Obsfucating? I have presented data in context. Don't be a sore wanker because the all available data does not support your opinions! AS to the question of what types of weapons people should be able to own. I'd say mortars are out but black rifles are in. In the US we have experimented with limiting ownership of "assault rifles" and guess what we found? No effect on crime (I'll post that data if you wish). Again, the history of these type of laws, before/after analysis, does not support limiting high capacity magazines, AK's, or AR's. The largest domestic mass murders in the US were committed with box cutters and a truck load of fertilizer mixed with diesel fuel. That clod in New York the other week could have done far more damage with a couple gallons of Acetone and a cigarette lighter than he did with his guns. I never said that Government has no interest in regulation of gun ownership, I have argued that the data suggests the less regulation there is the better it is for the society.

 

Would the gangs in Darfur be able to murder tribesman if the tribesman were allowed to defend themselves? UN actually disarms the victims and keeps them in a camp so the despots can attack them in place and en-masse. It is pathetic!

 

My opinion is based upon my personal experiences as a young police officer and later in various garden spots around the world as a pilot for NGO organizations. I believe all people have a natural right of self defense. Taking away the tools of self defense is a violation of those natural rights every bit as bad as making them a slave of the oppressor. Our western societies have experimented with gun control and the concept that defense is only the option of the state, & people should accept their victim status. In each case the effects are dramatic and tragic.

 

Gun control is a cultist religion that has done far more damage than good.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

It would be good if you answered the question rather than obsfucating.

Given that 'assault weapons' are used in a vanishingly small percentage of both crimes and instances of self defense, it is pretty much impossible to make a case that their regulation would have much effect at all. Self defense weapons are usually handguns, or maybe shotguns (since they are very common). Crime rate statistics will be influenced by the presence of those weapons. Then again you either don't know the actual facts of the case based on what you said above, or you are trolling.

 

 

That clearly de-links the right to own an assault weapon (as opposed to other type of weapon)  fromyour claims of the deterrent effect of guns on crime and from the right to self defence, irrespective of your claims that it takes your argument out of context.

 

As for the question on mortars in response to your comment which you didn't answer, I will answer it for you. You don't believe that people should own mortars because you don't believe that the right to ownership is worth the potential loss of life that could result. That is despite the fact that you have no proof that mortar ownership would lead to an increase in the numbers of homocide and you don't have any proof that it would lead to more deaths than any other of the dangerous items that you describe. You are making EXACTLY the same type of value judgement that I am making with military style small arms, just with a different class of weapon.

 

When I make that value judgement you accuse me of being part of some anti-gun cult based on irrational fear. From where I sit that means that those on here who have said that they think civilians should be able to own heavy weapons, like Warpig and Evil Fishy, should be accusing you of belonging to an anti-heavy weapons cult based on irrational fear. In reality we both know that this just proves that we both make judgments based on our BELIEFS and ABSTRACTIONS where the relevant data is inadequate, so stop this bullsh1t line that every you are saying is based on irrefutable fact.