May 16, 1986 Machine Gun Owner's Protection Act

[Galla-]

Lol, I would try a ban on abortion, I mean just killing a baby because the 16 yr old mother made a stupid decision with his boyfriend she just met last week.? I'd say to hell with it. As for gay marriage, Sure! If straights can get married why not gays? Let them join the army too, as long as they get good training they can fight.

Lol

But now that I think of it I should probably abolish commiefornia gun laws. It will save slot of lives and kitties! Think of the Kitties! And then abolish the 1989 ban, but I should take this one step at a time, one ban abolished per year, we don't want the A.T.Faggots to criticize my presidency. But seriously California gun laws are getting innocent people mugged and sometimes killed. It takes pollies one day to pass a new law but it takes them a decade to determine whether the new law is truly reducing crime it's pathetic.

wat

[Chernoslavia]

Okay so I made some grammar fails....

[Cromarty]

Lol, I would try a ban on abortion, I mean just killing a baby because the 16 yr old mother made a stupid decision with his boyfriend she just met last week.? I'd say to hell with it.

Of course you would. why do you love guns more than you love women?

As for gay marriage, Sure! If straights can get married why not gays? Let them join the army too, as long as they get good training they can fight.

good to know.

Lol

A fine argument, well made. I cede the floor, and take my leave. *bows*

But now that I think of it I should probably abolish commiefornia gun laws.

Real classy.

It will save slot of lives and kitties! Think of the Kitties!

Source on the lives part? Katts are evil.

And then abolish the 1989 ban, but I should take this one step at a time, one ban abolished per year, we don't want the A.T.Faggots to criticize my presidency.

More class shown here, but I highly doubt the entirety of the ATF staff are homosexual, nor are they likely to pieces of wood.

But seriously California gun laws are getting innocent people mugged and sometimes killed.

Source.

It takes pollies one day to pass a new law but it takes them a decade to determine whether the new law is truly reducing crime it's pathetic.

Clearly we should therefore NOT BAN ANYTHING EVER COS WE WON'T FIND OUT IF IT HELPS FOR TEN YEARS.

This should also apply to the economy too, of course, as well as social issues. So, DADT is back as we won't know if the Sgt really does like Private McFaggot in that way or if they are, quite literally, just fucking around, and no stimulus, no economic policies at all, as we won't know if they'll work for some time.

[Unsolicited Hypocrites]

Clearly we should therefore NOT BAN ANYTHING EVER COS WE WON'T FIND OUT IF IT HELPS FOR TEN YEARS.

not bad. not bad at all

[Senestrum]

australia is an awesome example

the gun ban had no perceptible effect on preexisting crime trends

yes pro-gun folks, crime rose afterwards, but it was rising before as well at pretty much the same rate

[Unsolicited Hypocrites]

australia is an awesome example

the gun ban had no perceptible effect on preexisting crime trends

yes pro-gun folks, crime rose afterwards, but it was rising before as well at pretty much the same rate

then what was the point of the ban??

[Cromarty]

australia is an awesome example

the gun ban had no perceptible effect on preexisting crime trends

yes pro-gun folks, crime rose afterwards, but it was rising before as well at pretty much the same rate

I haven't looked at the statistics or anything, but would the ban have just pushed those who would've used a gun into using knifes instead, as seen in London?

[Aelosia]

1.- People invading your property unarmed. OK, first thing, if said people are not armed and/or not engaging in any kind of criminal activity, take an advise. don't shoot them. Btter that way. I'd go as far as to say that if they aren't doing anything not life threatening to anyone, don't shoot them. But let's say that don't shoot them if they are just "invading your property".What country do you live in? If someone is trying to invade my home as in I tell them to fuck off, they dont leave and instead unholster their weapons, I can legally kill them off with my ak47 in full-auto. And even if its illegal I will still do it, its better breaking the law than dying and the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders. And note that my backyard has wooden fences so theres no reason for anyone to be in my property. but yes, i wont kill them if they dont seem life threatening but i can legally choose to, if you dont think thats true then try pulling that stunt off an armed person[/color]

