Why gun laws (or lack thereof) don't work in the US:

[Neutrino]

Then there's also the fact that right-to-carry states in the US have typically lower gun crime (More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott, definintely a recommended read).

Of course they do. Would you attack someone who was virtually guaranteed to have a gun? But, of course, not everyone has such a well developed sence of self preservation as you. There will always be plenty of people too desperate to realise that robbing a bank full of people armed with semi-automatic pistols is not a good idea.
But, of course, these people aren't stupid. Once the first dozen or so of their criminal buddies get shot to pieces, they'll realise that holding someone who also has a gun up at gunpoint is not oging to work. So then what? Shoot first and demand later. They can't return fire if they're already dead.

Crime goes down, casualties go up.

I believe in the right to self defence. If ever my home, or my family were attacked, I'd like to be able to defend it, not rely on the State to do it. Allowing citizens to have the means to defend themselves is essential, a basic human right. Say free speech managed to persuade people to commit crimes, would you oppose it? No. Citizens have a right to defend themselves, and should learn to.

Do citizens need semi-automatic weaponry to defend themselves? Are there ever going to be enough burglars that you need to be able to spit out a dozen bullets in half as many seconds? Your arguments fall flat on their face when you realise the sheer lethality of the "defensive" weaponry involved.

[Napoleon Ier]

gun crime has enjoyed a steady rise, even though with normal statistical fluctuations.

You seem to be turning a blind-eye to the fact that crime in general has been on the rise in the UK over the same period. You seem also to avoid the fact that gun-crime has grown more slowly than other types of violent crime in the UK.
The point is simply that UK society is more violent than it used to be, and it's only tight firearms restrictions that have stopped gun-violence rising at the same speed as all of the other types of violence.
As such, anti-gun legislation does work, because it's suceeded in keeping violent firearm crime down, when all other types of violence have risen. Who knows, perhaps you think that UK criminals are just gun-averse and prefer using fists and knives... but it seems unlikely.

gangs, I am persuaded that given their increasing internationalization, they will alays be able to get their hands on guns. Some of these gangs operate as massive multi-nationals, and the black market is huge. You need only look at how in London, guns are readily available for gangs despite tight restrictions.

Actually they're not... while some military-grade weapons have managed to enter into circulation in the UK, the main types of firearms used in crime in the UK (indeed the great majority) aren't the automatic military-grade weapons that are seen so often in the US; but they're small (often very old) pistols, shotguns, and modified replica-guns. In other words, weapons that have been in the country for decades (before modern customs controls were introduced) legal weapons that have been smuggled out of agricultural/sporting enterprises, or retrofitted replicas.

Do you think UK criminals prefer those kind of unsophisciated firearms? Or do you think perhaps that they're just making do as best they can with the limited resources available to them because of tight gun-control legislation?
Sure, our laws+policing aren't 100% effective in keeping firearms out of circulation, but the patterns of the type of weapons used in the UK (as opposed to in jurisdictions with lapse firearms control) are proof that our current regime is certainly working at keeping the worst kinds of guns out of the hands of criminals.

In other words, contrary to your assertions to the contrary, seriously enforced gun control does work at keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, no matter how 'international' they have become / are becoming. That's why gun crime in the UK hasn't risen as quickly as it should have in proportion to other types of violent crime, and that's why the patterns of weapon use here aren't the same as in gun-friendly jurisdictions.

This is exactly the argument I was just about to make. Damn you.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_Homicide_06.gif

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that crime rates are soaring from, nor where your comparative statistics come from.

I don't know about guns used by criminals, nor how they get them, but given the relative ease with which drugs make their way accross our borders, I'd say fire-arms won't be a problem as demand rises with expanding gang culture.

Neutrino's first paragraph didn't make any sense. His second called to attention the need to draw a line somewhere, which I entirely agree, is necessary. Semi-automatic weapons (which are one round per triggering) seem reasonable to me (if someone armed is in your home, and you miss with a lee-enfield bolt action rifle, you're fucked), but no one would deny what you're saying. I don't see many opponents of chemical weapon control around.

[Neutrino]

Neutrino's first paragraph didn't make any sense.

I thought it was quite clear. Yes, giving everyone and their little dog a gun will decreace the actual number of crimes, but will also massively boost casualties/crime, since criminals will quickly learn to shoot first and demand later.
Really not the best solution out there.

