I thought there was a ban on full auto weapons that was passed in the 1920s or 30s.

National Firearms Act 1934
That was so they would have to be registered and pay a $200 tax stamp.

Gun Control Act of 1968
Was to prevent criminals from buying guns through legal means. It list all the stuff you say no to on the form 4473. "Are you a fugitive from justice?" blah blah

Firearm Owners Protection Act 1986
Was to prevent any new Class III weapons built or registered after May 19, 1986 from being transferred to civilians. Which is why it cost 20k for a transferable (pre 86) Class III M16, and 1k for a semi AR15 despite the cost to build is the same.

That's my shortened versions of them.

So most full auto weapons we see in the hands of civilian are more likely pre-86?

Yeah pretty much. If you go on Gun Broker in their Class III section you'll usually see them listed as post 86 (Class III dealers only) and pre 86 transferable to civilians on a form 4. Maybe form 3 too, but I haven't looked at enough. I think are different types of Class III dealers, but most are only allowed one model of whatever Class III (1 AK, 1 M16, 1 MP5 etc). There may be some civilians who have Class III licenses just to have post 86 stuff since they are cheaper. Movie weapons houses must a different type of license still they'll have more than 1 post 86 weapon.

I don't own any Class III weapons. I've only researched it a little. But if I was to get one it would be a Ruger AC-556. There is usually 2 transferable ones on Gun Broker at any given time. They only cost 5k to 6k compared to 15k to 20k for M16's.

Didn't the GCA specify import restrictions on weapons not recognized as having sporting/hunting purposes (which would include machine guns)? I've always been under the impression that this is why most of the transferable machine guns of foreign manufacture (AKs, H&Ks, Uzis, etc.) are semi-auto civilian models that have been converted with domestically-produced auto sears by American Class III manufacturers? So in other words, the GCA would not allow a civilian (before the FOPA) to import a factory H&K MP5 and register it with the ATF...the only thing they could do was buy an HK94 and send it along to Vollmer or some other company to have it converted to MP5 specs. Maybe that's what this guy meant.

Yes, because the FOPA specifically said any machine guns not registered before May 1986 are not legal for civilians to own.

Well as much as i hate misleading information, and "newbies" ignorant enough to post misleading information, i dont quite see your quarrel. Should every nerd who’s experiences with weapons doesn’t stretch beyond the basics of some half life gameplay refrain from creating pages? Id say that most people interested in weapons are enthused by computer games. In particular when it comes to the younger generation. And if you are to ban all these I think that IMFDB would end up being a rather empty page. We cant all be gun veterans.

Now ive never fired an m4 and I don’t own any Glock and frankly my only actually interest in weapons is inspired by computer games. But I don’t need any personal experiences if I can refer to relevant sources with the fact I need. I thinking about rewriting the page about Counter Strike Source. :)
Mostly by adding rather then changing. I think we could do with some more screen caps and criticism when it comes unrealistic details. Like the AUG firing the AK ammo or the 50 cal Deagle not being able to kill an enemy in two shots.

Your statement implies that you support erroneous information to be included on pages. I am sure that is not what you meant, but that would be the end result of your argument.
No you can't all be gun veterans, but it doesn't take experience to know NOT to put in BS. Google is a wonderful thing. There are things I was not sure of, so I did what we are all supposed to do. RESEARCH it before you post it.

And I don't believe we will become empty if we banned (which we don't do) newbie members from putting in crap info. There are plenty of members out there who would be happy to step up to the standards as set forth by the most senior and active membership & moderators. But having to constantly correct wrong entries become very tiresome.

"Your statement implies that you support erroneous information to be included on pages. I am sure that is not what you meant, but that would be the end result of your argument."

Oh not at all. I do apologize if my message was unclear but we need to distinguish the difference between what users can do and what users should do. I am of course not suggesting that an experience with computer games would justify anyone to post unfounded information. But I do rather think that you should define good authors out of their ambition rather than their experiences with weapons (which I understand cant be matched with an erudite gun-Nestor like yourself) but might nonetheless be relevant. When reading your post one could get the impression that you are generalizing a category of users which, of course, is wrong.

And there are times where an author has to draw a few conclusions himself without proper facts to back it up. And when It comes to these conclusions “noobs” might wanna think twice before writing anything down. A suitable elucidation might come from a more experienced writer this noob is to contact. That’s just one of many solutions.
So instead of writing of all CoD-playing newbies as disparaging spreaders of “erroneous” information we could try posting another help-thread with guidelines to motivate new users. Yet another suggestion :)

Well, that sounded like one of Obama's speech writers! ;) LOL But you completely missed the point. Did I attack COD players exclusively? No. :) I said Newbies should NOT fly in, make a bunch of erroneous changes, and then fly out again. It is more outrageous when they're unknowns who waltz in, do a bunch of stuff, and then disappear. There is no one to speak to, to say "hey your changes are wrong, please revert them". No one to educate. they are gone with the wind. We're stuck UNDOING wrong information. And yes, it gets tiresome when we have to do it over and over again.

"LOL But you completely missed the point. Did I attack COD players exclusively? No."

I dont think you personally mentioned COD players but you did however, and many others in this thread, mention gamers as proper examples. There is the issue. Thats what i found inapt, not your irritation with fixing tons of impulsive mistakes.

But regarding that particular issue; wouldnt it be rather easy to simple lock the articles for changes? You can easily do this with the main wikipedia, just like you can restore the article using the history.