I was chatting with an 18-year-old Canadian last month. He said that the drinking age in Quebec was 18, but 19 in most of the rest of Canada. He said “I couldn’t drink in the U.S., right? The age is 21?” I replied with “Yes, but you could have a machine gun.”
[I was skeptical of my own statement so I checked in with a gun-loving friend and it turned out to be true. In a typical state anyone can buy a machine gun as long as he or she is willing to pay an extra $200 for a “tax stamp.” However, my friend explained that there is a limited supply of fully automatic rifles available for private ownership. Consequently the young Quebecois would need to have about $20,000. The gun collector also explained that machine guns are not effective weapons: “most shots miss, and when you walk around with ammunition, you can only carry so much. The Army, for example, never uses their M4 rifles on full auto. They did in Vietnam and fired 50,000 shots per enemy soldier killed (true number).”]
*In a typical state: A state nobody lives in (or Texas, maybe). You’re pretty much limited to flyover country or the south, and you generally have to get approval from local law enforcement that they’ll be loathe to give.
@superMike: No longer need permission of your local law enforcement.
You can only buy a machine gun in America legally if said gun was made before 1986.
PS
These guns are usually prone to jamming and aren’t very accurate. The AK and AR series of assault rifles are much better “weapons”. They fire very, very rapidly and are accurate.
The drinking age is set to roughly the age we think it’s ok for our daughters to start having sex.
Isn’t the drinking age set by each state? I think it’s 21 y/o across all the states, but I remember when MA was 18.
It is technically a state issue, but uniformity is brought about by your Federal government with-holding funds for highways from any state that allows alcohol purchasing beneath the age of 21. It seems bizarre that such shenanigans are allowed to interfere with the running of the states, but apparently your constitution allows for it.
“The Army, for example, never uses their M4 rifles on full auto. They did in Vietnam and fired 50,000 shots per enemy soldier killed (true number).”
I occasionally go through stages where I binge on Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS combat footage on youtube. Even with their M4 rifles set on semi-auto, I’m constantly amazed at how much ammo is wasted by the troops, who more often than not tend to “spray” in the general direction of where the enemy is assumed to be (it seems obvious that they rarely actually see anyone to shoot at). Maybe it’s no longer 50,000 shots per enemy soldier killed, but it’s still a very large number.
This observation leads me to two conclusions:
1) The use of drones and Apache attack helicopters probably accounts for considerably more enemy casualties than direct fire from ground forces. Apaches, especially the Longbow version, are very effective killing machines at stand-off distances up to around five miles. Way more effective, IMO, than the much-vaunted A-10.
2) Dramatically increasing the number of soldiers trained in long-range one-shot, one-kill tactics would be much more cost-effective — make that more effective overall — than arming most soldiers with short-range M4 rifles. Modern rifle, ammo and optic technology brings incredible long-range accuracy within the wheelhouse of almost anyone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erjy6aetXgk). There is a growing segment of the competitive rifle-shooting community that does what is known as precision long-range shooting. Long Range Shooters of Utah (search youtube), for example, started a popular challenge called the Milk Jug Challenge, the object of which is to try to hit a liquid-filled one-gallon milk jug at 1,000 yards or more, in 10 shots or less. It’s not unheard of for people to do it in 1-3 shots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X232rB_Cj8g&t=0s). This community considers anything less than about 600 yards to be short-range shooting and not much of a challenge.
Cheaper full auto guns can be had. Full auto Mac-10s for example can be had under $10K. Only a few years ago these were going more around $3K. Looks like there has been some appreciation.
http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines
@ Lynn Clark,
wouldn’t massive carpet-bombing with cluster bombs, of any suspected “Charlie” territory ahead of, or behind US Army positions, be a more cost-effective enemy-engagement solution? Maybe not as spectacular on YouTube as a spray of bullets, but potentially of higher kill/ gram of copper ratio. Also unexploded ordnance stays “awake” for decades on ends, keeping any encroaching Charlies on their toes (or lack thereof).