His second called to attention the need to draw a line somewhere, which I entirely agree, is necessary. Semi-automatic weapons (which are one round per triggering) seem reasonable to me (if someone armed is in your home, and you miss with a lee-enfield bolt action rifle, you're fucked), but no one would deny what you're saying. I don't see many opponents of chemical weapon control around.

The main problem with giving everyone semi-automatic weaponry is it is possible to fire the entire magazine in a few seconds. In a home-defence scenario you are expecting to meet one or two assailants, not a whole army. Therefore you do not need enough firepower to take down a platoon in a few seconds. Giving everyone the power to fire a bullet every half-second or so is just begging for someone to massively misuse it in a public place.

As far as I can tell, revolvers are the ideal answer. It's difficult to pour out a stream of death with them, but you're not completely screwed if you miss.

[muy_thaiguy]

As far as I can tell, revolvers are the ideal answer. It's difficult to pour out a stream of death with them, but you're not completely screwed if you miss.

I think cops replaced them with magnums (was it?) because they were to slow to reload and only had 6 shots at most. Though, in a way, you are giving in to Conservative ideology, Western States that is, by going back to the days of the Old West.

[Grooveman2007]

Gun laws don't and never will work in the US because guns are an inherent part of American culture. Can't change someone's culture with any amount of legislation.

SLAVERY? Of course you can change culture with legislation.
I odn't kill peasants anymore, beacuse its illegal to be a feudal baron anymore. You see my point-LAWS CHANGE EVERYTHING.

Legislation and one of the bloodiest civil wars in history! The way that it was possible for Lincoln to free the slaves was because the south was destroied! It takes a hell of a lot more to change culture than some sheets of paper.

[Snorri1234]

As far as I can tell, revolvers are the ideal answer. It's difficult to pour out a stream of death with them, but you're not completely screwed if you miss.

I think cops replaced them with magnums (was it?) because they were to slow to reload and only had 6 shots at most.

True, but we're talking about self-defense here. Cops can have better guns naturally.

[Dancing Mustard]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that crime rates are soaring from

I never said soaring... just rising (and I meant over the course of the century in general).

I don't know about guns used by criminals, nor how they get them, but given the relative ease with which drugs make their way accross our borders, I'd say fire-arms won't be a problem as demand rises with expanding gang culture.

Ever tried smuggling an AK across a border by stuffing it inside your rectum? Ever tried growing Glocks in a greenhouse? Ever brewed up an Armalite from household ingredients?

Of course you haven't, it's because it can't be done. Drugs are very different commodities to guns, and smuggling them is much easier. Not only that, but they can be grown from seed, or created from raw (not necessarily illegal) ingredients. Simply put, it's far easier to restrict gun trafficking than it is to restrict drug trafficking. That's no guarantee that border control can ever be 100% effective, but it is reason to believe that anti-firearm legislation can remain extremely effective regardless of how much criminals might desire guns.

Current trends in weapon usage make it clear that border controls are working, and given the difficulties in sourcing and smuggling weapons that are not inherent to other illegal commodities, there's no real reason to imagine that (if kept modern and efficiently run) border controls are about to suddenly fail us.

Semi-automatic weapons (which are one round per triggering) seem reasonable to me

I'm afraid not. Even a six-chamber pistol is capable of allowing a gunman to kill six victims in under a minute; you're also allowing highly-concealable weapons into the hands of potential criminals. That's an unacceptable facility to offer would-be killers, hi-jackers, robbers and rapists. Sure, it'd be nice to have one to defend your home with, but it'd be far nicer to deprive everyone of the potential of having a firearm in the first place.

I know that'd you'd all feel safer with a gun under your pillow, but the simple truth here is that if nobody has a gun in the first place, then nobody needs one to defend themselves with.

(Also, as an add-on to the above, and though I don't currently have the paper in question to hand, studies on burglary as an offence i the UK suggest that burglars in fact conciously avoid carrying firearms on 'jobs' because they are aware of the strict sentences that firearm 'aggravated burglary' carries... which makes 'defend my home' arguments something of a non-starter)

[Snowpepsi]

Criminals will find ways to kill people with or without gun laws. Gun laws are only kept by the law abiding. What good does that do when someone breaks into your house and kills you because you have your gun locked up in the required gun safe. Or because you don't have guns at all (because guns kill people.) How many people are killed with knifes, bare hands, bombs, cars,...? Killers will kill with or without gun laws. You should see some of the things that are made in prisons to be used as weapons. Gun laws protect no one.

