Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[ralphwiggum 6]

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" - Mahatma Ghandi

Ghandi talks about disbanding of Inian army, not revocation of individual firearm ownership, which were none in India to begin with.

"Depriving a whole nation of arms" is hardly the same as disbanding the armed forces. Arms in this case would be everything from blades to firearms, so yes, it would include firearms. Perhaps you are thinking of the other indians.

i wonder what the whole context of the chapter/paragraph in which this sentence was used.

re-read the phrase. "the act of depriving a whole nation of arms". it says about having no weapons for whole nation, not just individuals if there were individual ownership in India.

Quote[/b] ]If someone fears weapons so much, why doesn't he just get over it? Buy an assault weapon and fire a few thousand rounds through it. Then sell it, if you think you can't be trusted with one.

if someone is afraid of loosing his 'rights' then why doesn't he just get over it? get your 'rights' taken away, and experience it, then if you want, earn it?

You'll find very quickly that the commissioners/sheriffs/etc of large democratic-based cities are the ones that support it. Talk to avergae joe-cop who has to actually patrol the streets, most of them support expiration. In small towns, many officers have to buy their own supplementary partol weapons themselves, this makes it very hard for them to obtain certain weapons they need. For future reference, my grandfather is an ex-sheriff and my uncle is a retired state trooper and ex-sheriff.

welcome to metropolitan area. I talk to average joe cop and they want one for themselves, but not the one pointed at them.

Quote[/b] ]Eh? Revolvers? Where'd that come from? The #1 choice of criminals is cheap handguns, specifically Lorcins, Brycos and Jennings. Banning them won't do any good though, they'd just find an alternative like shotguns and 'sporting' rifles.

try to conceal a rifle or a sporting rifle. that really messes up with that low-belt dress code

how do you think a legilation to ban all handguns, but allow semi-auto rifles without restrictions would work? NRA will be up in arms about how limiting handguns will 'take away right to defend'. All they want is unlimited access to guns. They are so impotent to the point where 1986 act is still in place, and lucky that AWB expired for now.

in other words, when gun lovers talk about 'defending' they are saying 'defending for me, and really don't care if my neighbor dies because of loophole/lax law in which i'm able to get my hands on guns i want'.

Quote[/b] ]I assume you mean by using 'loopholes'? Fact: There is no such thing as loopholes. Something either complies with the law or not. They complied with the law, the same way car manufacturers comply with emissions laws: You adapt the best you can and continue to sell your products. If you want to blame anyone, blame the legislators... oh wait, you can't because they lost their seats in congress after they passed the law. Oops.

if you are complying with the law, you don't make those weapons. if you are not complying with the law, you are making things that are against the law. but if you are making products that are slightly modified, but essentially the same, then you are using loophole.

Quote[/b] ]Why do police need them? Because you never know what's going to happen. Police, who qualify with their weapons, have emptied a 17rnd magazine at a suspect and hit nothing. Adrenline and stress can have a strange side effects on the human body. Having more cartridges than needed is better than having too little and you get shot while trying to reload.

I would choose an AR-15 over a shotgun in a heartbeat. It allows me to shoot a specific area/target without worry of overspray from the shot/buckshot spread and possibly hitting someone else in a nearby room.

All competitions have different rules. Service rifle requires large capacity magazines because they're patterned after service rifles from the military. Get it? Rapid fire competitions also make use of them.

here's the logical fallacy of the argument of why should regular joe should same weapons as the LEOs do. you mentioned that LEOs could not hit in situation since biological reaction is intense. what make you think that a father who has to confront a robber has less adrenaline pump than the LEO who could not shoot the suspect well? in all honesty, i've seen many civilians who have guns but do not do continuous pratice, let alone take tactical courses.

most self-defense scenarios involve less than a few rounds, so argument that goes for full capacity stands only if there are multiple intruders/attackers. and what would be the chance of that coming out in favor of the defender when the defender can't even hit with a 17rounder?

in CA, the olympic competition shooter can have Hammerlis and others even though they are not on CA's approved list. that's because there are exemption laws for those who can show that they are able to handle them. so a system where a shooter can demonstrate that he can harm no other and able to take responsibility is what is needed. get it?

