May 16, 1986 Machine Gun Owner's Protection Act

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

By a loony with a 6 shot .22 revolver, no less.

[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.

By a loony with a 6 shot .22 revolver, no less.

Loaded with novelty ammunition, no less.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

As far as attempting to ban "cheap" firearms, where do legislators draw the line? Do they use a price point, or do they go by the firearm's materials/construction?

[Galla-]

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.

As far as attempting to ban "cheap" firearms, where do legislators draw the line? Do they use a price point, or do they go by the firearm's materials/construction?

Wouldn't know. I'd assume an artificial price inflation on cheap derringers, to make firearms too expensive for criminals to acquire, but they'd just steal them from shops or something. Not hard, tbh; and whoever makes those cheap ass pistols would still be making dumb amounts of profit since they cost like $15 to manufacture or something and retail for five times that.

That's why I don't support infringing any ownership on firearms, and why I'm a member of GOA.

The best defence against crime, after all, is to be armed yourself and trained to react reliably in stress conditions. I believe CCL courses require a certain number of hours, but that varies by state and I'm sure MO doesn't require much.

Of course I don't support CCLs. Vermont carry ftw.

[Senestrum]

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!

Nuclear weapons are far less regulated than firearms. I imagine the Fed would freak the fuck out if a civilian purchased one, but legally speaking they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they attempted to prosecute you.

[Chernoslavia]

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 dont live in Spain so dont give me crap about whats legal in Spain, and if i were to knock off his weapon from his hand and disable him from moving thats when its illegal to kill, atleast you got that part right. But, im saying in general, and the chance of shooting his gun off his hand is very low.

I currently live in Spain, to answer your question.
Wel, I dont live in Spain, so different countries, different rules of engagement, Amigo.

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

Pre-ban weapons are very expensive and are complete rip offs, I dont think I should pay $25,000 for an old extensively used M-60 used in vietnam.

[Chernoslavia]

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.

But, if I end up killing him in self defence its still legal, its unlawful to kill, but when I have no choice, thats when i can legally kill, the authorities will understand that. I dont know about Spanish laws, but here in the US, you have the right to defend yourselves.

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".

I AM NOT AN AMATEUR! Most gangs are untrained to handle automatic weapons , so im not likely to miss when compared to these street hoodlums your comparing me to. You cant even compare me to them period. and since you said they were fighting with automatic weapons, then that should tell you that a criminal can get exactly anything, if someone has the potential of obtaining an illegal machine gun, all he has to do is LOOK, MGs dont simply just rain from the sky, if you want to illegally obtain a full auto, you might have a chance, you just got to LOOK. But, I dont because im a law-abiding citzen, but if I wanted to I could try many many things to get an AKM they are EVERYWHERE. Even in Spain someone can get an illegal firearm, all he has to do is just LOOK for one, and gain trust from a smuggler.

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. [color=#000000]Were you a child when you did this?

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?

Ive said nothing about shooting out of my window, you really are mistaking me for an amateur.

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 dont live in Spain so dont give me crap about whats legal in Spain, and if i were to knock off his weapon from his hand and disable him from moving thats when its illegal to kill, atleast you got that part right. But, im saying in general, and the chance of shooting his gun off his hand is very low.
I currently live in Spain, to answer your question.
Wel, I dont live in Spain, so different countries, different rules of engagement, Amigo.

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

Pre-ban weapons are very expensive and are complete rip offs, I dont think I should pay $25,000 for an old extensively used M-60 used in vietnam.

[Cromarty]

Pre-ban weapons are very expensive and are complete rip offs, I dont think I should pay $25,000 for an old extensively used M-60 used in vietnam.

I do. You want these weapons, you should be willing to pay the price.

[Chernoslavia]

Pre-ban weapons are very expensive and are complete rip offs, I dont think I should pay $25,000 for an old extensively used M-60 used in vietnam.

I do. You want these weapons, you should be willing to pay the price.

I wont pay for another pre-86, ill just wait and hope that the ban somehow gets removed. Like I said, pre-86 weapons are rediculously expensive.... unless if it were a ww2 mg42.

[Chernoslavia]

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.

No,no, and again...NO! Saturday specials help the poor people buy a weapon, and remember that to buy a weapon you need to be permitted, so once again..... CRIMINALS DO NOT.... I REPEAT, THEY DO NOT TRY TO LEGALLY OBTAIN FIREARMS! AND KITTIES ARENT EVIL, ITS EVIL TO HUFF KITTIES!