[Napoleon Ier]

I never said soaring... just rising (and I meant over the course of the century in general).

Crime in the UK is on the rise, there's no doubt about it, but not at the same rate as gun crime (110% since 1997). In then US, it has been gradually sinking ever since the 1990s crime wave subsided.

Ever tried smuggling an AK across a border by stuffing it inside your rectum? Ever tried growing Glocks in a greenhouse? Ever brewed up an Armalite from household ingredients?

Drugs do get smuggled accross the border in bulk though, just like weapons could, broken down into constituent parts if necessary. AK-47 from Hungary were found on the streets of London, as well as military grade SA80 assault rifles from Iraq.

I know that'd you'd all feel safer with a gun under your pillow, but the simple truth here is that if nobody has a gun in the first place, then nobody needs one to defend themselves with.

(Also, as an add-on to the above, and though I don't currently have the paper in question to hand, studies on burglary as an offence i the UK suggest that burglars in fact conciously avoid carrying firearms on 'jobs' because they are aware of the strict sentences that firearm 'aggravated burglary' carries... which makes 'defend my home' arguments something of a non-starter)

Yes, if nobody had a gun, but that's pure utopia. However, people do have a right to defend themselves. That is a basic human right along with those of free speech and religion. Right now, men who want to defend their family from attack cannot, and fall victim to criminals who don't even need guns themselves to terrorize people. It's worth noting a UN study actually found the UK to be the worst of 18 developed countries surveyed for "very serious offences". I'd rather have the guaranteed right and ability to defend myself than have some faceless government in Brussels deliberate over how to restrict this God given right of mine for the common good.

Policing can only do so much, it visibly doesn't do much for such things as drugs, which require large environments to be grown or vast organized chains to smuggle them, and won't do much for guns, which can be constructed from not necessarily illegal parts, or smuggled, again in small parts or as a whole.

[Napoleon Ier]

Criminals will find ways to kill people with or without gun laws. Gun laws are only kept by the law abiding. What good does that do when someone breaks into your house and kills you because you have your gun locked up in the required gun safe. Or because you don't have guns at all (because guns kill people.) How many people are killed with knifes, bare hands, bombs, cars,...? Killers will kill with or without gun laws. You should see some of the things that are made in prisons to be used as weapons. Gun laws protect no one.

Bravo, I say.

[Dancing Mustard]

Criminals will find ways to kill people with or without gun laws. Gun laws are only kept by the law abiding.

C'mon, thread-reading is the name of the game here:

Unfortunately criminals don't follow laws, hence them being criminals, which is why gun laws don't work....or in this case...just a little crazy. And crazy people dont' follow laws....

The flaw in this line of reasoning is that you seem to have forgotten the fact that laws aren't just words on paper, they're things that can be actively enforced by the state.

Do gun laws in and of themselves cause criminals to give up arms? Not completely (though it's worth noting that UK Gun and Knife amnestys have always been met with huge numbers of handed in weapons). They do however cause a drop in the general level of weapon proliferation.

The bit that hits your stubborn criminals the hardest however, is active policing. Where gun laws exist the police have the power to deprive armed-gangs of weapons before crime actually happens. That's the bit that drops crime (and it's why EU states have lower homicide rates than the US).
Let's go back to your 'bank robbers' scenario: would you prefer the bank robbers to rock up to the bank and start a shootout with all the customers, or would you prefer that the bank-robbers had been deprived of firearms months earlier. Put another way, would you prefer a scenario in which two sides shoot at each other, and you hope the good-guys win; or would you prefer a scenario where nobody has the chance to shoot anybody?

Gun laws don't just get enacted then sit idle. They get enacted, and are enforced, weeding out all illegal firearms in the jurisdiction, until eventually nobody has the option of using a gun to rob any kind of establishment, regardless of who inside it might or might not be armed. This is the key factor that pro-gun arguments seem to miss on CC.

Sure, in a world where only criminals have guns there might well be more crime, but that's not what anti-gun laws aim for, or would result in. The laws are aiming, via citizen compliance and active policing, to ensure a world where there is no gun proliferation whatsoever. Now I'll admit, given the enormous rate of gun proliferation in the US, perhaps things would get worse before they got better, but with gun-control backed by effective policing, rates of gun-related crime can only fall, because the numbers of guns available to perpetrate crime with would be falling also.

