~happiness is a warm gun~AKA~gun control~

[lady cop]

well i was thinking , what else could inspire a monster thread like "death penalty"? ....with lots of lively and intelligent debate? across states, across countries. this could be fascinating, i am really interested in reading your opinions on guns. how they impact your life (or not) , are you a hunter? do you carry concealed? do you carry in the open as some states allow? WHAT do you carry? do you despise and/or fear guns? do you know how to use one? should parents who leave loaded weapons around for their kids to find be prosecuted when mayhem results from their negligence? is the US the wild west and why do miami drug dealers have AK-47's in their underwear , forcing cops to carry bazookas and machine guns?

[Zoot]

Well, I seldom give the matter any thought, because very few people have guns in my country. You can get hunting licences for shotguns and rifles and suchlike. Police generally don't carry firearms. Wikipedia has this:

New Zealand Police officers do not normally bear firearms while on patrol, but routinely carry Offender Control (Pepper) Spray and batons. Many police patrol cars do now carry a firearm in a secure container. A separate division, the Armed Offenders Squad, deals with incidents involving firearms or explosives. The presence of armed police at an incident is considered a newsworthy event by the media.

There are some illegal firearms in the country, be they unlicensed shotguns or smuggled automatic weapons or whatever. They're not really a concern to me, due primarily to how few there are. The last incident involving an automatic weapon that I recall was a drive-by gang shooting by some Asian gang or other, a few years ago - a very rare event here. There was a fellow who went on a crystal-meth-fuelled armed robbery/murder spree a few years ago, and he was using an unlicensed shotgun, I think.

If I lived in the States, which I wouldn't, I'm not sure what my stance on gun control would be. If I lived alone, I would likely not own a gun. If I had a family and there was a possibility of dealing with an armed intruder in my house, my attitude might be different.

But then, like I said, I wouldn't live in the States.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by lady cop

well i was thinking , what else could inspire a monster thread like "death penalty"? ....with lots of lively and intelligent debate? across states, across countries. this could be fascinating, i am really interested in reading your opinions on guns. how they impact your life (or not) , are you a hunter? do you carry concealed? do you carry in the open as some states allow? WHAT do you carry? do you despise and/or fear guns? do you know how to use one? should parents who leave loaded weapons around for their kids to find be prosecuted when mayhem results from their negligence? is the US the wild west and why do miami drug dealers have AK-47's in their underwear , forcing cops to carry bazookas and machine guns?

A lot of questions there, lady cop! Lets see, I'm not sure if guns have much of an impact on my life per se. I'm not a hunter. But that's mostly for safety reasons than anything else. There are too many yahoos in the woods who do not follow basic gun safety rules for my tastes. If I had an opportunity to go on private land, I'd definitely consider it.

I don't currently own any guns so I don't carry, concealed or otherwise. Even when I have owned guns, I never carried unless you count transporting the weapons to and from the range. Yes, I know how to use one, and I'm a fairly good shot. At one time or another, I have fired everything from a .22 pistol to an anti-ship cruise missile (well, I didn't actually press the button, but I did provide the targeting solution for the cruise missile). For pistols, I prefer a .45, preferably a Colt 1911 or some variant thereof. I don't know why, but I am more accurate with a .45 than I am with smaller caliber pistols.

Yes, parents who leave a loaded weapon where a child can find it should be prosecuted, and the penalties should be severe.The other side of that coin is that if a family is going to keep guns in the household, the kids should be taught gun safety as soon as they are old enough. How old is "old enough" I'm not sure, but 8-10 is probably about right. In fact, I would not object to a law requiring all gun owners to demonstrate that they understand basic gun safety and operation.

[wildernesse]

I grew up with guns--rifles, shotguns, handguns. My dad went hunting and I went with him when I was little (once--cause can you imagine taking a 3 year old monkey in the woods to sit quietly? heehee). My dad began coaching the 4-H trap/skeet shooting club when my brother was in high school--he still does that.

My younger brother got his first BB gun when he was 10, and other guns for Christmas as he got older. He hunts. One of the first things he did when he turned 21 was buy a handgun--all of his friends have one, I think. He takes it with him a lot of places, and has talked about getting a concealed carry permit.