2.- Let's say said people, however are engagin in criminal activity, or are armed and also a life threat to you or the other inhabitants of your house. I think you can hold your own with a shotgun, given you are inside your house. Or with a regular pistol or handgun. After all, you are inside a house, you are in fmailiar ground, and actually you would only have to wait until teh police arrive.Frankly, even in really bad criminal hellholes, (I have lived there), a shot or two easily scares off most criminals, even when armed. You see, they aren't usually out just to kill people at their homes, they look for unarmed and easily subdued targets. (Actually, they look for empty houses and unopposed and easy hits, but let's say it is not always that way). So you can defend yourself with a pistol. I think your mistaking me for an amature, when its indoors ofcourse im not going to use a long barreled machine gun, im going to use a weapon suited for close quarters combat like a shotgun or a pistol of any action. I will kill only if I personally think I should got it? only if I have to.

3.- Do you know why individual auto fire was invented? Two reasons. First, to force a large number of "enemies" to look for cover, or to reap them if they remain in open ground. No matter what, you won't face a large number of enemies in open ground at your house. At least not large as in military criteria of large. So you won't need autofire in house defense. Second, it was supposed to offer an individual soldier some supression capability so he could displace through a battlefield. You don't need to get into offense while DEFENDING your house. Im not expecting an army of street hoodlums, but hey, now that you mention it you never know, I know its very unlikely but I have a right to use an ak47 to kill a tresspasser as long as the invader posses a threat, he doesnt have to posses a threat but if he does thats when i put as much lead in him as I want until he stops breathing and that is legal. I dont care if its full auto i can legally do it with a machine gun.

4.- What you need as the proper weapon for defense in urban or suburban areas is something called DIRECT DEFENSIVE SHOT. It's the proper manouver to be used by a civilian in self defense. When I got my gun, I got an extensive course covering it, hsowing us why we would never ever go into offensive mode against a criminal. And full auto individual weapons are indeed for exactly doing that. So, your own tool would be misleading into a situation where you can put your own life and the life of others at risk. Why should a goverment let you own that kind of thing for cheap? By the way, I moved to a country where I am not allowed to own a gun, and I am fucking happy about it, because there are not armed honchos around neither. And...exactly what country is that?

5.- Wanna fire an AK 47 at your local range? Get a pair of gun-ho guys like you, put some money from each pocket, buy an old AK 47 for all of you, keep it inside the range, and go once a week to fire it inside the safe boundaries of said range. Sopend money in ammo if you like, I guess 7.62 is not cheap. I guess it won't be that expensive if you buy it by several people.

Please check your grammer.

Ammo is cheap from where I live, and theres several different kinds of 7.62mm ammo, like the one I use for my AK (7.62x39mm) which is the most common rifle round produced in warsaw-pact states and other countries, even the U.S. makes them, though I prefer Wolf ammunition as the ones from russia are very cheap, and contains the right amount of gunpowder.

Your grammar, or grammer* comment is really funny, given the case.

Let's try to keep arguing the points you loosely made there.

1.-If someone is trying to invade my home as in I tell them to fuck off, they dont leave and instead unholster their weapons, I can legally kill them off with my ak47 in full-auto. And even if its illegal I will still do it, its better breaking the law than dying and the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders. And note that my backyard has wooden fences so theres no reason for anyone to be in my property. but yes, i wont kill them if they dont seem life threatening but i can legally choose to, if you dont think thats true then try pulling that stunt off an armed person.

I find funny that you keep using words as "kill" in your statement. Frankly, no law gives you the right to KILL someone. Most laws, however, can give you the right to use deadly force to STOP someone who is in some way violating you. Guess it, you can STOP them, not kill them. In any civilized country, if someone gets on your lawn, pulls out a pistol, and then you shoot said person in the hand and blow the pistol away, and then you calmly walk to said person lying in the ground and pop like seven or 9 more shots into his head and body, you are going to (or should be going to) jail for murder. No law is giving you the right to kill. Laws give you the right to DEFEND yourself.

With a fullauto gun, a lot of your ordnance is going to miss the target. And you won't have the slightest idea of where those loose bullets are going to end. There is a chance they will embed themselves in some children's head half a mile away. Where I used to live, gangs used automatic weapons in their gang fights. The number of collateral people injured (and killed) in said fights was staggering. So don't say "the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders".

