Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[xawery 0]

Lol... there you have a perfect example of the difference between the liberal/European view on government. You are too stupid to make your own choices. Oh well, I guess some people feel the need to be lorded over...

It's rather funny you should say this because in fact, it's the other way around. The American right, especially the new right, seems quite keen on interfering with the lives of the citizens. What is worse, people seem to be receptive for this kind of interventionism. Personal use of drugs, abortion, euthanasia, marriage (really!), privacy (the infamous Patriot Act...) etc. etc. Please note that all these issues are personal and have an effect on the person itself. Ironically enough, while swallowing such railroading of their lives at the hands of the government, some Americans seem to be hell-bent on maintaing absolute freedom when it comes to items that were designed to kill. The US seems to be obsessed with items of destruction, while showing a blatant disregard for personal freedoms. This inconsistency never ceases to amaze me. So who is being "lorded over"?

This thread is intricatly related to politics, so forgive me when I seemingly stray off-topic: how can any true Republican, in favour of a smaller government and less federal interference support Bush? The man not only hasn't "starved the beast", he fed it steroids and had it work out for days on end. I suggest people read the Economist's report on the Bush presidency. Back on topic.

In the words of Eddie Izzard:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people... but the guns sure do help."

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]SEATTLE (Reuters) - The company that made the Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington-area sniper killings and a gun shop that lost track of the firearm agreed to pay $2.5 million to victims in what lawyers said on Thursday was an unprecedented settlement.

The payout for eight victims of the October 2002 shootings was the first of its kind by a gun manufacturer accused of negligent distribution of firearms, said Daniel Vice, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of the victims.

John Muhammad and Lee Malvo were found guilty last year for a shooting spree that killed 10 and injured three. In October 2003, Malvo was sentenced to life in prison without parole and Muhammad was sentenced to death.

Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Windham, Maine, which makes the civilian version of the military M-16 rifle, agreed to pay $550,000 to the families of six victims and two survivors of the shootings.

The Bull's Eye Gun Shop in Tacoma, Washington, near Seattle, also agreed to pay $2 million. Bull's Eye has said that the Bushmaster rifle used in the shootings disappeared from its shop.

"This has now set a precedent nationwide that gunmakers and gun dealers will be held responsible if they continue to sell guns to criminals," Vice said.

A representative of Bull's Eye was not immediately available for comment. Bushmaster did not comment beyond a statement posted on its Web site that said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.

"Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims' families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees," Bushmaster said.

"The Brady Group's attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one... Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers."

'LETHAL WEAPONS'

"It wasn't about money. It was about making a statement that you have to be responsible in the way you carry on your business, if you are going to sell such lethal weapons to the general public," said Victoria Snider, whose brother, James "Sonny" Buchanan, was killed in the sniper shootings.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislation that would limit lawsuits against the gun industry. The bill was backed by the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby. Some critics of the legislation contended it would block lawsuits such as the sniper case.

But companion legislation was defeated in the Senate after it was modified to include an extension of the assault weapons ban, set to expire on Monday. The NRA also strongly opposed any extension of the assault weapons ban.

Snider, who spoke at a news conference at the Brady Center in Washington, D.C., said her "biggest fear" was that now-banned automatic weapons would become available to the public.

"I'm appalled at that and I hope President Bush is listening and I hope that he changes that, he doesn't let it expire, that he continues the ban on assault weapons," she said.

The Brady Center said 238 guns had disappeared from the Bull's Eye gun shop, near where Muhammad and Malvo lived for a brief time, and that more than 50 guns from the shop were traced to criminal acts between 1997 and 2001.

Reuters

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's bullcrap. So what if it holds 30 compared to 5? Ever heard of "reloading"? "In a crowded place".. How many can you kill in a crowded space with a knife or a katana? Inifinite number of people?

Why can't you admit that the weapon itself is not lethal, it's the person using it that makes the decision? And why make it easier for a lunatic by allowing him to unhindered kill people with an illegal weapon, when you can at least let the rest of the population have a fighting chance?