In short: The 'only criminals will not comply with law' argument isn't an argument for arming everybody else, it's an argument for better policing and active programs of disarmament.

[Dancing Mustard]

Crime in the UK is on the rise, there's no doubt about it, but not at the same rate as gun crime (110% since 1997)

Well basically Nappy, I'm dubious as to the veracity of that statement, and I'm afraid (much as I hate this style of argument) that I'm going to need to see some proof.
Also, can I not simply dismiss you with the same line that you used on Snorri earlier, and call this 'cyclical fluctuation'?

Drugs do get smuggled accross the border in bulk though, just like weapons could, broken down into constituent parts if necessary. AK-47 from Hungary were found on the streets of London, as well as military grade SA80 assault rifles from Iraq.

Yes yes, of course they do, but they're not made out of solid metal and they make up only a part of the total amount of drugs in circulation in the UK. Put it this way, if guns were as easy to traffick as drugs, then they'd already be here in the same quantities. They aren't, that should tell you something.
And yes, we can all cherry-pick examples of where the border-control system has failed, but I could just as easily cherry-pick more examples where it has succeeded. Also, the fact that the guns were found and confiscated by the authorities is a testament to the effecitveness of gun control legislation.

In your 'AK47s for everyone' paradise, your story would be 'Store assistant shot dead by SA80, several shoppers and robbers severely wounded, extensive damage to premises suffered'... sound like an improvement to you?

people do have a right to defend themselves. That is a basic human right along with those of free speech and religion.

Yeah... you have that right now, no evil liberal bogeyman is trying to take it away. They're just trying to keep guns out of the hands of people that might force you to use that right.

In simple form:
Self-Defence = Right to use force to defend yourself
Guns = Lethal killing weapons

See how they're not actually the same thing, but are in fact diametrically opposed opposites?

Right now, men who want to defend their family from attack cannot, and fall victim to criminals who don't even need guns themselves to terrorize people.

Not really... that's an emotive nightmare fantasy you've conjured up to support your point of view. It's not actually what happens in the UK.
The truth is that there is a proportionally very low level of gun crime, which consists mainly of known-to-victim violence which happens in deprived inner-city areas... familys aren't being terroised in their homes at night, and a cowboy militia of self-armed office workers isn't going to solve that problem.

It's worth noting a UN study actually found the UK to be the worst of 18 developed countries surveyed for "very serious offences".

Well, without more, that doesn't actually help us one way or another, because it's unclear (without further information to turn this into a point) what the UN meant by that.

I'd rather have the guaranteed right and ability to defend myself

You've had that right (enshrined in law) since the Middle Ages, giving everybody guns won't change that fact, it'll just increase the lethality of every armed incident in the UK... i.e. it'll make you more likely to die of violence.

than have some faceless government in Brussels deliberate over how to restrict this God given right of mine for the common good.

...and this bit of your post just didn't make any sense at all. Where did the NWO come into this? Who is advocating Brussels administration of any kind? Why the sudden foray into conspiracy land?

[Snowpepsi]

I soo did not want to talk about this.


I have friends that had a guy walk into their house while their children ages 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15, had just been left alone. Dad went to work. Mom went to have the tires changed on the car. A guy walked into the house and stabbed two of their children to death with a pitchfork. The guns were locked up. The three oldest were able to get out of the house but couldn't save their younger siblings. The oldest would have shot the guy if she could have gotten to a gun. And at least one of the younger ones would have survived.

[Dancing Mustard]

Well tragic though that is, and painful though it must be to talk about it, it is only one anecdote and on its own is meaningless.