Quote[/b] ]Not always. In the certain countries, arsenals aren't always as protected as they should be. Some can also be manufactured with very little tools, and have been by criminals. In Austrailia, a guy in his living room was making full-auto suppressed Owen submachineguns with very few tools. (I can find an article for this if you want it.) AKs are nothing more than bent sheetmetal and blocks of steel with very little machining. All you need to assemble one from parts is a hydraulic press (car shops use them) and a sheet metal bender (car shops, also siding/roofing). FALs are also fairly simple to make from parts.

and what's the reason why we don't see them on streets? cause they are illegal and can be prosecuted as harsh as owning a real thing.

Quote[/b] ]Most people own firearms because they want to and take a personal interest in learning their function, use, and improving their abilities. Most police these days see it as strictly a job and aren't as skilled as the average shooter. Either way, the extra cartridges are there when you need them, once again refering back to being prepared. Whenever some dangerous event occurs, you never know what will happen. I still don't get how you think the police can have them to protect themselves, but we can't have them for our protection. It defies your own logic.

You guys do know this law expired on the midnight of the 13th right? Congress didn't renew it (it's their decision, not the Presidents) and it no longer exists. Amazingly enough, there isn't blood flowing in the streets or people selling assault weapons on street corners. Who would have guessed it would sunset without incident?

let me know when most of ppl in the shooting range can hadle themselves in efficient and safe manner in terms of firearms. LEOs do get more trainging than average joes, and that's why it's better to trust a LEO over civilians. if average joe was better than LEOs, I guess next time a hostage hold up happens, it's better for local resident, not LEOs to handle?

let's see how next 10 yrs go by. if something shocking happens with semi-auto(say renewal of Columbine) than you can expect a worse scenario than AWB.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, and they will pay for their stupidity/mistakes with jail time or similar punishments and not being allowed to own firearms anymore. Punish those who violate the law, not the innocent.

what about the consequence? the idiot leaves loaded gun on the kitchen table after cleaning, his kid touches it and kills his brother. will jailiing dad bring the dead kid back? the point of gun control laws is to prevent these things happening, which many gun lovers think as a restrictive measure. instead of complaing about how laws are strict, it would be better to educate kids about lethality of guns and how dangerous thing it can be, while protesting use of violece in movies with guns. but latter will never happen since such 'glamourization' also sells guns.

Quote[/b] ]Lucky for us, the number of responsible people far outnumbers those idiots. Once again, punish the guilty and not the innocent. 100 million gun owners exist in the US with over 250 million legal firearms.

so that leaves 160 miliion who are not pro gun. welcoem to democracy.

Most of you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm saddened that you're all afraid of people like Danak47, rook, and I.

You know if you met me on the street and didn't know I owned a gun you probably would like me. As it is you live in the fear I'll blow you away if your basket ball ends up in my yard. I mean jesus I've never had some state that about my character. It's nice to know I'm in the same category as the columbine killers, simply because of a inanimate object I might own.

you won't say that if you meet most of us in the street too.

[Ares1978 0]

i wonder what the whole context of the chapter/paragraph in which this sentence was used.

Think about that the next time some anti-gun nut quotes somebody out of context.

Quote[/b] ]re-read the phrase. "the act of depriving a whole nation of arms". it says about having no weapons for whole nation, not just individuals if there were individual ownership in India.

Considering the multitude of governments in India at the time when the British conquered it, it is more about civilians than a country's armed forces.

Quote[/b] ]if someone is afraid of loosing his 'rights' then why doesn't he just get over it? get your 'rights' taken away, and experience it, then if you want, earn it?

The right has already been earned.

Quote[/b] ]try to conceal a rifle or a sporting rifle. that really messes up with that low-belt dress code

Try banning saws and long coats while you're at it.

Quote[/b] ]

in other words, when gun lovers talk about 'defending' they are saying 'defending for me, and really don't care if my neighbor dies because of loophole/lax law in which i'm able to get my hands on guns i want'.

Funny, that's what antis are really saying. "Don't defend yourself, somebody somewhere else might get shot with a similar weapon."

Quote[/b] ]if you are complying with the law, you don't make those weapons. if you are not complying with the law, you are making things that are against the law. but if you are making products that are slightly modified, but essentially the same, then you are using loophole.