A teen can jump your fence to retrieve a ball, or a pet or something else. There is like a hundred reasons someone can be in your backyard without resorting to criminal behavior.

I have pulled that stunt off an armed person.

2.- I think your mistaking me for an amature, when its indoors ofcourse im not going to use a long barreled machine gun, im going to use a weapon suited for close quarters combat like a shotgun or a pistol of any action. I will kill only if I personally think I should got it? only if I have to.

Then why would you need to shoot out from your window and into your backyard with a long barreled machine gun?

3.-Im not expecting an army of street hoodlums, but hey, now that you mention it you never know, I know its very unlikely but I have a right to use an ak47 to kill a tresspasser as long as the invader posses a threat, he doesnt have to posses a threat but if he does thats when i put as much lead in him as I want until he stops breathing and that is legal. I dont care if its full auto i can legally do it with a machine gun.

No, it is NOT legal. There is a line where self defense ends and murder starts. You don't seem to recognize that line and so I don't think you are qualified to own a gun, much less a machine gun.

I currently live in Spain, to answer your question.

If your ammo is cheap, and you can buy a pre 1986 full auto weapon, then why and what are you complaining about?

[The Soviet Technocracy]

australia is an awesome example

the gun ban had no perceptible effect on preexisting crime trends

yes pro-gun folks, crime rose afterwards, but it was rising before as well at pretty much the same rate

then what was the point of the ban??

Like most bans: Emotional appeal/support of the voter base.

Politicians don't actually want to fix problems, they just want to fix symptoms. Fixing a problem means they cannot use that problem's symptoms to get more votes in the future.

[Iapetus]

They are .... theyre not going to carry it out in the open, the criminals arent stupid.

Some are though. The G20 (or was it G22?) summit in Toronto, two days before a man was arrested for carrying a loaded crossbow. his van was filled with moltovs, knives, etc

Complete bullshit.

A case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/26/g20-crossbow-suspect-mccullough-acquitted659.html

http://backofthebook.ca/2010/10/12/the-further-persecution-of-gary-mccullough/4013/

Some sources put the crossbow as loaded others put it as properly secured which sounds unloaded to me. All of them put it as being in the storage container on the roof of his car. Doesn't exactly sound like the place you'd keep a weapon you intend to use in drive by.

Also the police report wasn't written by the arresting officer nor did they bother to read him his rights. The whole incident stinks.

[Galla-]

Please check your grammer.

Ammo is cheap from where I live, and theres several different kinds of 7.62mm ammo, like the one I use for my AK (7.62x39mm) which is the most common rifle round produced in warsaw-pact states and other countries, even the U.S. makes them, though I prefer Wolf ammunition as the ones from russia are very cheap, and contains the right amount of gunpowder.

Your grammar, or grammer* comment is really funny, given the case.

Let's try to keep arguing the points you loosely made there.

1.-If someone is trying to invade my home as in I tell them to fuck off, they dont leave and instead unholster their weapons, I can legally kill them off with my ak47 in full-auto. And even if its illegal I will still do it, its better breaking the law than dying and the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders. And note that my backyard has wooden fences so theres no reason for anyone to be in my property. but yes, i wont kill them if they dont seem life threatening but i can legally choose to, if you dont think thats true then try pulling that stunt off an armed person.

I find funny that you keep using words as "kill" in your statement. Frankly, no law gives you the right to KILL someone. Most laws, however, can give you the right to use deadly force to STOP someone who is in some way violating you. Guess it, you can STOP them, not kill them. In any civilized country, if someone gets on your lawn, pulls out a pistol, and then you shoot said person in the hand and blow the pistol away, and then you calmly walk to said person lying in the ground and pop like seven or 9 more shots into his head and body, you are going to (or should be going to) jail for murder. No law is giving you the right to kill. Laws give you the right to DEFEND yourself.

With a fullauto gun, a lot of your ordnance is going to miss the target. And you won't have the slightest idea of where those loose bullets are going to end. There is a chance they will embed themselves in some children's head half a mile away. Where I used to live, gangs used automatic weapons in their gang fights. The number of collateral people injured (and killed) in said fights was staggering. So don't say "the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders".