Growing up in the country, guns were just part of life. When I was little, the guns were kept in the closet--unlocked and unloaded. We were not even allowed to open that closet, much less touch what was inside--and we knew our parents were serious when they said we'd be spanked and good if we did. The pistol was always loaded, but that was in the top of another closet and we didn't know about that anyway. Guns were not for play, and we were taught how to be safe around guns (Do Not Touch for the most part when we were young). As my brother got older, there were usually a couple of rifles or shotguns propped in corners around the house were he put them when he came in from hunting/shooting. Unloaded, but we always treated them as if they were loaded.

Even so, I'm not crazy about having guns around. RA has one in a closet somewhere here, taken apart. I don't mind the guns, it's just that I don't always trust the people who are messing around with them. Most people don't know or care how much they don't know about things, including the safest way to handle a gun. My dad talked about getting me a handgun when I was living by myself in Atlanta, but I wasn't wild about the idea and after talking it over he decided against it. I think it's for the best. I've spent a couple of afternoons having fun shooting cans and bottles with a 22, but that's about it. My dad teases me about learning to shoot clays--I think I'd like it.

I do think that parents should be held responsible if they have guns easily available to their very young children and those children are harmed or harm others with those weapons. As for teens, I am less sure--because my brother and probably half the teenage boys (and a good number of girls) I grew up with had guns of their own for hunting and sports. It's not negligent for parents to allow teens to have access to guns, IMO. I guess it's the same as cars for teenagers--and you hear a lot more about teens in Georgia (Atlanta especially) smashing themselves up and killing themselves and a couple of their friends than you do of Georgia teens shooting themselves and a couple of their friends. Of course, that's what my understanding is.

[Brimshack]

I can't remember when I didn't know how to shoot a gin. I had one in my room by the time I was 8, but I don't remember how much before that I got it. When I was young we used to shoot constantly. We lived on a farm until I was 8, and we could shoot in the back yard. When we moved to the city I was heartbroken to realize I couldn't do that anymore. But we would go to the dump once a week, and dad would let me drive and we would shoot for an hour or so. I hunted for a coupe years when I was old enough, and for a brief period I was a real right wing gun nut. My first car even had the infamous bumper sticker, "If guns are..." Whatever. I still have a few guns, but I haven't fired one in over a decade, and close to another one before that. The last time I held a gun I was genuinely uncomfortable with it, all the more so because I remember a time when holding one would have been quite natural. I used to love the damn things.

On gun control, I am moderate. So long as the 2nd Amendment is there, I think it has to mean something. I don't believe it means I have a right to a fricking machine gun, nor do I believe it means I have a right to unregulated gun ownership. There are legitimate questions about the effectiveness of gun control, but I don't trust any of the answers I hear, and I don't have the time to invest in sorting out the shit from the legitimate research. The one thing I am sure of is that I dispise the scorched earth tactics of the NRA. The fact that they would present gun ownership as the teeth in our Bill of Rights drives me nuts. It shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the other rights and how they are supposed to work, and it amounts to a threat too the rest of us. It's as if the gun lobby has declared that if they don't get their way they will tear the country down around our ears. And somehow that's supposed to be an assertion of their rights. They are doing little other than threatening the country with domestic terrorism, and little else. Ultimately the guns I have are little otherv than mementos of an old hobby. I like them, but I'm not prepared to go to war over them. If I ever have to give them up, then so be it.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

I hunted for a coupe years...

Scary.

Guns are a big problem in South Africa and I'm not keen on them. I've seen a lot of message board debates among Americans about it and the logic of the "right to bear firearms" seems just wacky to me. If the intent is to prevent govt. tyranny I'm curious as to how hunting rifles can stop a couple of tanks. The correlation is not causation stuff and statistical nitpicking also doesn't impress. The same people who support will argue for the right to bear firearms want child-proof medicine bottles. Its kind of schizoid. Some dangerous things should be limited or prohibited but the most dangerous stuff should be widespread and unrestricted. Huh?

We recently had a front page story in the Sunday paper about a guy that shot his daughter dead late at night in the front yard of their home because he thought she was an intruder. As much as I am sympathetic to his loss, when I read shit like that it makes me angry. He didn't make any effort to identify the "intruder" or even fire a warning shot. If he'd asked her to identify herself, attempted to wrestle her to the ground or even knife her, he would have realised his error in time.

The ease with which someone can kill another human with a gun bothers me. Children have unintentionally killed people with guns. How often you read about a children accidentally knifing people to death, compared to accidentally shooting people dead?

The implicit threat of guns where worn publically (since they serve no other purpose than death in a non-sports environment) also bothers me. Who wants to argue with someone openly sporting a firearm? The unconcealed carrying of firearms is an affront to civilised society as far as I'm concerned.