[Chernoslavia]

I can see no potential customs issues arising from this.

You think you're making it back to customs after showing you're an American with money on you in Somalia?

No, but if you keep your mouth shut about being from america, I think youll live.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Pre-ban weapons are very expensive and are complete rip offs, I dont think I should pay $25,000 for an old extensively used M-60 used in vietnam.

I do. You want these weapons, you should be willing to pay the price.

Because before 1986, the streets ran red with blood due to all the criminals with fully automatic assault weapons and barrel shrouds running around murdering. There was no significant drop in the number of murders or violent crimes in the USA following the 1986 ban.

It serves no purpose other than to deprive the American citizen of owning something.

Why? Because to own a fully automatic weapon according to the 1934 NFA, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp. That's fine, it keeps them out of the hands of poor people, and the only people willing to jump through the legal hoops and pay money are dedicated gun owners.

Protip: You can't own a gun if you commit a felony, and gun owners of automatic weapons post-34 do not commit felonies.

edit: Also aren't you banned?

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.

No,no, and again...NO! Saturday specials help the poor people buy a weapon, and remember that to buy a weapon you need to be permitted, so once again..... CRIMINALS DO NOT.... I REPEAT, THEY DO NOT TRY TO LEGALLY OBTAIN FIREARMS! AND KITTIES ARENT EVIL, ITS EVIL TO HUFF KITTIES!

Most firearm crimes are committed with legally obtained .25 ACP, .22 LR, and .32 ACP pistols.

Truth.

Criminals will legally obtain a firearm if it doesn't cost a lot of money. A hypothetical ban that would look to actually reduce crime instead of a knee-jerk, leftist reaction to demolish liberty in America, would look at banning cheap (<$100?) handguns.

I wouldn't support it, but whatever.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I do. You want these weapons, you should be willing to pay the price.

Because before 1986, the streets ran red with blood due to all the criminals with fully automatic assault weapons and barrel shrouds running around murdering. There was no significant drop in the number of murders or violent crimes in the USA following the 1986 ban.

It serves no purpose other than to deprive the American citizen of owning something.

Why? Because to own a fully automatic weapon according to the 1934 NFA, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp. That's fine, it keeps them out of the hands of poor people, and the only people willing to jump through the legal hoops and pay money are dedicated gun owners.

Protip: You can't own a gun if you commit a felony, and gun owners of automatic weapons post-34 do not commit felonies.

edit: Also aren't you banned?

No,no, and again...NO! Saturday specials help the poor people buy a weapon, and remember that to buy a weapon you need to be permitted, so once again..... CRIMINALS DO NOT.... I REPEAT, THEY DO NOT TRY TO LEGALLY OBTAIN FIREARMS! AND KITTIES ARENT EVIL, ITS EVIL TO HUFF KITTIES!

Most firearm crimes are committed with legally obtained .25 ACP, .22 LR, and .32 ACP pistols.

Truth.

Criminals will legally obtain a firearm if it doesn't cost a lot of money. A hypothetical ban that would look to actually reduce crime instead of a knee-jerk, leftist reaction to demolish liberty in America, would look at banning cheap (<$100?) handguns.

I wouldn't support it, but whatever.

All that would be accomplished by banning firearms below a certain price point, is the price for those firearms would increase to just above that price point. If lawmakers are going to take steps to combat "Saturday Night Specials", they should consider banning the use of zinc and pot metal in firearms construction.

[Aelosia]

Let's continue arguing.

But, if I end up killing him in self defence its still legal, its unlawful to kill, but when I have no choice, thats when i can legally kill, the authorities will understand that. I dont know about Spanish laws, but here in the US, you have the right to defend yourselves.

I am not talking about spanish laws or anything. I am familiar with the federal law of the US, maybe even a bit more familiar than you. According to US law, you have the right to defend yourself, even resorting to the use of deadly force if you need to. However, "the use of deadly force to defend yourself", and "to kill" aren't synonymous. If you kill someone while trying to defend yourself, it is a collateral damage, however, if you kill with intention is a completely different matter. It's murder.

