot once, and a person shot multiple times, with the person shot once generally having a more likely chance of surviving. In the military, as in the SWAT environment, the FA rifles and SMG's are not long range weapons, they are close range tactical weapons. You can bet when a unit hits a house or building, they are using the FA weapons, not the semi-auto rifles, when they go room to room. Your use of the military application of FA weapons doesn't make the case for your "myth" statement. I think you need to define what you mean by "deadlier", and apply to close in urban situations where there are a lot more "friendlys" running around than targets.

VES

[Praxus]

I'm not really opposed to civilians owning full auto (FA) assault weapons, but I'm not really keen to the idea of people owning nukes.

Woo woo wooo, when did I ever say I was for owning nukes? In fact I remember saying that I was against it.

There is at least one practical consequence that should be considered about civilians more easily and abundantly owning FA weapons though.  Although police departments today have FA weapons, they are usually restricted to SWAT teams, and the deployment of those units (and weapons) are rare and have a highly specified purpose.  With FA easily available, I think we would see our regular street cops toting FA weapons as standard issue equipment.  The question you then have to ask yourself is, do you want you local police officer routinely armed with SMG's?

Why would cops have to be routinely armed with SMG's to a greater degree when facing full-auto weapons?

Praxus states:

I suppose if civilian's were trained to use weapons like military units are, then perhaps the use of FA weapons might be limited to supression fire.  However, I have been to enough shooting scenes to see that even semi-auto weapons hit bystanders in an urban environment.  If that can happen with semi-auto weapons, statistically speaking with more bullets going down range, the likelihood of bystanders being struck increases.  I have also seen the difference between a person shot once, and a person shot multiple times, with the person shot once generally having a more likely chance of surviving.  In the military, as in the SWAT environment, the FA rifles and SMG's are not long range weapons, they are close range tactical weapons.  You can bet when a unit hits a house or building, they are using the FA weapons, not the semi-auto rifles, when they go room to room. Your use of the military application of FA weapons doesn't make the case for your "myth" statement.  I think you need to define what you mean by "deadlier", and apply to close in urban situations where there are a lot more "friendlys" running around than targets.

First off, what stops the criminal from shooting someone twice or even three times with semi-automatic fire?

Second off I am talking about the deadliness when used to purposely hit innocents. If one wants to inflict the most casualties in the instance of the Hollywood shoot out for example. It would be far more deadly if they took well aimed single shots at their target instead of spraying and praying.

Now if you are talking about police who are trying to stop a criminal, in my opinion semi-automatic fire would still be best, even if you are talking about CQB. In the instance of CQB a shotgun can not be beat. If you aren't, snipers are the most effective.

As far as legally owned FA weapons used in self-defense on your own property, I don't think there would be that many more innocents being killed then with semi-auto fire. If I'm wrong on this I'm sure you'll correct me.

[RationalBiker]

First off, the Hollywood Bank robbers were using Assault Rifles, not Machine Guns. They are two separate classes of weapons. Second off I didn't say anything about Sub-Machine Guns which are again a completely separate class of weapons from Machine Guns.

Actually, you are very unclear as to the specific type of weaponry you were referring to and I quote:

If you mean by "machine gun" all guns that fire in full auto,

So if you want to play semantics that's fine. You are saying that you don't have a problem with people owning Machine Guns, but SMGs are off limits? Or are you saying that MG's aren't as deadly, but SMGs are? Clarify your point.

your post doesn't address my fundamental point either.

Your fundamental point appears to be unclear to me now that you started a semantics game.

Do you honestly believe that the cops would have been safer if the criminals were using semi-automatic rifles instead of full auto assault rifles?

The issue is not limited to the cops being safer, it also includes the surrounding public. But to answer your question, I believe the cops still would have had a rough time, but in general, yes I think it would have been "safer". More appropriately, I think the situation would have been less problematic. However, the overriding point was to illustrate that your Zero evidence claim was erroneous. Don't start playing straw man on me too.