A teen can jump your fence to retrieve a ball, or a pet or something else. There is like a hundred reasons someone can be in your backyard without resorting to criminal behavior.

I have pulled that stunt off an armed person.

2.- I think your mistaking me for an amature, when its indoors ofcourse im not going to use a long barreled machine gun, im going to use a weapon suited for close quarters combat like a shotgun or a pistol of any action. I will kill only if I personally think I should got it? only if I have to.

Then why would you need to shoot out from your window and into your backyard with a long barreled machine gun?

3.-Im not expecting an army of street hoodlums, but hey, now that you mention it you never know, I know its very unlikely but I have a right to use an ak47 to kill a tresspasser as long as the invader posses a threat, he doesnt have to posses a threat but if he does thats when i put as much lead in him as I want until he stops breathing and that is legal. I dont care if its full auto i can legally do it with a machine gun.

No, it is NOT legal. There is a line where self defense ends and murder starts. You don't seem to recognize that line and so I don't think you are qualified to own a gun, much less a machine gun.

I currently live in Spain, to answer your question.

If your ammo is cheap, and you can buy a pre 1986 full auto weapon, then why and what are you complaining about?

Pre-1986 receivers and rifles cost at least $6,000 USD.

Usually twice that, and the heavier rifles (M60 machine guns and RPDs) can cost $20,000+.

Crime hasn't gone down since 1986 because no criminal commits crime with an automatic weapon, since those require something called a "tax stamp" which requires paperwork and a background check of your criminal record. It's also $200. Criminals are poor, and can rarely afford that amount because they're either spending it on beer, illegal drugs, or ammunition.

A ban on pre-1986 automatic weapons serves no purpose whatsoever. None. At all. It doesn't stop crime, it doesn't reduce it, it was an appeal to emotion because the president who signed it into law (Republicans hate freedom) was shot at once.

[Spreewerke]

Your grammar, or grammer* comment is really funny, given the case.

Let's try to keep arguing the points you loosely made there.

1.-If someone is trying to invade my home as in I tell them to fuck off, they dont leave and instead unholster their weapons, I can legally kill them off with my ak47 in full-auto. And even if its illegal I will still do it, its better breaking the law than dying and the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders. And note that my backyard has wooden fences so theres no reason for anyone to be in my property. but yes, i wont kill them if they dont seem life threatening but i can legally choose to, if you dont think thats true then try pulling that stunt off an armed person.

I find funny that you keep using words as "kill" in your statement. Frankly, no law gives you the right to KILL someone. Most laws, however, can give you the right to use deadly force to STOP someone who is in some way violating you. Guess it, you can STOP them, not kill them. In any civilized country, if someone gets on your lawn, pulls out a pistol, and then you shoot said person in the hand and blow the pistol away, and then you calmly walk to said person lying in the ground and pop like seven or 9 more shots into his head and body, you are going to (or should be going to) jail for murder. No law is giving you the right to kill. Laws give you the right to DEFEND yourself.

With a fullauto gun, a lot of your ordnance is going to miss the target. And you won't have the slightest idea of where those loose bullets are going to end. There is a chance they will embed themselves in some children's head half a mile away. Where I used to live, gangs used automatic weapons in their gang fights. The number of collateral people injured (and killed) in said fights was staggering. So don't say "the only people ill be putting in danger are the invaders".

A teen can jump your fence to retrieve a ball, or a pet or something else. There is like a hundred reasons someone can be in your backyard without resorting to criminal behavior.

I have pulled that stunt off an armed person.

2.- I think your mistaking me for an amature, when its indoors ofcourse im not going to use a long barreled machine gun, im going to use a weapon suited for close quarters combat like a shotgun or a pistol of any action. I will kill only if I personally think I should got it? only if I have to.

Then why would you need to shoot out from your window and into your backyard with a long barreled machine gun?

3.-Im not expecting an army of street hoodlums, but hey, now that you mention it you never know, I know its very unlikely but I have a right to use an ak47 to kill a tresspasser as long as the invader posses a threat, he doesnt have to posses a threat but if he does thats when i put as much lead in him as I want until he stops breathing and that is legal. I dont care if its full auto i can legally do it with a machine gun.