When you are complying with the law, you are complying with the law. There are no loopholes, there are just ineffective laws.

Quote[/b] ]most self-defense scenarios involve less than a few rounds, so argument that goes for full capacity stands only if there are multiple intruders/attackers. and what would be the chance of that coming out in favor of the defender when the defender can't even hit with a 17rounder?

The answer is: Greater.

Quote[/b] ]and what's the reason why we don't see them on streets? cause they are illegal and can be prosecuted as harsh as owning a real thing.

Wrong. You don't see them on the street, because they aren't easy to conceal, even with a folding stock. Bigger gun- less dangerous.

Quote[/b] ]let me know when most of ppl in the shooting range can hadle themselves in efficient and safe manner in terms of firearms.

That would be just about now.

Quote[/b] ]what about the consequence? the idiot leaves loaded gun on the kitchen table after cleaning, his kid touches it and kills his brother.

It's called "cleaning the gene pool". It's ugly, but it happens. Gun "control" laws don't remove idiots, but their absence does.

Quote[/b] ]instead of complaing about how laws are strict, it would be better to educate kids about lethality of guns and how dangerous thing it can be, while protesting use of violece in movies with guns.

Guns are bad, mmkay? Try to scare kids and you'll only make them more interested. How about educating adults, more specifically antis, about what a gun is, how it works, what it does and what it doesn't do.

Quote[/b] ]but latter will never happen since such 'glamourization' also sells guns.

Really? I really think there's a lot more anti-gun propaganda than "glamourization".

Quote[/b] ]so that leaves 160 miliion who are not pro gun. welcoem to democracy.

Brilliant deduction. No gun = anti gun? Children and spouses are anti gun by default?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] I already posted his quote three pages ago. It frightens me how you could still echo his sentiment even after reading that. You do know who Himmler was right?

So what ? I don´t echo Himmler. I am german and I know what the 3rd Reich was about.

Why don´t you just take this funny little sentence, conserve it forever and hope that you can say it 1000 times a day...

If you got nothing better to do, fine...

I don´t know what the 3rd Reich has to do with todays discussion about an AW ban expiring in the US, but well...if you have no better arguments than repeating sentences from over 50 years ago that have nothing to do with the subject...go ahead.

[Pathy 0]

Most people own firearms because they want to and take a personal interest in learning their function, use, and improving their abilities.  Most police these days see it as strictly a job and aren't as skilled as the average shooter.  Either way, the extra cartridges are there when you need them, once again refering back to being prepared.  Whenever some dangerous event occurs, you never know what will happen.

Ermm that doesnt mean everyone is accurate with thier weapons. I am not making assumptions, i know that if any old joe can get a weapon, then feels like being a hero, bullets are going to go flying. you said it yourself, strange things happen to the human body under stress. Instead of a robbery where the robbers get away with the goods but then get caught later by police, you end up with 5 or 6 people dead because one guy pulled a gun, the robbers panicked, and shots went everywhere.

Slander? No, realism.

This is the most retarded statement ive read all day:

Quote[/b] ]I still don't get how you think the police can have them to protect themselves, but we can't have them for our protection. It defies your own logic.

Ermmm....they are police.....doesn't that mean anything to you? They are appointed by the state as protectors of the people....therefore, if you really think weapons are the answer to the problem of crime, just arm your police up even more, let em have assault rifles, and let them do thier job without trying to play vigilante.......It in no way defies my own logic. I'd be very interested to see what you think is logic if i am defying my own logic.

[Ares1978 0]

Ermm that doesnt mean everyone is accurate with thier weapons. I am not making assumptions, i know that if any old joe can get a weapon, then feels like being a hero, bullets are going to go flying. you said it yourself, strange things happen to the human body under stress. Instead of a robbery where the robbers get away with the goods but then get caught later by police, you end up with 5 or 6 people dead because one guy pulled a gun, the robbers panicked, and shots went everywhere.

Slander? No, realism.

Realism? No, exaggeration. The thing people feel when they are holding a gun is not power, it's respect. Somebody who has handled a gun knows what it can do and what may result from making the choice to use it.