In Iraq the most effective small arm is not the assault rifle or machine gun. It is a bolt action rifle in the hands of Army and Marine Corps snipers. There are a whole host of cases that show that accurate well aimed semi-automatic fire is just as effective if not more so then fully automatic fire.

I'm glad you keep using examples of trained military personnel in combat in target rich environments, because it does nothing to illustrate the impact of FA weapons on the streets of the USA.

Furthermore you have not shown that the assault rifle in the Hollywood instance was bought legally, nor have you shown that banning them would stop the bad guys from having them. Nor have you shown that they are more dangerous then any other small arm.

First off, your post did not specify the legality of the gun. If you mean something specific, you should say it specifically. Secondly, I have not asked for, or supported a ban of these weapons. Quite the contrary. I have no problem with people owning SMGs, MGs or Assault Weapons. But when you make a generally assertion that they aren't as deadly or have never been used in murders and robberies, that's just plain wrong. The point of my post was not to support a ban of these weapons, it was to look at the realistic consequence of having them readily available on American streets. I could give a rat's behind how they are used in Iraq.

In fact pistols and shotguns are the most frequently used weapons in the commission of a crime, if you want to go by shear number of deaths caused by each weapon to decide what should get banned then you should ban these.

Yes, I have been to enough crime scenes to know which weapons are more frequently used. Do you know why they are more frequently used? Because SMG's and MG's are stringently restricted. What I'm talking about is the effects of FA weapons on the streets if THEY WEREN'T SO STRINGENTLY RESTRICTED.

Why do you keep talking of banning stuff? I never once said, suggested or supported banning ANY guns. You presumed that I pointed out errors in your post because I have some anti-gun agenda. Your wrong. Don't read more into my posts than is there.

VES

[McGroarty]

Leonard Peikoff has discussed this in some detail in a few of his old radio shows [...] the tapes are probably still available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore. 

Thanks, I'll have a look.

Personally, the idea of allowing my neighbor to keep a nuclear weapon in his house is simply too absurd to take seriously.

I agree intuitively, but I'm hoping to discover objectivist logic that solidly backs up the position. Objectivism is new to me, and so I want to test it against positions I hold as givens.

That a bomb's presence is a threat of force to all in the blast radius, that a threat of force is comparable to actual force, and that the bomb owner's intent doesn't factor in have all been helpful in answering the original question for me. Yes, I should be able to own an atom bomb, but only in an isolated area, such as where I might use it for mining. And no, project X shouldn't have existed outside of the isolated test area, because its construction threatened force against everyone in the area.

[Praxus]

First, you vastly overestimate the power of nukes. This is an unsurprising consequence of the "Nukes are horror weapons, to terrible to even speak of" POV that you have, unfortunately, been subject to all of your life. Second, TNT also "destroys everything" or at least screws it up totally, within its blast radius. Are you arguing that all explosive devices should be made illegal?

I do not beleive he does. In the event of a 20kt nuclear detonation these are the likely effects (according to The Oxford Companion to Military History)...

At .5 miles there is absolute destruction. At 1 mile metal melts and massive structures get flattened. At 1.5 miles large buildings and homes are flattened and plastic ignites. At 2 miles wood burns. At 2.5 miles and beyond the effects include 3rd degree burns, degrading to 2nd Degree, and eventually 1st degree at 4 miles. This means anyone with 2.5 miles has a very small chance to live the initial blast, if this book is to be a believed.

[Praxus]

o if you want to play semantics that's fine. You are saying that you don't have a problem with people owning Machine Guns, but SMGs are off limits? Or are you saying that MG's aren't as deadly, but SMGs are? Clarify your point.

I'm sorry, that was my fault. I thought you were speaking of Machine Guns in the absolute sense of the word.