Where do you draw the line? or do you? Is it ok for me to have a M-16? If M-16, then why not a minigun? Or howabout a simple missile? would you be worried if your neighbour would have a tactical nuclear device "Senator" in his house? Afterall, why shouldnt you worry, its the neighbour thats pushing the button, right?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

In the words of Eddie Izzard:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people... but the guns sure do help."

It's also just that certain noise they make.

(Good old Izzard)

[Ares1978 0]

Where do you draw the line? or do you? Is it ok for me to have a M-16?  If M-16, then why not a minigun? Or howabout a simple missile? would you be worried if your neighbour would have a tactical nuclear device "Senator" in his house? Afterall, why shouldnt you worry, its the neighbour thats pushing the button, right?

Sure, if you are mentally stable. The mental health of a person is the only reason (apart from a criminal record, of course) to deny that person the right to own weapons. That's where I draw the line. And make no mistake about it, I do mean real mental illness, not attitude problems.

If you want and can afford an M16, a minigun or a missile and you can be considered mentally stable enough, then sure, why not.

[xawery 0]

If you want and can afford an M16, a minigun or a missile and you can be considered mentally stable enough, then sure, why not.

That's the fun thing about mental stability - it's not stable. Nor is it easily measured. I don't know how well-versed you are in psychiatry, but there is no single 'sanity' scale. And even if there were, what do you propose? Periodical sanity checks, to see whether you're still 'mentally stable' enough to own that MG (ignoring the fact that such a check would only be a snapshot of the current moment)? Now that would be an excercise in personal freedom, don't you agree?

Come off it my friend, you're just arguing this point for the sake of the argument.

[Ares1978 0]

That's the fun thing about mental stability - it's not stable. Nor is it easily measured. I don't know how well-versed you are in psychiatry, but there is no single 'sanity' scale. And even if there were, what do you propose? Periodical sanity checks, to see whether you're still 'mentally stable' enough to own that MG (ignoring the fact that such a check would only be a snapshot of the current moment)? Now that would be an excercise in personal freedom, don't you agree?

That's the fun thing about mental illness, it doesn't appear suddenly. There are certain risk groups and the mental stability (or lack thereof) can be verified, even if it cannot be measured or placed on a scale. Periodical checks would be more than enough to eliminate unsuitable candidates.

[xawery 0]

That's the fun thing about mental illness, it doesn't appear suddenly. There are certain risk groups and the mental stability (or lack thereof) can be verified, even if it cannot be measured or placed on a scale. Periodical checks would be more than enough to eliminate unsuitable candidates.

We're descending into a semantic skirmish now, but you're confusing two terms: mental instability is not synonymous to mental illness. Measuring mental stability would necessarily require a longitudinal study, not a series of snapshots set on arbitrary moments. When it comes to a mental illness, you either have it or not.

But all this is trivial compared to your apparent readiness to allow a federal institution to study and record your mental state, on a regular basis. You want to keep arms just in case the government requires overthrowing, but you think it's ok for it to keep a permanent record on your mental condition? Need I spell out the flawed logic of your reasoning?

/edit: freudian slip...

[Ares1978 0]

But all this is trivial compared to your apparent readiness to allow a federal institution to study and record your mental state, on a regular basis. You want to keep arms just in case the government requires overthrowing, but you think it's ok for it to keep a permanent record on your mental condition? Need I spell out the flawed logic of your reasoning?

Go right ahead if you think that an "early warning system" such as this one would benefit the governement and not the people. Instead of slowly eating away the rights of gun owners, it would have to directly start removing the guns from the owners, and in that situation, it would be a clear case of disarmament of the civilian population. There would be nothing unclear about what is happening. So what if they keep a permanent record?

You're not thinking ahead, I see.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's the fun thing about mental illness, it doesn't appear suddenly.

It does in case of immedeate stress or drastic experiences. No matter what you put in there. Can be anything from having a traumatic experience or being fired at work

There is no psychological scheme in this. There are no tests that show if someone will go frenzy in one month or anytime in his life.