No, it is NOT legal. There is a line where self defense ends and murder starts. You don't seem to recognize that line and so I don't think you are qualified to own a gun, much less a machine gun.

I currently live in Spain, to answer your question.

If your ammo is cheap, and you can buy a pre 1986 full auto weapon, then why and what are you complaining about?

Pre-1986 receivers and rifles cost at least $6,000 USD.

Usually twice that, and the heavier rifles (M60 machine guns and RPDs) can cost $20,000+.

Crime hasn't gone down since 1986 because no criminal commits crime with an automatic weapon, since those require something called a "tax stamp" which requires paperwork and a background check of your criminal record. It's also $200. Criminals are poor, and can rarely afford that amount because they're either spending it on beer, illegal drugs, or ammunition.

A ban on pre-1986 automatic weapons serves no purpose whatsoever. None. At all. It doesn't stop crime, it doesn't reduce it, it was an appeal to emotion because the president who signed it into law (Republicans hate freedom) was shot at once.

Most criminals aren't cool with giving the government their finger and palm prints with that $200, either.

[Galla-]

Pre-1986 receivers and rifles cost at least $6,000 USD.

Usually twice that, and the heavier rifles (M60 machine guns and RPDs) can cost $20,000+.

Crime hasn't gone down since 1986 because no criminal commits crime with an automatic weapon, since those require something called a "tax stamp" which requires paperwork and a background check of your criminal record. It's also $200. Criminals are poor, and can rarely afford that amount because they're either spending it on beer, illegal drugs, or ammunition.

A ban on pre-1986 automatic weapons serves no purpose whatsoever. None. At all. It doesn't stop crime, it doesn't reduce it, it was an appeal to emotion because the president who signed it into law (Republicans hate freedom) was shot at once.

Most criminals aren't cool with giving the government their finger and palm prints with that $200, either.

Part of the background check, tho. \:

Isn't it?

[Big Jim P]

Machine guns sound cool until you consider an U.S. M60. Assuming you go through all the hoops and pay an assload of money to legally purchase one, .308 ammo costs about $1 a round and the M60 fires 550 rounds a minute. How long can you afford $550 a minute?

[United Dependencies]

Machine guns sound cool until you consider an U.S. M60. Assuming you go through all the hoops and pay an assload of money to legally purchase one, .308 ammo costs about $1 a round and the M60 fires 550 rounds a minute. How long can you afford $550 a minute?

Hey Jim, long time no see.

[Galla-]

Machine guns sound cool until you consider an U.S. M60. Assuming you go through all the hoops and pay an assload of money to legally purchase one, .308 ammo costs about $1 a round and the M60 fires 550 rounds a minute. How long can you afford $550 a minute?

You can get .308 for $0.40 a round buying Malaysian, British, or Pakistani military surplus. Usually in 500-1000 round crates.

Sometimes cheaper. Last year I got a box of 750 rounds of Radway Green 7.62 NATO (in ten 75 round bandoliers) for $190. Which comes out to about a quarter a round. It's not the literal dime and nickel of 7.62x54mmR, but whatever.

[DaWoad]

if they just had more harsher punishments for gun law breakers, then the abolishment of the ban could be okay, ie. if you are guilty for having a firearm without the required license youll serve 10 years, that would decrease the amount of crime that involves weapons. and a license that has a harder requirement then everything should be good! then there wouldnt be a need to illegally buy one, since the price for legal machine guns out there would decrease significantly, now we could be able to have that M4 you always wanted for only 2,500 instead of a 5,000 dealer sample demo...

Ten years for owning aweapon you should be able to get? Abolish all gun laws, if someone wants a MK40 and has the money? Well i say ther are lucky bastards and should be able to

nukes for all! this can't possibly go bad!

[Occupied Deutschland]

Ten years for owning aweapon you should be able to get? Abolish all gun laws, if someone wants a MK40 and has the money? Well i say ther are lucky bastards and should be able to

nukes for all! this can't possibly go bad!

Because MP40s are a gateway weapon to nukes

[Galla-]

Ten years for owning aweapon you should be able to get? Abolish all gun laws, if someone wants a MK40 and has the money? Well i say ther are lucky bastards and should be able to

nukes for all! this can't possibly go bad!