[Dingfod]

I think we should ban kitchen knifes and razor blades. Damn they're dangerous. Oh, and sharpened sticks too.

[Farren]

Warren I assume you're part of the pro-gun lobby. I edited my post above to address that issue. If kitchen knives were as dangerous as guns, they would arm cops with them. Its a silly line of reasoning.

1. Kitchen knives aren't balanced so they aren't ranged weapons

2. There are a whole lot of parts of the human anatomy that are difficult to stick a knife through but easy to get even a small calibre bullet through. Try sticking someone in the side of the head sometime.

3. Far more physical force must be applied to kill someone with a knife, which is why less children accidentally stab people to death than accidentally shoot people dead, or even worse, themseves. When did you last hear about a child accidentally stabbing themselves dead?

4. Kitchen knives have immense utility in areas other than target-shooting and killing.

Not even close.

[edit]

Why is it, d'ya think, that criminals generally steal your gun but not your cutlery (unless its silverware) when they rob your house? Could it be that they know its far easier to hold up a bank or a convenience store with a deadly ranged weapon? Hm? Car hijackings are all the rage among criminals in South Africa. I'll give up my car to a guy waving a pistol or AK-47 at me through a window but not a knife. With the smash-proof coating that's available here I can drive away before he even manages to properly break the window.

Speaking of which, my dad had a pistol at one point. Kept it locked in a safe at all times. Except, unfortunately, when his van was stolen, at which time by unfortunate oversight it was in his van.

I know about 5 people who've had the same experience. If my own immediate circle of acquaintances is a sample of a broader pattern, law-abiding citizens must be the primary source of firearms in criminal hands, which makes the "if criminals are armed we have to be armed to protect ourselves" argument an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

A study was recently done in London, where the number of crimes involving firearms is still tiny every year (around 3% if I remember correctly), by the metro police. The study examined sources of criminal guns among other things, with eye-opening results. Most guns used by criminals primarily came from Jamaica, the US, South Africa and Switzerland (often touted as a society where guns are widespread and unrestricted without too much violent crime).

The implication, of course, is that the widespread availability of guns in certain societies makes gun-free societies less gun-free.

[Dingfod]

Of course I was using hyperbole. However, my kitchen knives are far more likely to hurt someone, particularly me, than my guns are. I've been stuck with sharp sticks many more times than I've been shot. I've stuck people accidently with sharp sticks many more times than I've shot someone.

Pro-gun lobby? I am not a member of the NRA, if that's what you mean. I mean no one is lobbying for me in Washington.

Pro-gun? Well, yeah. Where I live police response is measured in half hours, not minutes. I keep a loaded rifle just inside my closet door. If I had small children at home, it probably would be on a rack above the door. My own children never ever bothered my guns, they knew better. There are enough home-invasion robberies in Tulsa that it is of concern to me. However, because most rural people have guns, home invasion robbers are less likely to invade somewhere that they think there might be guns for the same reason that burglars would rather burgle a house where nobody is at home, fear of getting shot.

I've hunted in the past, but fell out of love with it as a sport because of all the unsportsmanlike hunters, people that cannot follow rules, people that are in it just to kill. Besides, once the animal is shot and down, the fun is all over and the work begins. It's all work after that, well, except for the eating part.

In my reckless youth, I shot coyotes, prairie dogs, squirrels, rabbits, quail, pheasant, deer, and pronghorn antelope... oh, yeah, and rattlesnakes. I've also killed two dogs in my life. One was obviously rabid, the other one was a general nuisance to the entire area, a chicken killer and a garbage can dumper. I feel not one bit of remorse for any of the above killings, not one bit.

To me a gun is just a tool. There are lots of tools that if used improperly can maim or kill. True, the gun's purpose is to maim or kill, but if I need to stop someone intending to harm me or my family I need the tool that can do the job. I wouldn't try to hammer a nail in the wall with a sponge.

[Farren]

Warren I'm all for nuanced laws. If someone is simply off the radar as far as law enforcement is concerned, in a rural area where they hunt of necessity or must guard against dangerous predators then yeah, maybe there's a case to be made. But the vast majority of human beings in industrialised nations live in cities and their suburbs and have no pressing need for a firearm at all. Offset against many of the things I've already said in the preceding posts, there is a compelling case for general proscription of firearm use.