Let's talk through another heartwrenching example though:

Imagine you had friends that had a guy walk into their house while their children ages 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15, had just been left alone. Dad went to work. Mom went to have the tires changed on the car. A guy walked into the house and shot all of their children with the bullets from a single magazine of a Glock pistol. The family guns weren't locked up, but were kept easily accesible in their parent's bedroom. The three oldest children would possibly have been able to use them if they'd ran upstairs quick enough, but the gunman was able to massacre all five of them in under a minute... as only a firearm let's a person do. It's incredible really, for sheer speed you just can't beat them, they let you mow down a whole room of victims in mere moments, why use anything else? Of course, it goes without saying that because of the criminal's increased ability to kill quickly, none of the children were able to get out of the house, and because they weren't running around with guns sellotaped to their hands, they couldn't react quickly enough to save their younger siblings or themselves. The oldest would have shot the guy if she could have gotten to a gun, but regardless of romantic notions of cowboy self-defence, that's just not what happens in a society where everyone is at liberty to run around with a lethal murder weapon in their hands. Guns kill faster than you can react, it's what they're designed to do you see. Hell, at least when your killer was only armed with a pitchfork three of the older ones survived.


Sound preferable to you? Or does it turn out that living in the wild wild frontier times is actually not a romantic shoot-em-up 'the good guys win every time' Western, but just a brutal, violent and dangerous place?

Your gunless scenario, or my firearm littered one? Your choice...

[Neoteny]

Well tragic though that is, and painful though it must be to talk about it, it is only one anecdote and on its own is meaningless.

Let's talk through another heartwrenching example though:

Imagine you had friends that had a guy walk into their house while their children ages 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15, had just been left alone. Dad went to work. Mom went to have the tires changed on the car. A guy walked into the house and shot all of their children with the bullets from a single magazine of a Glock pistol. The family guns weren't locked up, but were kept easily accesible in their parent's bedroom. The three oldest children would possibly have been able to use them if they'd ran upstairs quick enough, but the gunman was able to massacre all five of them in under a minute... as only a firearm let's a person do. It's incredible really, for sheer speed you just can't beat them, they let you mow down a whole room of victims in mere moments, why use anything else? Of course, it goes without saying that because of the criminal's increased ability to kill quickly, none of the children were able to get out of the house, and because they weren't running around with guns sellotaped to their hands, they couldn't react quickly enough to save their younger siblings or themselves. The oldest would have shot the guy if she could have gotten to a gun, but regardless of romantic notions of cowboy self-defence, that's just not what happens in a society where everyone is at liberty to run around with a lethal murder weapon in their hands. Guns kill faster than you can react, it's what they're designed to do you see. Hell, at least when your killer was only armed with a pitchfork three of the older ones survived.


Sound preferable to you? Or does it turn out that living in the wild wild frontier times is actually not a romantic shoot-em-up 'the good guys win every time' Western, but just a brutal, violent and dangerous place?

Your gunless scenario, or my firearm littered one? Your choice...

Harsh, but very well illustrated.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'll post more later, but this is a very interesting article if you can be at all bothered.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

[Snowpepsi]

I'll post more later, but this is a very interesting article if you can be at all bothered.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

This makes my point. People outside the law will always be able to get guns. If they can't get them, they will learn to make them. It's the law abiding that have no protection.

[CoffeeCream]

This makes my point. People outside the law will always be able to get guns. If they can't get them, they will learn to make them. It's the law abiding that have no protection.

I hear what you're saying but I don't think that making it easier for a person to get a gun leads to a safer society. I'm not stupid enough to believe that there will be no more crime if we get rid of guns. I wish nobody owned a gun except for the military & police.

[Iliad]

I'll post more later, but this is a very interesting article if you can be at all bothered.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

This makes my point. People outside the law will always be able to get guns. If they can't get them, they will learn to make them. It's the law abiding that have no protection.

Protection eh? Imagine this scenario. You are sleeping in the middle of the night when you hear someone breaking in. Here choose whether you have a gun or you don't. You walk towards the door but suddenly the burglar sees you. He has a gun. Now let's imagine you have a gun. When that burglar sees you with the gun he could very possibly just shoot you on the spot instead of if you didn't have a gun taking your tv.


While having a gun might stop a crime it is far more likelier to just worsen the crime.

DM's active policing is a pretty good explanation on what could be done

[Dancing Mustard]

This makes my point. People outside the law will always be able to get guns. If they can't get them, they will learn to make them. It's the law abiding that have no protection.

Well yes... but you made that point with your first post here, and it got answered then. Perhaps reading that response would help you out here? I don't want to litter up this thread by re-quoting every time you repeat that point, and we're not going to get anywhere unless you respond to the counter-arguments that you got the first time round. I don't want to sound impolite there, but it's how online debate has to work.