When you, or anyone who isn't a state, can afford several million dollars in developing a nuclear weapons programme, call me.

Nuclear terrorism exists today. Most US states already allow ownership of nuclear weapons, since it isn't banned in most.

Waiting for entire cities to blow up. Hasn't happened.

If you're using nuclear weapons as an argument for gun control, then gun control has no logical, legitimate arguments and all supporters should be shouted down really loudly by courts for violating the Constitution.

[DaWoad]

nukes for all! this can't possibly go bad!

When you, or anyone who isn't a state, can afford several million dollars in developing a nuclear weapons programme, call me.

Nuclear terrorism exists today. Most US states already allow ownership of nuclear weapons, since it isn't banned in most.

Waiting for entire cities to blow up. Hasn't happened.

If you're using nuclear weapons as an argument for gun control, then gun control has no logical, legitimate arguments and all supporters should be shouted down really loudly by courts for violating the Constitution.

there are many multi millionaire and billionaires living in the united states. . . er, wait, you said call, what's you phone number?
however, no I was utilizing extreme hyperbole. My real argument for gun control goes something like this.
1. guns are hugely more likely to cause collateral damage than any other currently legal weapon ('cept mayyybe flamethrowers. . . possibly). While ensuring someone wouldn't cause collateral damage would be nice, it hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to. Automatic weapons are even worse for this
2.having a gun makes you more likely to come to harm, not less. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html
3.having weapons makes crimes in progress more confusing to anyone attempting to intervene and can/has/likely will again cause unnecessary civilian deaths
4.there's . . .really no good reason to have a gun unless a) you leave x far away from local help, b) you have a valid reason for hunting with one (food or tradition) c)you live/work in an area populated by dangerous animals and I'm more than fine with allowing for guns in those cases.
5.countries with similar demographics (canada and the states for example) generally show that nations with tougher laws re: restriction are safer.

[Galla-]

When you, or anyone who isn't a state, can afford several million dollars in developing a nuclear weapons programme, call me.

Nuclear terrorism exists today. Most US states already allow ownership of nuclear weapons, since it isn't banned in most.

Waiting for entire cities to blow up. Hasn't happened.

If you're using nuclear weapons as an argument for gun control, then gun control has no logical, legitimate arguments and all supporters should be shouted down really loudly by courts for violating the Constitution.

there are many multi millionaire and billionaires living in the united states. . . er, wait, you said call, what's you phone number?
however, no I was utilizing extreme hyperbole. My real argument for gun control goes something like this.
1. guns are hugely more likely to cause collateral damage than any other currently legal weapon ('cept mayyybe flamethrowers. . . possibly). While ensuring someone wouldn't cause collateral damage would be nice, it hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to. Automatic weapons are even worse for this
2.having a gun makes you more likely to come to harm, not less. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html
3.having weapons makes crimes in progress more confusing to anyone attempting to intervene and can/has/likely will again cause unnecessary civilian deaths
4.there's . . .really no good reason to have a gun unless a) you leave x far away from local help, b) you have a valid reason for hunting with one (food or tradition) c)you live/work in an area populated by dangerous animals and I'm more than fine with allowing for guns in those cases.
5.countries with similar demographics (canada and the states for example) generally show that nations with tougher laws re: restriction are safer.

Vermont has the most lax gun control in the entire United States. It requires permits for nothing (known as "Vermont carry", look it up).

It has a homicide/violent crime rate lower than the FRG, and comparable to Austria, iirc. Lower than the UK, and France. New Hampshire ranks up there, too. It has similar laws to Vermont (it requires a permit for concealed carry, I believe, and that's it). New Hampshire (live free or die) has lower violent crime rates than the FRG and UK. This isn't even counting firearms crime, it is all violent crime, whether done with rope, Drain-o, or a pistol.

Guns are not a problem. The problem is poverty and lack of education. Poor people are the most likely demographic to commit crime with firearms (which is usually a mugging or armed robbery), and restricting gun ownership (if such a thing is even Constitutional which is another debate) were you trying to actually combat crime would be to restrict the ownership of cheap .25 ACP and .32 ACP pistols from companies like Jiminez and Raven Arms.