[Dingfod]

Your "or must guard against dangerous predators" could cover a lot of different types of predators, including the two-legged kind. I'm not of a mind to take away people's right to defend themselves from attack by any means necessary, even lethal force.

[wade-w]

Farren, do you advocate banning guns completely? What about people who live in isolated rural areas were large predators are common?

ETA: Crosspost. I don't find your arguments compelling, Farren. Not compelling for a ban on firearms, anyway. I do find some of your points persuasive arguments for better training in safe handling of firearms. But I've always advocated that anyway.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Your "or must guard against dangerous predators" could cover a lot of different types of predators, including the two-legged kind. I'm not of a mind to take away people's right to defend themselves from attack by any means necessary, even lethal force.

Even by, say, rocket-propelled weaponry? Deadly Poison? Anthrax? The point I made above is that criminals generally match/exceed whatever weaponry is commonly available to the law-abiding citizenry. In countries with severe restrictions on firearms and good law enforcement, firearms are hardly ever used in the commission of crime. Its a straightforward relationship.

The reason I ask about rocket propelled weaponry is that one can keep using your line of reasoning all the way up to tanks. I'm sure there are no small number of survivalist types who think that would be reasonable. The point is it self-evidently impacts on the ease and nature of violence in a nation, just as medicine containers that aren't child-proofed self-evidently increase the nature of emergency ward admissions.

So society draws lines, proscribes certain behaviour. Thats a necessary function of a cohesive society. Wherever its drawn it will be a less than perfect choice, but some boundaries are more reasonable than others. In the example I gave in my preceding post, the difference between a gun and a knife in criminal hands is huge in a car hijacking or bank robbery situation. In a home invasion situation a criminal armed with a knife can be fought with the back of a chair, a golf club or half a dozen other common objects. A criminal armed with a firearm generally can't be.

Apart from that, as I said earlier other objects like knives have some utility other than killing and target shooting. A device designed with the primary purpose of killing effectively is an extremely logical place to draw the line.

As I said, law-abiding citizens are a, possibly the major source of criminal firearms (except for those simply bought by criminals at a gun shop). Of necessity, the argument that citizens should be equipped with deadly instruments to protect their homes automatically implies that criminals must have ready access to deadlier equipment. Its a self-feeding philosophy of deadly violence and I don't find it awfully convincing.

[Farren]

What I'm saying is I could wake up one night (as a friend did) with a gun pointed at me, all because Joe Public up the road wants the inaliable right to bear firearms.

Most of the arguments gun enthusiasts make show their absurdity when they're recast for other items. Why can't I keep Ebola samples if I'm properly trained? What if I want to culture different strains of Ebola as a hobby because I'm a biology enthusiast? I'll take all the necessary precautions. Ebola isn't dangerous if you're properly trained to handle it. Honest.

Properly trained my ass. How is one properly trained to respond when someone breaks into your home when you're not there and takes away your firearm? How is one properly trained to resist surrendering their firearm when someone comes up behind them and sticks a gun at the back of their head?

Then there's the issue of when you consider deadly violence appropriate. Some homeless kid (we have lots of those here) breaks into your house to steal something so he can eat. He's a scrap of a kid and no danger to anyone. Do you shoot him or just subdue him?

Lets assume you've got a conscience and you try to establish these kinds of things before you shoot, unlike the guy I mentioned in a preceding post that shot his own daughter dead in his effort to prevent a home invasion that wasn't one.

Now if you are in fact dealing with a murderous criminal who's armed to the teeth and has killed before that puts you at a distinct disadvantage. Not only does he have experience of actually killing people while all you have is target practice and maybe buck hunting, but he's not concerned about having to first establish whether shooting you dead is appropriate.

Of course the disadvantage would be a lot less if the weapons you both carry weren't guns - and he probably wouldn't have a gun if you didn't insist it was your inaliable right to carry one.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Farren

In countries with severe restrictions on firearms and good law enforcement, firearms are hardly ever used in the commission of crime. Its a straightforward relationship.

One I think that is one side of the chicken and egg argument. It is a matter of causation. Do they not use guns because they don't think they have to or because they're not available? Both of those point to you being right. The problem is that the general populace in most of those societies were never armed to begin with so I think it is culturally acceptable where probably is not in armed societies like the USA. Thus, the apples and oranges comparison.