I AM NOT AN AMATEUR! Most gangs are untrained to handle automatic weapons , so im not likely to miss when compared to these street hoodlums your comparing me to. You cant even compare me to them period. and since you said they were fighting with automatic weapons, then that should tell you that a criminal can get exactly anything, if someone has the potential of obtaining an illegal machine gun, all he has to do is LOOK, MGs dont simply just rain from the sky, if you want to illegally obtain a full auto, you might have a chance, you just got to LOOK. But, I dont because im a law-abiding citzen, but if I wanted to I could try many many things to get an AKM they are EVERYWHERE. Even in Spain someone can get an illegal firearm, all he has to do is just LOOK for one, and gain trust from a smuggler.

Know what? You are an amateur in the use of firearms, frankly. You aren't likely to miss while using a full automatic weapon? Really? I mean, full automatic weapon and you put every single shot into the target? Wow, you must be better than most military and SWAT grade instructors. Full auto = You are going to miss some. I thought you had some idea about weapons until you said this. It is true, I can't compare you to gangters, they have real experience shooting said weapons in gunfights, meanwhile you don't.

Ive said nothing about shooting out of my window, you really are mistaking me for an amateur.

So you would come OUT from the cover of your house, and OUTSIDE into your backyard, to fire your full automatic weapon on the intruders? Clearly that's the pro thing to do!

Wel, I dont live in Spain, so different countries, different rules of engagement, Amigo.

Well I have lived in the US. I'm familiar with your laws and customs, pal. In cluding your rules of engagement. And it's amiga.

[Chernoslavia]

I do. You want these weapons, you should be willing to pay the price.

Because before 1986, the streets ran red with blood due to all the criminals with fully automatic assault weapons and barrel shrouds running around murdering. There was no significant drop in the number of murders or violent crimes in the USA following the 1986 ban.

It serves no purpose other than to deprive the American citizen of owning something.

Why? Because to own a fully automatic weapon according to the 1934 NFA, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp. That's fine, it keeps them out of the hands of poor people, and the only people willing to jump through the legal hoops and pay money are dedicated gun owners.

Protip: You can't own a gun if you commit a felony, and gun owners of automatic weapons post-34 do not commit felonies.

edit: Also aren't you banned?

No,no, and again...NO! Saturday specials help the poor people buy a weapon, and remember that to buy a weapon you need to be permitted, so once again..... CRIMINALS DO NOT.... I REPEAT, THEY DO NOT TRY TO LEGALLY OBTAIN FIREARMS! AND KITTIES ARENT EVIL, ITS EVIL TO HUFF KITTIES!

Most firearm crimes are committed with legally obtained .25 ACP, .22 LR, and .32 ACP pistols.

Truth.

Criminals will legally obtain a firearm if it doesn't cost a lot of money. A hypothetical ban that would look to actually reduce crime instead of a knee-jerk, leftist reaction to demolish liberty in America, would look at banning cheap (<$100?) handguns.

I wouldn't support it, but whatever.

I see what your saying but that would mean the poor couldnt afford to protect themselves, maybe a stricter background requirement would decrease crime involving ''saturday night specials''

[Chernoslavia]

Let's continue arguing.

But, if I end up killing him in self defence its still legal, its unlawful to kill, but when I have no choice, thats when i can legally kill, the authorities will understand that. I dont know about Spanish laws, but here in the US, you have the right to defend yourselves.

I am not talking about spanish laws or anything. I am familiar with the federal law of the US, maybe even a bit more familiar than you. According to US law, you have the right to defend yourself, even resorting to the use of deadly force if you need to. However, "the use of deadly force to defend yourself", and "to kill" aren't synonymous. If you kill someone while trying to defend yourself, it is a collateral damage, however, if you kill with intention is a completely different matter. It's murder.

I AM NOT AN AMATEUR! Most gangs are untrained to handle automatic weapons , so im not likely to miss when compared to these street hoodlums your comparing me to. You cant even compare me to them period. and since you said they were fighting with automatic weapons, then that should tell you that a criminal can get exactly anything, if someone has the potential of obtaining an illegal machine gun, all he has to do is LOOK, MGs dont simply just rain from the sky, if you want to illegally obtain a full auto, you might have a chance, you just got to LOOK. But, I dont because im a law-abiding citzen, but if I wanted to I could try many many things to get an AKM they are EVERYWHERE. Even in Spain someone can get an illegal firearm, all he has to do is just LOOK for one, and gain trust from a smuggler.