Or you can actually combat crime by combating the root cause of almost all crime: poverty.

[Trussvania]

Don't like the ban.

[DaWoad]

there are many multi millionaire and billionaires living in the united states. . . er, wait, you said call, what's you phone number?
however, no I was utilizing extreme hyperbole. My real argument for gun control goes something like this.
1. guns are hugely more likely to cause collateral damage than any other currently legal weapon ('cept mayyybe flamethrowers. . . possibly). While ensuring someone wouldn't cause collateral damage would be nice, it hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to. Automatic weapons are even worse for this
2.having a gun makes you more likely to come to harm, not less. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html
3.having weapons makes crimes in progress more confusing to anyone attempting to intervene and can/has/likely will again cause unnecessary civilian deaths
4.there's . . .really no good reason to have a gun unless a) you leave x far away from local help, b) you have a valid reason for hunting with one (food or tradition) c)you live/work in an area populated by dangerous animals and I'm more than fine with allowing for guns in those cases.
5.countries with similar demographics (canada and the states for example) generally show that nations with tougher laws re: restriction are safer.

Vermont has the most lax gun control in the entire United States. It requires permits for nothing (known as "Vermont carry", look it up).

It has a homicide/violent crime rate lower than the FRG, and comparable to Austria, iirc. Far lower than Switzerland, Finland, the UK, and France. New Hampshire ranks up there, too. It has similar laws to Vermont (it requires a permit for concealed carry, I believe, and that's it). New Hampshire (live free or die) has lower violent crime rates than the FRG and UK.

Guns are not a problem. The problem is poverty and lack of education. Poor people are the most likely demographic to commit crime with firearms (which is usually a mugging or armed robbery), and restricting gun ownership (if such a thing is even Constitutional which is another debate) were you trying to actually combat crime would be to restrict the ownership of cheap .25 ACP and .32 ACP pistols from companies like Jiminez and Raven Arms.

can I get sources for the middle section because it pretty much directly contradicts the harvard source listed by me.

I agree, strongly, with the last except that I think that guns contribute more to the problem than they offer for casual use.

[Spreewerke]

there are many multi millionaire and billionaires living in the united states. . . er, wait, you said call, what's you phone number?
however, no I was utilizing extreme hyperbole. My real argument for gun control goes something like this.
1. guns are hugely more likely to cause collateral damage than any other currently legal weapon ('cept mayyybe flamethrowers. . . possibly). While ensuring someone wouldn't cause collateral damage would be nice, it hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to. Automatic weapons are even worse for this
Guns are also the only currently-legal weapon that level the playing field. My 120lb girlfriend, with the firearm of her choice, could easily defend herself from a criminal twice her size.

2.having a gun makes you more likely to come to harm, not less. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html
The reason for this is the media's portrayal of firearm use: not everyone is John Rambo, and the sooner people realize this, the sooner they will realize they need both training and common sense to avoid dangerous situations. I won't disagree that certain people get a feeling of invulnerability when given a firearm, however. It's mostly a maturity issue.

3.having weapons makes crimes in progress more confusing to anyone attempting to intervene and can/has/likely will again cause unnecessary civilian deaths
I think this is mostly caused by people who put themselves into offensive mode instead of defensive mode. It's somewhat easy to tell if someone is using their firearm in a defensive or offensive role. This goes along with the, "Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm John Rambo" train of thought.

4.there's . . .really no good reason to have a gun unless a) you leave x far away from local help,
Even in towns, it can take several minutes for a police officer to arrive at your home. I also doubt the person breaking in is going to obey you when you ask them to "please hold, I'm making a quick phone call." Unless I'm horribly mistaken, I would say one of the best methods would be to dial 911, leave the line open, and then do what's necessary with your firearm. I believe the police can trace the call, and, when gunshots are heard, there really isn't much to explain before they'll send a few cars over.

b) you have a valid reason for hunting with one (food or tradition)
The business my family owns would not exist without a firearm or, at the very least, some type of ammunition.

c)you live/work in an area populated by dangerous animals
Some of the most dangerous animals I've ever encountered were humans. I had a guy try to start a physical fight with me after I asked him to not park me in anymore in the parking lot. People are assholes and always will be. Some just like to think it's their duty in society to be the largest and will do as they please to prove this point. I'm not saying you should shoot everyone you disagree with; that's a pretty bad idea. However, I am saying that some people will give roughly no damns about your personal safety if it means they get more "street credz" from their gang-banger buddies who drive "souped up" cars their parents bought for them.