That´s nonsense.

[Ares1978 0]

It does in case of immedeate stress or drastic experiences. No matter what you put in there. Can be anything from having a traumatic experience or being fired at work

There is no psychological scheme in this. There are no tests that show if someone will go frenzy in one month or anytime in his life.

Remember what I said about risk groups? Don't make me underestimate you.

[xawery 0]

My opinions on civilians keeping arms aside (you wouldn't like them), let's analyse what you're saying. Let's assume that the possibility of an oppressive government exists. Actually, scratch that: this government is already in place, so let's push it a little farther shall we: a government which turns totalitarian. Do you actually believe they will engage in open hostilites agains the populace? Of course not! Let's draw a parallel with totalitarian regimes from the past century. The totaliarian governments carried out their oppressive agendas in a subtle, covert manner. Propaganda, discrediting opponents, kidnappings, people disappearing... All very much cloak and dagger. There was no open conflict with the population, apart from a number of uprisings, which were quickly smashed down simply because the aforementioned totalitarian regimes had tanks. Your m16 won't help you much in the face of the army, unless of course you want RPGs and AFVs to be freely available to the public too. Just in case: that was sarcasm.

No, a totalitarian regime wouldn't risk open conflict with the population, one way or another. It would use the aforementioned guile and underhand methods. Now, let's introduce periodical "mental stability tests". As everything, these are prone to manipulation. As a certain adminstration has quite clearly shown, even in times of "exemplary democracy" this isn't ruled out. I'm not certain if you're aware of this, but you can be involuntarily committed to a mental institute if your mental health is deemed brittle. It's for your own good, you know? Just a wee bit of tinkering with the records and hey presto! the government has the perfect way of sending political adversaries into the room with soft walls.

If you seriously consider opposing the government, it's the organisation you need to worry about first, not the equipment. Weapons are more easily obtained than people who can lead and organise. By approving of something like the "sanity checks" you are giving a potentially oppressive government a potential means of disposing of political enemies.

So tell me, who's not thinking ahead? Just in case: that was a rhetorical question.

[Ares1978 0]

My opinions on civilians keeping arms aside (you wouldn't like them), let's analyse what you're saying. Let's assume that the possibility of an oppressive government exists. Actually, scratch that: this government is already in place, so let's push it a little farther shall we: a government which turns totalitarian. Do you actually believe they will engage in open hostilites agains the populace? Of course not! Let's draw a parallel with totalitarian regimes from the past century. The totaliarian governments carried out their oppressive agendas in a subtle, covert manner. Propaganda, discrediting opponents, kidnappings, people disappearing... All very much cloak and dagger. There was no open conflict with the population, apart from a number of uprisings, which were quickly smashed down simply because the aforementioned totalitarian regimes had tanks. Your m16 won't help you much in the face of the army, unless of course you want RPGs and AFVs to be freely available to the public too. Just in case: that was sarcasm.

No, a totalitarian regime wouldn't risk open conflict with the population, one way or another. It would use the aforementioned guile and underhand methods. Now, let's introduce periodical "mental stability tests". As everything, these are prone to manipulation. As a certain adminstration has quite clearly shown, even in times of "exemplary democracy" this isn't ruled out. I'm not certain if you're aware of this, but you can be involuntarily committed to a mental institute if your mental health is deemed brittle. It's for your own good, you know? Just a wee bit of tinkering with the records and hey presto! the government has the perfect way of sending political adversaries into the room with soft walls.

If you seriously consider opposing the government, it's the organisation you need to worry about first, not the equipment. Weapons are more easily obtained than people who can lead and organise. By approving of something like the "sanity checks" you are giving a potentially oppressive government a potential means of disposing of political enemies.

So tell me, who's not thinking ahead? Just in case: that was a rhetorical question.

I don't have to like your opinion and you don't have to like mine. That's a basic freedom. Neither would I have your right to express your opinion taken away from you. If you need a weapon to be able to express it, then fine by me.