Know what? You are an amateur in the use of firearms, frankly. You aren't likely to miss while using a full automatic weapon? Really? I mean, full automatic weapon and you put every single shot into the target? Wow, you must be better than most military and SWAT grade instructors. Full auto = You are going to miss some. I thought you had some idea about weapons until you said this. It is true, I can't compare you to gangters, they have real experience shooting said weapons in gunfights, meanwhile you don't.

Im not saying that every bullets gonna hit the target, but more than half the rounds I shoot go into my targets (at the range), and Im not talking about all-out full auto trigger happy Rambo, I shoot in small bursts, these gangs your comparing me to are no match for my accuracy, maybe SWAT can do slightly better or even, when compared to me. Look, I shoot every weekend, and practice makes perfect, and its fun, I go out with my friends or family to the shooting range once in a while, and remember that my full auto AK47 Type 2 isnt the only gun I have, I own a semi-auto Rock River Arms AR-15 5.56mm, and a recently bought russian Mosin Nagant, only costed me 127.00 dollars in www.ImpactGuns.com, and a Uberti cattleman revolver.

Ive said nothing about shooting out of my window, you really are mistaking me for an amateur.

So you would come OUT from the cover of your house, and OUTSIDE into your backyard, to fire your full automatic weapon on the intruders? Clearly that's the pro thing to do! Nah, I just dont wanna damage my windows. But, theres more cover than just the walls of my house.

Wel, I dont live in Spain, so different countries, different rules of engagement, Amigo.

Well I have lived in the US. I'm familiar with your laws and customs, pal. In cluding your rules of engagement. And it's amiga.

Okay, your a female, my mistake.

[Vetok]

Let's continue arguing.



I am not talking about spanish laws or anything. I am familiar with the federal law of the US, maybe even a bit more familiar than you. According to US law, you have the right to defend yourself, even resorting to the use of deadly force if you need to. However, "the use of deadly force to defend yourself", and "to kill" aren't synonymous. If you kill someone while trying to defend yourself, it is a collateral damage, however, if you kill with intention is a completely different matter. It's murder.




Know what? You are an amateur in the use of firearms, frankly. You aren't likely to miss while using a full automatic weapon? Really? I mean, full automatic weapon and you put every single shot into the target? Wow, you must be better than most military and SWAT grade instructors. Full auto = You are going to miss some. I thought you had some idea about weapons until you said this. It is true, I can't compare you to gangters, they have real experience shooting said weapons in gunfights, meanwhile you don't.

Im not saying that every bullets gonna hit the target, but more than half the rounds I shoot go into my targets (at the range), and Im not talking about all-out full auto trigger happy Rambo, I shoot in small bursts, these gangs your comparing me to are no match for my accuracy, maybe SWAT can do slightly better or even, when compared to me. Look, I shoot every weekend, and practice makes perfect, and its fun, I go out with my friends or family to the shooting range once in a while, and remember that my full auto AK47 Type 2 isnt the only gun I have, I own a semi-auto Rock River Arms AR-15 5.56mm, and a recently bought russian Mosin Nagant, only costed me 127.00 dollars in http://www.ImpactGuns.com, and a Uberti cattleman revolver.



So you would come OUT from the cover of your house, and OUTSIDE into your backyard, to fire your full automatic weapon on the intruders? Clearly that's the pro thing to do! Nah, I just dont wanna damage my windows. But, theres more cover than just the walls of my house.



Well I have lived in the US. I'm familiar with your laws and customs, pal. In cluding your rules of engagement. And it's amiga.

Okay, your a female, my mistake.

You shoot as well, if not better than a professionally trained SWAT unit who, it should be said, are paid to train their shooting skills, especially as they can involve innocent bystanders/hostages which requires a great emphasis on training and discipline compared to your weekend shooting?

Also, your paper targets? They won't move. Humans do. Shooting under what is essentially combat conditions is very different from target shooting.

[Chernoslavia]

Okay, your a female, my mistake.

You shoot as well, if not better than a professionally trained SWAT unit who, it should be said, are paid to train their shooting skills, especially as they can involve innocent bystanders/hostages which requires a great emphasis on training and discipline compared to your weekend shooting?

Also, your paper targets? They won't move. Humans do. Shooting under what is essentially combat conditions is very different from target shooting.