Quote[/b] ]Ermmm....they are police.....doesn't that mean anything to you? They are appointed by the state as protectors of the people....therefore, if you really think weapons are the answer to the problem of crime, just arm your police up even more, let em have assault rifles, and let them do thier job without trying to play vigilante.......It in no way defies my own logic. I'd be very interested to see what you think is logic if i am defying my own logic.  

The police has limited resources and usually show up after the incident. Hardly an argument for preventing civilians from owning any kind of firearm.

[Pathy 0]

I think leaving it to the pro's is a perfectly acceptable argument.

You wouldnt want civvys driving round in US Army issue M1A1 tanks for thier own personal protection, would you? You'd say "That stuff can only safely be used in the hands of proffesionals, ie the army"

Oh and its no more hysterical than everyone going and buying a gun because they think they are going to be attacked.

[Ares1978 0]

I think leaving it to the pro's is a perfectly acceptable argument.

The pros are always late. Since we dont have Pre-Crimeâ„¢ and the pros are useless since they arrive late, the only solution is for the civilians to have firearms.

[Pathy 0]

The pro's are not useless. Disband your police force, i can tell you, you'll soon miss them. Alright they dont always prevent crimes as they happen, but they do a good job. If you dont think they are doing a good job, and you think you could do better, why not join the police, see how you do.

[Ares1978 0]

The pro's are not useless. Disband your police force, i can tell you, you'll soon miss them. Alright they dont always prevent crimes as they happen, but they do a good job. If you dont think they are doing a good job, and you think you could do better, why not join the police, see how you do.

Nobody's saying they aren't doing a good job, so just calm down. However, they often aren't there when they are most needed. If the police isn't controlling the situation, then it's up to the civilian to do what is necessary.

[Pathy 0]

Hahahaha your cracking me up: "calm down". I dont know what tone you are reading into my voice, but if you think i am angry at you you need to calm down yourself

and may i remind you,

You said:

Quote[/b] ]pros are useless

Then you said

Quote[/b] ]Nobody's saying they aren't doing a good job,

*Ahem*

What i'm saying is that even if police arent there, civs shouldnt try and do it themselves. It just causes more deaths.

[Ares1978 0]

Hahahaha your cracking me up: "calm down". I dont know what tone you are reading into my voice, but if you think i am angry at you you need to calm down yourself  

and may i remind you,

You said:

Quote[/b] ]pros are useless

Then you said

Quote[/b] ]Nobody's saying they aren't doing a good job,

*Ahem*  

What i'm saying is that even if police arent there, civs shouldnt try and do it themselves. It just causes more deaths.

Anybody who insists on twisting other people's words like that should calm down, and that includes you.

Put that phrase back in context. In any situation where the pros aren't where they are needed, they are useless. In case you didn't understand that either: in that situation. They are in that situation completely useless to a soon-to-be victim. Nobody in his right mind expects the pros to magically show up when they are needed. In that situation, a civilian is on his own and cannot rely on any pros.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]In that situation, a civilian is on his own and cannot rely on any pros.

What a load of crap.

1. No civillian has the sam rights as police

2. Every civillian that forces someone by using weapons

is a civillian that wil be in jail soon.

3. A civillian is not the one to decide what is against law. That´s police work

As a short reminder you might want to check how many arab looking men were threatened, beaten and some shot on FALSE suspicion after 9/11 in the US. That´s what happens when people think they can run their own private police mob.

[Pathy 0]

I can't understand it if you don't actually say it or even imply it. Don't get in a paddy over it. Just make sure you get your wording abit more correct next time.

Sure, but have you considered that in most cases (exceptions being those extremely rare shooting sprees that probably couldnt be prevented by civvys anyway), if the civvys didnt try and pull out guns then they would not be victims (of a violent crime) . Criminals do not shoot people for fun, it adds alot of years to thier jail sentence. They only shoot people in your average crime, say a robbery, if some idiot with a gun in his jacket pocket tries to be the hero of the day and ends up panicking the criminals into shooting people.

Thus, stop the idiots trying to be heros, nobody gets hurt in most cases, and let the police deal with it.

Thats all i'm saying.

[DanAK47 1]

Pathy, you do not seem to be reading anyone's responses.