The totalitarian regimes from the past century were all involved in armed conflicts with some part of the population. They really had no choice. In every case, they were forced to openly oppress the people. Propaganda, discrediting opponents, kidnappings and people disappearing were no secrets to the people and neither was the purpose of these acts. Fear of the same fate prevented the unarmed population from doing something about it, while the armed part of the population managed to wage guerilla warfare against the oppressing government. In some cases, they managed to overthrow the dictatorship. The M16 is just a tool you can start working with and better than nothing at all.

A totalitarian regime must by default oppress the people, which always results in open conflict. Even if it tried to avoid it becoming public, it can be forced out in the open. Political adversaries are irrelevant. Their, as well as journalists' purpose in this matter is to act as canaries, showing others what is happening. When they are assassinated or "disappeared", it is time to grab a gun.

Discrediting opponents has never been a successful tactic, making martyrs out of them by "disappearing" them has traditionally been a very poor move and has always caused more discontent among the people, and propaganda has a very poor success rate nowadays with relatively free media and all. The inherent problem with cloak and dagger tactics, is that they are so ineffective. The sanity checks wouldn't be much more than a baited hook for a totalitarian government, but it would work as the most effective tool available for keeping the population safe from the "dangerous people".

Your question failed to be simply rhetorical. You are obviously still not thinking ahead.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's bullcrap. So what if it holds 30 compared to 5? Ever heard of "reloading"? "In a crowded place".. How many can you kill in a crowded space with a knife or a katana? Inifinite number of people?

You don't seem to get it. It's so much easier to kill with a gun and much more non personal than with a knife. Even flimsy kid with a limping leg is able to cause massacre with assault rifle, just pull the damn trigger. So what's so hard to understand in this since you still keep insisting on these katanas, knifes or bananas are as good or better?

Quote[/b] ]If you need a weapon to be able to express it, then fine by me.

Nice, but luckily we are not living in that kind of society. Nor we did in 1918. The major battles were not fought by weapons of ordinary men (Hunting shotguns, .22 or else) and one decisive battle, The Battle for Tampere was fought by organized troops with artillery, proper training and good rifles.

I recommend you read to book.

Your belief that freedom-loving peasants with .22 rifles and shotguns saved our fatherland from commie pigs is a pure patriotic-pro-gun fantasy which has nothing to do with reality.

But luckily the gun laws are being tightened all the time, which makes me even more happier after reading your comments.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remember what I said about risk groups? Don't make me underestimate you.

I´m not talking about risk groups. I do talk about regular citizens going frenzy...not that the US didn´t have that a lot during the last years....

The process of granting access to weapons of any kind is like whistling in the dark. Sure you can do checks, tests, training courses...you can make them obligatory, but does that hold anyone with a freaky nature from pumping his assault rifle into his bosses car or the babysitter or the arabic looking man on the street ? No, it doesn´t.

Therefore such weapons need to be taken away from citizens. They belong into the hands of military units or police units but not into the hands of a wannabe Rambo with a major problem with his self esteem.

Assault rifles and fun do not go conform.

If you want to have fun buy a pistol or a hunting rifle.

If it is for defending against your own government...well have fun with a M16... You will change the system...sure

All I hear here is:

We have the right and if you (or the majority of the people in the country)

want to take away the right we will go mad.

That´s all I hear, but up to now there was no explanation why you need assault rifles in your closet.

Hunting ? Come on...

Protection ? Come on...

Taking over the government ? Come on...

Fun ? Shoot pistols or Hunting rifles...

What is it ?

Why do you need to have privately owned assault rifles ?

It´s just stupid. You read how many people get killed by firearms but still insist on something so outdated that it hurts.

Now if you all want assault rifles to counterweight your government , why haven´t you used them yet ?

Over the last 2 years there were enough reasons to overthrow the US government, but no assault rifles were used to do it.

That´s why ?

Some things to think about...but thinking seems to be hard for some here when they think of big guns...

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

-If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA.

Here is a table showing some figures :

Gun Deaths In The USA

Well , for Osama it´s just sit back and relax. The more guns are sold in the US the more people will get killed with them. US people. Good for Osama. Osama says "Thank you".