Actually theyre made of metal, and theres a switch that can make the targets move left and right, forwards, and backwards, and yet im still that accurate. Just because im not trained with SWAT doesnt mean im not skilled.

[Vetok]

You shoot as well, if not better than a professionally trained SWAT unit who, it should be said, are paid to train their shooting skills, especially as they can involve innocent bystanders/hostages which requires a great emphasis on training and discipline compared to your weekend shooting?

Also, your paper targets? They won't move. Humans do. Shooting under what is essentially combat conditions is very different from target shooting.

Actually theyre made of metal, and theres a switch that can make the targets move left and right, forwards, and backwards, and yet im still that accurate. Just because im not trained with SWAT doesnt mean im not skilled.

You must have thousands of dollars to blow on ammunition to practice that much. Which renders your whole complaint about the expense of pre-86 firearms moot essentially.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Actually theyre made of metal, and theres a switch that can make the targets move left and right, forwards, and backwards, and yet im still that accurate. Just because im not trained with SWAT doesnt mean im not skilled.

You must have thousands of dollars to blow on ammunition to practice that much. Which renders your whole complaint about the expense of pre-86 firearms moot essentially.

How about my complaint about the expense of pre-'86 full auto/select fire weapons? I don't have thousands to spend on ammo. I'd love a Norrell trigger pack (for my 10/22) or an M16 lower, but I can't afford the $10k+ for one (and the Norrell trigger pack is the only one I'd be able to feed, since .22lr is so relatively cheap).

[Vetok]

You must have thousands of dollars to blow on ammunition to practice that much. Which renders your whole complaint about the expense of pre-86 firearms moot essentially.

How about my complaint about the expense of pre-'86 full auto/select fire weapons? I don't have thousands to spend on ammo. I'd love a Norrell trigger pack (for my 10/22) or an M16 lower, but I can't afford the $10k+ for one (and the Norrell trigger pack is the only one I'd be able to feed, since .22lr is so relatively cheap).

What can I say? If you want an automatic weapon, shouldn't you be willing to pay the price for it?

[Gun Manufacturers]

How about my complaint about the expense of pre-'86 full auto/select fire weapons? I don't have thousands to spend on ammo. I'd love a Norrell trigger pack (for my 10/22) or an M16 lower, but I can't afford the $10k+ for one (and the Norrell trigger pack is the only one I'd be able to feed, since .22lr is so relatively cheap).

What can I say? If you want an automatic weapon, shouldn't you be willing to pay the price for it?

Considering the difference between a post '86 dealer sample M16 and a transferable M16 (according to this site) is $16,500, it would seem that the price for a transferable M16 is overinflated only due to the law. In fact, that post '86 dealer sample M16 costs less than I paid for my semi-only AR15.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

A chance for another SUPERCOMMITTEE!!!

[Farnhamia]

A chance for another SUPERCOMMITTEE!!!

Not really, no.

Why do machine gun owners need protection? They have machine guns.

[Talislanta]

I live in the Netherlands I think our gun laws are not strickt enough.

Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for "voorhanden hebben" (possession), and "dragen" (carrying in public).

Only citizens who are hunters, members of shooting sports clubs or legitimate collectors may obtain licenses for firearms. In the case of shooting club members they will get a license for category III weapons (a firearms category which includes all non- full automatic firearms up to .50 cal.). Possession is generally limited to 5 firearms per license. Collectors may obtain a license for any category of firearm, including full automatic arms, but stringent rules apply to achieving collector status. There is no limit to the number of firearms a collector may obtain. Generally the collector license does not cover shooting these weapons.

Sale/Use is only for those age 18 or over. There are a few dozen gunshops in the Netherlands. Gun ownership is extremely low with only three firearms per hundred people.

category I weapons Non fire arms that are not legal under any cercomstance. Like balistic knifes, spadix, life-preserver, bb guns, soft air guns
category II weapons Weapons for gouverment only or special licenced collectors. Like pepper spray, full automatic weapons, taser, etc.
category III weapons Weapons for members of shooting clubs, hunters, collectors
category VI weapons Weapons for which you do not need a license but which are not allowed to be carried in public, like (cross) bows, swords of all types, paintball gun etc.

Max penalties:
Carrying a stiletto €4500 fine or 9 months in prison.
Carrying a gun/rifle without licence €45.000 fine or 4 years prison
Illegal gun trading 8 years prison