effectively yes its banned but, not technically. you can get a class 3 license, submit to a complete background check, finger prints and all to the ATF, be subkect to random checkups by them, pay a $200 tax stamp. wait about 6-12 months for the ATF to aprove the transfer of the weapon (the launcher its self without the grenade) to you, pay roughly $10,000-$25,000 for the launcher. then when you finally get the launcher, in order to get grenades for it, you have to build a concrete bunker for the grenades to be stored in. this has to be up to the ATF code for bomb resistance, which they will inspect to make sure it is. then you pay a $200 tax per grenade, on top of the cost of the grenade (which is several hundreds of dollars), then wait another 6-12 months for the ATF to aprove the transfer of the grenade to you. and repeat each time you want a knew grenade.

so if you are a millionairre, i thuroughly recomend one! you'd have a blast! lol 

The difference is that China doesn't have a good system for reporting crime and a corrupt judicial system, so we have no idea, but the consensus does seem to be that there is quite significant crime in the country. As an anecdote, from what I hear from my roommate (he's chinese) there is more crime overall in China than the U.S, especially by the government. Also, there are some things that are not illegal in China that would be illegal here: such as child abuse by teachers (which has only just been changed because of a high incidence of cases in October.) Another example is piracy.

An example of an altered statistic would be: if somebody was hit by a car, the driver would kill that person so they wouldn't get in trouble, because it would have been labeled as an accident, and hence not a crime. They have plenty of video footage of this happening. 

Another example:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576349181022278452.html

So we have no way of quantitatively knowing, I suppose. 

Note, I didn't say violent crime, which means I did acknowledge that the U.S likely has a higher incidence of it. 

Personally I dislike firearms; however, I understand the reasoning for them. My largest concern is where money can be made policies will be broken or side stepped. People good or bad will find ways to own these deadly weapons. All I ask for is tighter requirements and yearly testing/renewing etc. ass wipes get into 4000 pound bullets everyday and rive recklessly, and we have to pay and have tested that equipment yearly. Same should be tor weapons.


I love it when people say well if we all own and carry fire arms we can help prevent crimes, yet our own highly trained police force can't distinguish between real threats before unloading 40+ rounds into civilians that end up being a candy bar. Defending ones home is one thing walking around on the streets is completely different.

O and to the person that said McDonald's kills more people each year the same rule can be applied. McDonald's may be guilty for selling those deadly weapons but in the end it's our fault for putting it into our bodies, so technically again it's the human fault here.

That was mostly a joke because the other guy was complaining about there being more places to buy a gun than there McDonald's in the country. 

Pretty much every mass shooter of the last 20 years was a law abiding citizen before he went on rampage...

Lots of things that are true are puzzling at face value.  The science is pretty clear though when you cut away the BS studies on both sides

In general when studies are done that consider "Like areas" in the US, or look at the effects of gun legislation implementation and removal....

the concealed carry/right to own gun stuff lowers crime, while gun bans tend to increase it.

There is a reason most mass shootings happen specifically where guns aren't allowed.

Gun bans are just a stupid idea.   Now something like making them like drivers liscenses where you take a test, prove you understand how it works etc?  Makes sense.

Won't stop any intentional shootings though.

Don't make up facts. The number of licensed gun owners in Canada is reported to be 1,830,542

(Canada.2010.‘Valid Licences as of June 2010.’ Canadian Firearm Program: Facts and figures (April – June 2010).Ottawa:Royal Canadian Mounted Police,1 June. (Q2139)

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

The amount of gun owners in Canada is actually declining:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/more-guns-in-canada-this-year-but-fewer-owners-rcmp/

When people talk about armed civilians vs. Military, it's not just guns vs. guns. You realize the military has F22 Raptors, F35 Lightnings, tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, helicopters, snipers?  Good luck with that. If the US ever became a dictatorship, a combination of tanks, snipers, helicopters, stealth bombers and and infantry would kill armed civilians in 3 seconds. If there was ever a confrontation between US military, the professional military would level armed US civilians, no matter their previous training simply because the military is not only active but has miles better equipment that's not just assault rifles and puny hand guns.

I live in Canada and I don't know a single person who is Pro-guns or owns a gun, even for hunting. You must live in a different country than me. Canada is fully against guns. The US homicide rate is triple that of Canada's, per capita, and 70% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms as opposed to Canada's 30%. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that when you have easy access to guns you are going to have more gun crime. Canada is a much safer country than the US is and gun control is a huge factor in this. Most Canadians would agree with me. 

The homicide rate in the US as a whole is 4.2.

The homicide rate in Western is betwen 1 and 1.5 depending on the country. Every Western europe country has strong gun laws.

And it doesn't matter if a state has strict gun laws if the state next door doesn't. There isn't a control when you cross the state border...

Thing is for the last 20 years we tried the NRA way after every mass shooting, we kept selling guns and things didn't change, they only got worse as the Newton massacre demonstrates.. It's time to try something new...

As for the second amendment lets be serious. Do you ever think any militia would win a fight against unmaned drones and fighter jets if it came to that ?

Yeah lets keep selling guns to everyone and using death penalty against killers because clearly it has a good track record in reducing murders. NOT

The US has the highest homicide rate amongst modern countries and that is just a fact you can not deny...

I disagree.  I think gun owning americans could defeat quite a number of armies in the world.   There are a lot of shitty ill equipped armies.

Outside which, one needs only to look at Iraq to see just how annoying armed militants can be... imagine if every Iraqi insurgent had his own gun.

It's be a serious pain in the ass.   That said I doubt it's holding any country at bay, since the US army could pretty much beat any other 3-4 nations armies combined... but your ignoring reality if you think it would have zero effect in a invaded situation.

I mean picture Iraq, with better armed insurgents, a worse invading army, and FAR more cover, places to hide infrastructure, over a larger area.

And the crime rates? Look at the violent crime rate of the UK vs. US. 

Will those 300 million guns in circulation just disappear in the event of a ban?  I doubt it. 

And yes, at the very least having an armed population disuades the government out of fear for their individual lives. At the very most the military would 100% support militias in such a conflict. As for drones and fighter jets, they rely on the infrastructure of the U.S. If you have 100 million  + armed peoples scattered across that infrastructure it is so much more difficult to mobilize such devices. 

Also it's not the NRA way, it's the U.S Constitution way and the law of the land. The NRA is just one group interested in using the Second Amendment for their interests, and sometimes it's not used correctly. However; a total gun ban would be devastating on the country.