I'm wasn't even going to go into the hyperbolic anti-tank weapon being not only allowed by but the intent of the 2nd Amendment argument because I think it hurts gun rights more than it helps. A handgun or rifle cannot stop a tank from moving unless jammed in the tracks somehow. Properly dug and placed ditches and concrete barricades can. A well placed rifle shot can prevent a tank from being able to fire its main weapon though, see what happens when you try firing with a lead bullet wedged in the rifling of that cannon.

I think its a little late for banning guns in the USA and South Africa, too many guns are out there already. Guns are endemic to America, a country founded on armed revolution, cemented by armed civil war, and settlement of a wild unexploited frontier by killing everything in its way, from bears and wolves to indigenous tribes. Hmmm, sounds a little like South African history, doesn't it? There may be as many as 250-300 million guns in the USA, how many do you think would show up if a gun ban law requiring them to be turned in went on the books? I'd guess that number would be about half even if there was payment for them, leaving 100-150 million guns mostly in the hands of what would have been law-abiding citizens had not this new hypothetical law been passed. Gun buyback programs in most cities have been about as successful as the dollars for weapons programs in Iraq, mostly netting old and nonfunctioning firearms. So, measure us, judge us, hate us, for what we already are, because that part of American society will probably be a long time changing.

[Farren]

I've certainly considered that problem. The thing is, the same could be said of peacemaking efforts anywhere. In mediating a civil war you have to convince both sides to turn in their rocket propelled weaponry and so on. Its not easy but its been done. And the effort should, clearly, be made. Iraq is a poor example and there are better ones.

Gun restrictions are gradually being increased in South Africa and an enormous number of firearms, both old and new have, in fact been turned over to the government. 8 years ago the most common firearm in the commission of a violent crime was an AK-47. Now its mostly pistols.

I don't think "it's hard to change" is a strong argument for not changing, especially with all the good reasons to make that change and become a more civilised society.

As far as addressing whether criminals feel less need to use firearms in countries where the citizenry is thusly armed is concerned, I think I've already addressed that. Regardless of criminal motives, a confrontation involving knives is, as I've illustrated in preceding posts, qualitatively different for the better of all concerned.

[Dingfod]

But Farren, it comes down to the argument "I'll give up mine if he gives up his first." You'll not find too many people in the USA, who feel threatened by violent crime, that would be willing to readily give up their best available tool for defense. The criminal element certainly isn't.

I think the main reason more of your violent crimes are being committed now using pistols instead of AK-47s is one of concealibility. Once carrying weapons around was made illegal, a pistol is the weapon more easily concealed, and pretty much as effective for person-on-person violent crime.

[Dingfod]

Farren, stop adding shit after I've posted, dammit, or I'll come over there and show you why I don't need a gun to scare people. {just kidding}

Originally Posted by Farren

I don't think "it's hard to change" is a strong argument for not changing, especially with all the good reasons to make that change and become a more civilised society.

It has been my reason that I...
1) am not losing weight,
2) keep working a job I hate, and
3) stay in an unhappy marriage.

OK, not a strong argument, but it is a reason that it isn't going to change quickly. Hmmm, same as me.

[Farren]

Yeah but if the law simply said "Give up your firearm. Period. Or we arrest you" people don't have too much leeway. Sure, there would be an interim period of insecurity while the law shuts down supply chains and roots out firearms in criminal hands, but history is full of situations that were perpetuated because of the fear of short-term consequences - and as a result societies suffered far more in the long term.

Besides, if truth be told, how many times has someone pointed a gun at you during the commission of a crime? I've spent most of my life in one of the most violent cities in the world and the only time I've ever had a gun pointed at me was by a crazy-assed drunk biker outside a nightclub when I asked him to stop pointing it at his friend who he was pissed off at. Sure, I know prolly around ten people (edit: probably more like 15-20) who have had a gun pointed at them but police statistics suggest they would be far more likely to get shot if they had a gun and tried to use it instead of just handing over the car, money or whatever.

I should think it should be better in the States and if it is, as far as I'm concerned the short term insecurity is worth the relatively small risk.

Oops crosspost

[Dingfod]

This thread is making me want to go shoot something. I've got four or five hundred rounds of .22 ammo that need to be shot up or it's going to go bad. For me, there isn't anything much more fun than making a nice lisarea salad with 17 or 18 rounds of ammo fired as rapidly as possible, repeated 20 times. Then I can heat the dinner rolls with the hot rifle barrel.

[Farren]

You and Hunter S Thompson would get along well, Warren.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Farren

Yeah but if the law simply said "Give up your firearm. Period. Or we arrest you" people don't have too much leeway.