The issue is not limited to the cops being safer, it also includes the surrounding public. But to answer your question, I believe the cops still would have had a rough time, but in general, yes I think it would have been "safer". More appropriately, I think the situation would have been less problematic. However, the overriding point was to illustrate that your Zero evidence claim was erroneous. Don't start playing straw man on me too.

I'm not playing straw man, it was a simple misunderstanding, to which I take full blame.

The problem in this instance was not that they were spraying bullets all over but that they had body armor that stopped pistol shots. If they didn't, the cops could have taken cover behind the car's engine block which they did and they could have taken the guys out with a couple pistol shots. So I do not see how mentioning the Hollywood instance to prove that full auto weapons are more deadly proves that they are, as there are other factors which have to be taken into account in this specific instance.

Furthermore over 15 people were injured however none were killed even though the Bank Robbers fired in excess of 300 rounds. Now let's compare this to the Lee Malvo Sniper case, where two men firing semi-automatic rifles killed 5 people and one could logically conclude they fired a lot less rounds. I'll admit this was over a longer period of time but I don not believe it changes anything. Another example would be Charlie Whitman who killed 14 people using semi-auto and bolt actions rifle.

First off, your post did not specify the legality of the gun. If you mean something specific, you should say it specifically. Secondly, I have not asked for, or supported a ban of these weapons. Quite the contrary. I have no problem with people owning SMGs, MGs or Assault Weapons. But when you make a generally assertion that they aren't as deadly or have never been used in murders and robberies, that's just plain wrong. The point of my post was not to support a ban of these weapons, it was to look at the realistic consequence of having them readily available on American streets. I could give a rat's behind how they are used in Iraq.

I used it as an example to show that full auto is not as "big and bad" as people make it out to be. This post was before you clearified that you weren't talking about a ban and my example about Iraq was given prior to when you said you were talking about streets in the US.

[RationalBiker]

Woo woo wooo, when did I ever say I was for owning nukes?

You didn't, others did. My fault for not being more clear that this particular post started out as a general address, then changed to address something you said specifically.

Why would cops have to be routinely armed with SMG's to a greater degree when facing full-auto weapons?

Who said anything about they "have to"? That's not the question. They would do it not necessarily out of need, but out of a perceived "need". Are you forgetting the nature of government? You can feel free to disagree, because I'm proposing what in my opinion would occur IN THE FUTURE based on a more proliferated instance of FA weapons in the hands of the public. I think my estimation is pretty reasonable.

First off, what stops the criminal from shooting someone twice or even three times with semi-automatic fire?

You would have to ask the criminal. I have been to many crime scenes, sometimes they pulled the trigger once, other times they pulled the trigger mulitple times. The difference would be, one could in the heat of the moment pull the trigger once and still send many bullets down range. If you can't accept the inherent difference (mechanically speaking) between a semi-auto and a full-auto, and the resulting ease of sending multiple bullets down range, then I can't help you with that. Regardless, if the criminal pulls the trigger one, two or three times, he's still putting more rounds down range with the full auto than the semi-auto, thus increasing the chance of hitting/killing the intended target and / or hitting / killing other people.

Second off I am talking about the deadliness when used to purposely hit innocents.  If one wants to inflict the most casualties in the instance of the Hollywood shoot out for example. It would be far more deadly if they took well aimed single shots at their target instead of spraying and praying.

Okay, if that's the case, why did you ask me about how it would be safer for the cops when considering SA vs FA? Why do you keep changing your "points"?

However, if their single expressed purpose was to take out civilians, you may be right. But that WASN'T their single expressed purpose. Of course, there are other general means of firing weapons between "well aimed shot" and "spraying and praying" so those are misleading (or limited) alternatives. You also have "3 round burst" and more careful "spraying and trying".

Now if you are talking about police who are trying to stop a criminal, in my opinion semi-automatic fire would still be best, even if you are talking about CQB. In the instance of CQB a shotgun can not be beat. If you aren't, snipers are the most effective.