Like Ares said, more eloquently than I could put it, a gun does not give you a feeling of power. It gives you a feeling of respect.

You are also making more assumptions, this time about the behaviour of criminals.

What about all of the civilians that have been killed without drawing weapons? I think those outnumber the deaths of armed civilians.

[Pathy 0]

You think? You think? And you accuse me of making assumptions.

At least my "assumptions" are accurate, pyschopaths are a minority of people, even amongst criminals and most crimes do not or were never intended to degenerate into violence. Each kill = lots more jail time.

You are also assuming that every civilian is a crack shot and quick on the draw, so that any criminal that tries it on would end up instantly dead. Thats a huge pile of bullshit, they are just going to end up getting more people killed.

[Pathy 0]

Lets see, the ban came into place in 1994, and since then:

For the 3 above, source: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Source: FBI, The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

Hard for you pro-gun people to swallow, but gun related crime has fallen since the ban.

All taken from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[ralphwiggum 6]

i wonder what the whole context of the chapter/paragraph in which this sentence was used.

Think about that the next time some anti-gun nut quotes somebody out of context.

and same goes for anti-safeties like you too.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]re-read the phrase. "the act of depriving a whole nation of arms". it says about having no weapons for whole nation, not just individuals if there were individual ownership in India.

Considering the multitude of governments in India at the time when the British conquered it, it is more about civilians than a country's armed forces.

you sure about that? you just said 'considering the multitude of governements' and then say 'it's about individual ownership'.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]if someone is afraid of loosing his 'rights' then why doesn't he just get over it? get your 'rights' taken away, and experience it, then if you want, earn it?

The right has already been earned.

nope. did you fight british?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]try to conceal a rifle or a sporting rifle. that really messes up with that low-belt dress code

Try banning saws and long coats while you're at it.

again, gun nut's argument #1: ban all things! whiny baby tactic.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

in other words, when gun lovers talk about 'defending' they are saying 'defending for me, and really don't care if my neighbor dies because of loophole/lax law in which i'm able to get my hands on guns i want'.

Funny, that's what antis are really saying. "Don't defend yourself, somebody somewhere else might get shot with a similar weapon."

if you are not good with metaphorical phrases, here's more blunt one. gun lover's 'rights' may not be applicable to all others.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]if you are complying with the law, you don't make those weapons. if you are not complying with the law, you are making things that are against the law. but if you are making products that are slightly modified, but essentially the same, then you are using loophole.

When you are complying with the law, you are complying with the law. There are no loopholes, there are just ineffective laws.

the world is not black and gray

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]most self-defense scenarios involve less than a few rounds, so argument that goes for full capacity stands only if there are multiple intruders/attackers. and what would be the chance of that coming out in favor of the defender when the defender can't even hit with a 17rounder?

The answer is: Greater.

how about better training instead of more missing bullets?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]and what's the reason why we don't see them on streets? cause they are illegal and can be prosecuted as harsh as owning a real thing.

Wrong. You don't see them on the street, because they aren't easy to conceal, even with a folding stock. Bigger gun- less dangerous.

didn't you just say something about banning big coats?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]let me know when most of ppl in the shooting range can hadle themselves in efficient and safe manner in terms of firearms.

That would be just about now.

so how many NDs have you had so far?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]what about the consequence? the idiot leaves loaded gun on the kitchen table after cleaning, his kid touches it and kills his brother.

It's called "cleaning the gene pool". It's ugly, but it happens. Gun "control" laws don't remove idiots, but their absence does.

so how can you show that the kid who was struck with bullet is supposed to be cleaned out of gene pool?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]instead of complaing about how laws are strict, it would be better to educate kids about lethality of guns and how dangerous thing it can be, while protesting use of violece in movies with guns.

Guns are bad, mmkay? Try to scare kids and you'll only make them more interested. How about educating adults, more specifically antis, about what a gun is, how it works, what it does and what it doesn't do.

there you go. misunderstading the sentence. I said educate kids about lethality(how it can be lethal - a bullet can kill you) and danger(you abuse it, you hurt something/someone), not guns are baaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddd.(unless Bryco, Jennings) FYI, I was saying along the lines of safety for kids taught at Boy Scouts and other places, but you just had to misunderstand the argument. How about educating gun nuts what safety is? instead of putting more things in them like 'this is freedom, our right'.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]but latter will never happen since such 'glamourization' also sells guns.