Also, I don't deny that guns probably can't ever be completely removed from circulation, I'm just arguing that the "low numbers of weapons, where the police have powers to deprive owners before violent crime occurs" scenario; is vastly preferable to the "everyone gets to carry the most lethal variety of murder weapon known to man, and we just cross our fingers and hope the good-guys shoot first" scenario.

[greenoaks]

give it up DM,

Nappy & Snowpepsi are spot on. everyone should have the right to defend themselves and own guns. the world is is a much safer place because of it.

it is exactly the same with nuclear weapons. some countries have them so all countries should be allowed to develop and stockpile them for their own defence. you know, just in case a bad country tries to invade them in the middle of night.

and don't worry about how securely they are stored. so long as they read a pamphlet on the best way to lock them away when not in use we will be fine. no chance someone will go a little mental one day and fire off a whole bunch. and even if they do we will all be packing heat too so we will just let off a return volley.

you should also know from the news DM that the USA actively encourages anyone & everyone who wants to have such a weapon for self-defence to go ahead and procure one with no thread of force to prevent it.

give it up DM, the good ol' US of A can't be wrong.

[comic boy]

This makes my point. People outside the law will always be able to get guns. If they can't get them, they will learn to make them. It's the law abiding that have no protection.

I hear what you're saying but I don't think that making it easier for a person to get a gun leads to a safer society. I'm not stupid enough to believe that there will be no more crime if we get rid of guns. I wish nobody owned a gun except for the military & police.

I think that sums it up very well, what needs to change is the mindset of we need guns to one of how can we minimise the amount of guns in circulation. The bottom line is that 25000 + people are killed by guns in the USA every year and a lot of the deaths are accidental,perhaps three times as many are badly injured. Now even if we accept that more guns deter criminals, and I dont for one second, then they will also lead to more accidental deaths without a shadow of doubt. There has to be a solution found because these are shameful figures for a prosperous developed nation, those that shaped the constitution would not be proud of them.

[Dancing Mustard]

give it up DM,

Nappy & Snowpepsi are spot on. everyone should have the right to defend themselves and own guns. the world is is a much safer place because of it.

it is exactly the same with nuclear weapons. some countries have them so all countries should be allowed to develop and stockpile them for their own defence. you know, just in case a bad country tries to invade them in the middle of night.

and don't worry about how securely they are stored. so long as they read a pamphlet on the best way to lock them away when not in use we will be fine. no chance someone will go a little mental one day and fire off a whole bunch. and even if they do we will all be packing heat too so we will just let off a return volley.

you should also know from the news DM that the USA actively encourages anyone & everyone who wants to have such a weapon for self-defence to go ahead and procure one with no thread of force to prevent it.

give it up DM, the good ol' US of A can't be wrong.

That's sarcasm... right?

[size=0]Sorry, I can't tell if you're being satirical, or if that was just the worst ever attempt to argue for freedom to proliferate weapons that I've ever seen.[/size]

[greenoaks]

yes. i am sarcastic, americans are hypocrites.

individuals are allowed to own multitudes of weapons that can kill many, many, many people in seconds because the enemy might have one. as you have seen they usually claim it is for self-defence or that it acts as a deterrent. more weapons = safer world

but they seem to have the exact opposite belief at a national level and will invade another country to stop them from obtaining weapons that kill many, many, many people at once. at a national level it is argued less weapons = safer world.

[MeDeFe]

give it up DM,

Nappy & Snowpepsi are spot on. everyone should have the right to defend themselves and own guns. the world is is a much safer place because of it.

it is exactly the same with nuclear weapons. some countries have them so all countries should be allowed to develop and stockpile them for their own defence. you know, just in case a bad country tries to invade them in the middle of night.

and don't worry about how securely they are stored. so long as they read a pamphlet on the best way to lock them away when not in use we will be fine. no chance someone will go a little mental one day and fire off a whole bunch. and even if they do we will all be packing heat too so we will just let off a return volley.

you should also know from the news DM that the USA actively encourages anyone & everyone who wants to have such a weapon for self-defence to go ahead and procure one with no thread of force to prevent it.

give it up DM, the good ol' US of A can't be wrong.

That's sarcasm... right?

[size=0]Sorry, I can't tell if you're being satirical, or if that was just the worst ever attempt to argue for freedom to proliferate weapons that I've ever seen.[/size]

At its finest. I think we have a new candidate for the might become debating clan.