5.countries with similar demographics (canada and the states for example) generally show that nations with tougher laws re: restriction are safer.
Switzerland: the land where every household has a fully-automatic rifle.

Didn't mean to come across as a complete dick in this, but if I did, I apologize for it. Just trying to use some personal experience/opinion to argue.

[Galla-]

Vermont has the most lax gun control in the entire United States. It requires permits for nothing (known as "Vermont carry", look it up).

It has a homicide/violent crime rate lower than the FRG, and comparable to Austria, iirc. Far lower than Switzerland, Finland, the UK, and France. New Hampshire ranks up there, too. It has similar laws to Vermont (it requires a permit for concealed carry, I believe, and that's it). New Hampshire (live free or die) has lower violent crime rates than the FRG and UK.

Guns are not a problem. The problem is poverty and lack of education. Poor people are the most likely demographic to commit crime with firearms (which is usually a mugging or armed robbery), and restricting gun ownership (if such a thing is even Constitutional which is another debate) were you trying to actually combat crime would be to restrict the ownership of cheap .25 ACP and .32 ACP pistols from companies like Jiminez and Raven Arms.

can I get sources for the middle section because it pretty much directly contradicts the harvard source listed by me.

I agree, strongly, with the last except that I think that guns contribute more to the problem than they offer for casual use.

I'm looking since I can't remember where I found those statistics.

You'll be in for a wait.

Meanwhile, you can see why a ban on full automatic weapons is asinine. Most crime, as I've said, is done with cheap Saturday Night Specials as produced by Jiminez, Raven, etc companies that make pocket derringers for self-defence. It's hard to conceal an M-16 or an M-60 under a coat. Actually, it would be impossible to conceal an M-60 or an M-240 under a coat at all. I've tried. Didn't work.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... on.svg.png

I'm not suggesting a handgun ban, but I'd say that if lawmakers were out to actually help prevent crime, they would be considering restricting the availability of cheaply made handguns rather than restricting law abiding citizens' ownership of automatic weapons. It seems less like a good will measure and more like a power grab, which of course that is exactly what it is, but whatever.

In Vermont there are 130 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Of these violent crimes (aggravated assault, robbery, murder, rape), there is 1 murder. 1 murder per 100,000 people. Vermont is not a violent state. It has little poor people, and the income divide is far less. This creates less social tension due to jealousy, and less of a scapegoat for the poors to use as an excuse to commit crimes.

Anyways, moving on.

The Federal Republic of Germany, on the other hand:

Homicides: 0.86

The American state of New Hampshire:

Violent crime: 167
Homicides: 0.8

The United Kingdom:

Homicides: 1.17

All above are per 100,000 (I think). Clearly guns are not an issue.

Poverty is the issue. Poverty causes crime. Reduce poverty. Reduce crime.

Reducing poverty costs lots of money, though, so it's often easier for governments to reduce gun ownership and levy penalties to punish law abiding citizens than to combat poverty.

http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime ... yState.cfm (NH and VT, by the US FBI collected from state Uniform Crime Registers)
http://www.bka.de/nn_224658/DE/Publikat ... __nnn=true (FRG, in German and .PDF)
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and- ... icide.html (UK, in Excel Spreadsheet. Have fun.)

CBA to find violent crime statistics, the only ones that matter are homicide anyway, and I don't have an Excel programme to get the UK's violent crime. Last I checked it was some 2,046/100,000 but that was back when the homicide rate there was 1.46 in 2005 and every junkie with a knife or a shard of glass was roaming the streets.

Needless to say hte rates prove themselves. Vermont and NH are the two US states with the laxest gun control measures and some of the lowest crime rates, lower than most Eurofag countries like the UK and FRG (maybe not Austria), and stuff. Again, if guns were the problem, Vermont would be red on every map because it would be the color of blood.