[xawery 0]

I cast my opinions about gun ownership aside, because they would prevent me from having a conversation about this hypothetical scenario - as you might have noticed, I am not of the opinion that items designed solely for killing should be available to the public. The government is selected by the people and it should be the only institution in the possession of weapons. The 'people's' (I hate this generalisation: as if one could speak of a unified mass...) check on the government is the congress, the house of commons, the parliament, or whatever your political system chooses to call it. If in such a system you justify your need for weaponry by saying that you want to be able to overthrow the government should it turn 'bad' (according to whose criteria??), you are effectively undermining the democratic structures of the state by implying that they are unable to do their tasks. This is my prinicipal objection to owning arms. In my eyes, the 2nd amendment is little more than an outdated quirk allowing some gun-toting psycho to bypass carefully crafted democratic institutions and start blasting away at IRS agents because he feels the gov't is robbing him of his hard-earned dollars.

Tell me this: have you ever considered the possibility of the population NOT acting en bloc? You keep talking about "the people", but there is no "people". There are individuals, groups, all with different and often contradicting interests. What one group might find 'oppressing' the other might agree with. What happens then, if one group takes up arms? Civil war, among "the people". The 2nd amendment was written on the crest of some utopian wave of warm 'n' fuzzy unitarian sensation.

Plus, the fact that in 75% of murders commited with firearms the gun had been obtained legally supports the idea that civilians simply cannot be trusted. If I cheat on my wife I would much rather have plates and lawsuits thrown at me than being shot in the head (common occurance: "in the heat of the moment"). The statistics are somewhere on the FBI site but I'm at work now and don't feel like sorting through tons of pdf files. I'll post it when I get them.

Now you know my opinion on firearms. Back to our hypothetical situation.

Your assertion that propaganda doesn't work is simply incorrect. 50% of the US population believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the WTC attacks. My friend, propaganda is THE way of controlling the people. Keep the people dumb and disinformed, distract them (the classic Roman "bread and games"), feed them lies for long enough and they will start to believe whatever you say. Discredit your opponent with lies and if you repeat them long enough, the people will believe it. Forge evidence and send him off to a 'correctional facility'. Take a look at Nazi Germany. If you think that people are any less gullible now than they were then, you are either very naieve or unwilling to look the facts in the face.

You speak of such things as "time to grab the gun". According to whose criteria? Yours? Your neighbour's? What if someone uses different criteria, and acts when you don't think action is warranted? You get chaos. Again, your rhetoric is fuelled by some dogmatic belief that in the face of an 'oppressive government' (we should define this from the start...), "the people" will rise like a single man, setting aside individual interests and dislikes, and get rid of the foul oppressor!

Furthermore, should an oppressive government happen to the US, it won't start oppressing people at the snap of a finger. It will happen gradually, as it is doing right now. Freedoms will be gradually taken away under some pretext or another (security, in this case...). Critics of the regime will be marginalised as un-patriotic US haters. Tell me that this isn't happening right now, or better yet: tell me it isn't working.

Keeping track of the moves of its citizens is a totalitarian state's biggest power.

In sum: weapons will not save you from an oppressive government; keeping yourself informed and aware of your rights will.

/edit: I incorrectly assumed that Ares lived in the US, which has led me to use "your country" in the fourth paragraph instead of "USA". Mistake corrected.

[Blake 0]

Well said Xawery, couldn't agree with you more.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Indeed! That post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[Gollum1 0]

Yes, good post.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Where do you draw the line? or do you? Is it ok for me to have a M-16?  If M-16, then why not a minigun? Or howabout a simple missile? would you be worried if your neighbour would have a tactical nuclear device "Senator" in his house? Afterall, why shouldnt you worry, its the neighbour thats pushing the button, right?

Sure, if you are mentally stable. The mental health of a person is the only reason (apart from a criminal record, of course) to deny that person the right to own weapons. That's where I draw the line. And make no mistake about it, I do mean real mental illness, not attitude problems.