Think of the logistics problem this would be. In a country with a little over 1 million underpaid police officers and about a million in the military active duty and reserves combined, going door to door to collect my estimated half of the firearms would take quite a while. You aren't going to send one or even two police officers to a house to collect guns from reluctant gun owners, it'll take a team. Remember, the police and military have other jobs to do besides collecting guns from what were until then, law-abiding citizens. Also, there'll be those won't resist the searches with violence but will that grease up their unregistered guns, wrap them in plastic and bury them somewhere until the door-to-door confiscation period is over.

Doing it your way is a nightmare that I wish not to even contemplate. The government would probably have to bring the tanks and Hummers home from Iraq and other overseas locations just to fight the militia groups, whose ranks would be swelled by throngs of people that previously thought they were just government conspiracy nuts. I'm not saying it would be majority, it would take the majority supporting the law to have it ever get passed, but an armed minority of tens of millions would be a force to be reckoned with, even by the greatest military in the fucking world.

I think if we are going to disarm America the best way to get started is to disarm the government, lowering the need for criminals to feel the need to have guns to commit crimes, and then ultimately making the populace feel safe enough to give up their guns. Better that than instantly turn law-abiding citizens into criminals if they don't want to give up something they legally purchased with their own money.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by Farren

As I said, law-abiding citizens are a, possibly the major source of criminal firearms (except for those simply bought by criminals at a gun shop). Of necessity, the argument that citizens should be equipped with deadly instruments to protect their homes automatically implies that criminals must have ready access to deadlier equipment. Its a self-feeding philosophy of deadly violence and I don't find it awfully convincing.

I don't think that saying that citizens should have access to handguns (I'm choosing handguns because that's what most people here in the US are talking about when they are talking about crime, and not my brother's competition shotgun) implies that criminals have deadlier equipment. To me, it just implies that criminals have the same equipment. After all, if criminals had deadlier equipment, then regular folks would want the same--they're not going to be arguing for putting themselves at a disadvantage. Most common criminals around here don't have more deadly weapons than the locals though, IMO. I feel like I may be missing part of the point, especially if law-abiding citizens are a/the major source of criminal firearms then how do criminals get deadlier equipment than the citizens they are stealing from?

Random "research" that entertained me:
I read the crime reports in the paper--around our neighborhood it's purse-snatchings and marijuana usually. Cash grab at the local Chinese buffet last week. For our city, for Dec 11-16, the crimes listed involving guns are: arrest and seizure of assault rifle, recovery of a stolen 9mm semi-auto. during a search warrant, gun battle over wheel rims involving .45 and 9mm (no one injured), .22 rifle and shotgun stolen.

Other weapons: man hit in the head with a bottle during a mugging by two other men, man arrested on marijuana charges had 3 knives on him, pot-smoking kid was found with a pocketknife at school.

Based on my extremely limited sample of my city of just over 100k, with nearly 30% below the poverty line, I would agree that stolen guns appear to be a problem, but that it doesn't appear that the criminals are using weapons above and beyond what the local citizens may have.

[Dingfod]

Here in the USA, a robbery with a gun or even a knife is considered armed robbery, at least for the purposes of criminal charges. All others are what they call strongarm robberies, either by overpowering the victim, or just stealing the cash or merchandise by intimidation. The stats aren't broken down, but it appears that only about 1/3 of all robberies are committed with a gun, a real gun anyway. Lots of robberies are committed with BB guns, pellet guns, or even toy guns.

And, like Wildy said, most criminals are not better armed than most gun owners, they often are most often armed with .22, .25 or 9mm handguns, all which are inferior in everyway to a larger caliber handgun, let alone a .30-06 rifle. My .30-06 is semi-automatic but it isn't an assault rifle because it doesn't have a pistol grip or hold more than 5 rounds.

Of course, in honor of Wildy, "Don't worry, Wildey will get them."--Charles Bronson in Death Wish III.

[lady cop]

then there's miami...where the dealers and players carry mac-10's and other assorted tools of their trade. it escalates constantly, the police are at a disadvantage unless SWAT is called out, which is not for everyday street crime. i carry dept.-issued HK 45, and my off-duty concealed (semi-formal) a smith 9. after 9-11 we secretly had israeli moussad out at our academy training us in some exotic weapons, now those guys were seriously dangerous we were in awe. (nice piece there warrenly!)