Really? I really think there's a lot more anti-gun propaganda than "glamourization".

ja, aye am governator. just look at recent movies. Resident Evil, Man on Fire, Collateral. name one movie that opened this summer that tells about 'how guns are evil'

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]so that leaves 160 miliion who are not pro gun. welcoem to democracy.

Brilliant deduction. No gun = anti gun? Children and spouses are anti gun by default?

then how the heck did the 'anti-gun' laws are made? 100 miliion gun owners, and how many of them are voting?

[DarkLight 0]

Fuck this...

go ahead and buy your nice and shiny weapons

Why do i even bother trying to convince you ppl, it won't work anyway and it's not like i give a fuck about what you do with your country. Just stay inside your own country with those guns of yours.

I wouldn't want more bad habits to come to my country...

[DanAK47 1]

Pathy, those stats are interesting. But they appear to represent firearms in general and not assault weapons. I checked out some of the other materials on the site.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

Page 8, table 10

Note that I am not copying the entire table. Just the firearm related part.

Quote[/b] ]Homicides of persons age 12 or older, by weapon type, 1993-2001

Firearm - 12,486 - 70.1%

Handgun - 10,058 - 56.4%

Shotgun - 711 - 4.3%

Rifle - 611 - 3.4%

Other Gun - 44 - 0.2%

Unknown - 1,002 - 5.6%

Obviously you have more to fear from handguns than assault weapons.

Here's another one.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Page 6, Table 8

1991 part (pre-ban).

Quote[/b] ]

Source of firearms

Purchased - 13.9%

Family or friend - 39.6%

Street/Illegal source - 39.2%

-Theft - 9.9%

-Drug dealer - 20.8%

-Black market - 8.4%

Now lets look at the 1997 part..

1997 (post-ban).

Quote[/b] ]

Source of firearms

Purchased - 20.8%

Family or friend - 33.8%

Street/Illegal source - 40.8%

-Theft - 10.5%

-Drug dealer - 22.5%

-Black market - 7.8%

There is very little variation between the two tables, in fact more guns were legally bought after the ban than before it.

If crime decreased it was purely coincidental, as handguns, the prefered weapon of criminals in assaults, were not regulated by the ban at all.

[Pathy 0]

So? Ban all guns. Makes no difference to me. incase you havent noticed ive been arguing that civvys carrying any guns is bad. I wasnt talking about a civvy whipping out an M16 from his jacket, i was talking about a handgun.

And it probably wasnt coincidence. You ban the higher end of weapons it becomes easier to use a handgun instead. Which just indicates you need to crack down on handguns as well.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]1. No civillian has the sam rights as police

Now that is a scary idea you support. You sound like a dictator. God I'm happy your not my overlord.

Not a single one of the proposals any of you have put forward is just or grounded in reality. I challenge you all to stop thinking about guns for a moment and come up with a real solution.

Face it you are all scared of inanimate object. how illogical. I'm more scared of sociopaths and people who are out to steal from me than I am of any object.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]You ban the higher end of weapons it becomes easier to use a handgun instead. Which just indicates you need to crack down on handguns as well.

   You just don't learn do you? So what, you ban handguns then they'll use knives and home made guns.  Deal with the real problem. I'm starting to lose my patience. Have you read a single thing any one has said? Quit letting your phobia of a inanimate object cloud your logic.

[Pathy 0]

Sputnik, where you come from, a civilian has the right to arrest people? (not talking a citizens arrest, a proper arrest). Of course the police have more power than the rest of the population. They are like the moderators here.

[DanAK47 1]

You dislike guns because you think they give people more power over you.

Would you speak your mind if anyone had the power to ban you from the forums?

[Pathy 0]

History shows that i would actually. Just ask Opflash.org forum members  

And i dont dislike guns. I dislike the thought of any old joe having them. They arent toys. Your average joe doesnt actually need them for any practical purpose.

I could say that you want guns because you feel other people have power over you if you are unarmed. I do not feel as insecure as you. Something to do with living in a country without such a gun culture maybe