If you want and can afford an M16, a minigun or a missile and you can be considered mentally stable enough, then sure, why not.

Mohammad Atta

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]75% of murders commited with firearms the gun had been obtained legally

Now here's one from the Bureau of Justice

Quote[/b] ]

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%

a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Another one from the same source

Quote[/b] ]

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[ericz 0]

Quote[/b] ] Take a look at Nazi Germany. If you think that people are any less gullible now than they were then, you are either very naieve or unwilling to look the facts in the face.

Yes, 6,000,000 Jews now dead might disagree with your view. They believed that there government might restrict them but certainly not do anything as barbaric as march them to death camps. When a few of Jews came to a different conclusion, they began to arm themselves (Jewish underground) but it was too late. They allowed themselves to be manipulated by there belief that "this couldn't happen to us".

Quote[/b] ]In sum: weapons will not save you from an oppressive government; keeping yourself informed and aware of your rights will.

Interesting conjecture, but history clearly shows that blood spilling is the only thing that guarantees the freedom or (whatever they want) of the group. How many bloodless revolutions revolutions do you know of?

[ericz 0]

Quote[/b] ]The government is selected by the people and it should be the only institution in the possession of weapons. The 'people's' (I hate this generalisation: as if one could speak of a unified mass...) check on the government is the congress, the house of commons, the parliament, or whatever your political system chooses to call it. If in such a system you justify your need for weaponry by saying that you want to be able to overthrow the government should it turn 'bad' (according to whose criteria??), you are effectively undermining the democratic structures of the state by implying that they are unable to do their tasks.

This comment I will file in my NAIVE folder. Although I laud you optimistic and trusting viewpoint, I must disagree. Institutions may be undermined, changed or corrupted. A look at the world governments today and even in the U.S. will show as much. Foreign lobbies, rubber stamp courts, government sanctioned police brutality all exist. The Democrats assert that the "people" chose AL Gore to be their president, what happened to the majority there? An armed populace is a guarantee of struggle and bloodshed if government abuses them.

[Frisbee 0]

If an oppresive governement ever manages to take root in the USA, it will have the support of probably 70-80% of the people (initially).

What dictator would alienate the maojority of his people? Noone would.

Silly example (very silly indeed) :

Bush comes in for second term, Bush sets up phone taps and extra registrations for all muslims in the USA, because they are a terrorist risk. Imam's get screened, and forbidden to speak if their views are considered "fundamentalist".

The mill of propaganda does its turns, 70% of the people swallow it since they're still oh-so scared of terrorists. Muslims are pissed off naturally, but what can they do? Take up their weapons against the governement? As a minority? I'm sorry, I don't think so.

Dicatorships will be based on popular support, and an advanced army.

The people will not unite as one to crush the dictators with their privately owned weapons, many won't need to since they don't feel they're being hurt.

If weapons are needed to overthrow the governement, it has often happened that army stockpiles have been attacked and used to arm a militia. (1789, Bastille, France, and I believe 1830 Belgium as well)

Weapons are unecessary, the aggressor is less likely to use force if the "victim" does not resist, as denoir also nicely said.

I can't really follow the logic employed here, if you're sane you can have any weapon you want?

If you shoot for fun, leave your weapon at the shooting range, if you're a collector, demil them, if you want a functioning M16 for any serious reason (why doesn't a normal hunting rifle or pistol do what you want anyway?) I can't follow.

Guns =/= swords/blunt objects whatever.

A gun is a cold way of killing someone, indirect and pretty clean.

It would take less resolve to "bust a cap in someone's ass, yo" then to swiftly separate someone's head from their torso with a fine japanese katana. But, in that I speak for myself, feel free to comment.

[DanAK47 1]

Because guns are fun to shoot.

Fact is the guns are already there, making more laws will only take them out of lawful people's hands, not criminal's.

By the way, the guns in the North Hollywood bank shootout were illegal for the shooters to own (they were felons). If I remember correctly, they went to the court and managed to get their guns back. This was not their first armed robbery.