I can't tell you how many SWAT commanders and team leaders disagree with you, but maybe you know something they don't. The use of the appropriate weapon is of course situational.

As far as legally owned FA weapons used in self-defense on your own property, I don't think there would be that many more innocents being killed then with semi-auto fire. If I'm wrong on this I'm sure you'll correct me.

At least this is an acknowledgement that there would be more killed, even if it wouldn't be that many more. How many more would there be killed that would be acceptable? I'm guessing you didn't mean to phrase it that way.

Let me summarize my point in this manner, and you are certainly free to disagree. If in most common criminal situations, the criminal had a FA weapon vs. a SA weapon, I think we would see more injuries or casualties than we do.

VES

[Praxus]

Check my last post, I clearified some of the confusions. I don't think we are going to get anywhere however. So perhaps we should move it back to the topic of owning a nuclear weapon?

[RadCap]

First, why should you have to prove that you have a legitimate reason to own a weapon in order to have permission to own it? The burden should be on the government to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force. Otherwise there is no use or threat of force, no rights violation, and no reason to restrict ownership of the weapon.

As AR stated, "a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force." As such, the govt has no "burden" to show that you only intend to use a weapon 'defensively'. It has no burden "to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force." Because it holds the monopoly on the use of physical force, it has the authority to restrict ownership of or use of that and any other weapon. Why? BECAUSE it is the possessor of the monopoly power on force. To claim otherwise is to claim that government is NOT a possessor of such monopoly power and that others PROPERLY compete with government over the power to use force.

Now, if one understands the concept and nature of govt, the question quoted above vanishes. If one does not, one ends up advocating the libertarian 'competition' over the use of force - ie anarchy.

[Praxus]

Just a couple questions...

Doesn't everyone have the right to use retalitory force?

Also, isn't giving the Government a monopoly on the use of force a pragmatic idea and not a moral one?

[RationalBiker]

I'm sorry, that was my fault. I thought you were speaking of Machine Guns in the absolute sense of the word.

I'm not playing straw man, it was a simple misunderstanding, to which I take full blame.

Okay, understood.

So I do not see how mentioning the Hollywood instance to prove that full auto weapons are more deadly proves that they are, as there are other factors which have to be taken into account in this specific instance.

As I said, the NH situation was not brought up to establish the "deadly" aspect so much as it was to counter you ZERO evidence assertion.

Furthermore over 15 people were injured however none were killed even though the Bank Robbers fired in excess of 300 rounds. Now let's compare this to the Lee Malvo Sniper case, where two men firing semi-automatic rifles killed 5 people and one could logically conclude they fired a lot less rounds. I'll admit this was over a longer period of time but I don not believe it changes anything.

As I clarified at the end of my last post, my summarized point refers to common criminal situations. I realize you did not know this when you posted this. However, serial killer cases are not that common. Bank robberies are more common, but still not "common". If we wanted to establish the deadliness of weapons based on examples of serial killers, we could probably take all guns right out of the picture so I don't accept that the Malvo case (or serial killers in general) really establishes anything. You suggest changing the time period (or in my words the context) doesn't make a difference, but I disagree.

Then how do you explain the fact that the number of people killed per shooting did not decrease after FA weapons were restricted?

Please point me to the per capita stats you are comparing? That would be prior to 1934 vs. now. That was when the maching gun act went into affect. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you apparently have some information that I don't have.

Ultimately, my position rests on "what if", a slightly untenable position I know. But my experience with criminals and crimes scenes suggests to me that if common criminals were running around with MG's in the same manner that they run around with handguns and rifles these days, we'd have a lot more deaths and problems. Yes, I could be wrong. And that I'm against banning these guns suggests that I'm willing to find out if I'm wrong or not. I don't really see it as in my best interests as a police officer to support private ownership of MG's, but I do see it as in my best interest overall as an individual to support gun ownership.

VES