Honest and open debate on gun control

[RKMBrown]

What part of fucking "infringed" do you anti gun extremists not fucking get....

Infringe Definition of infringe by Merriam-Webster

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Poll taxes and literacy tests are unconstitutional...taxes that make owning a weapon for self defense more difficult are the same thing as a poll tax or literacy test for that right....

to wrongly limit or restrict ... wrongly is a vague term. You'll note it does not say to limit at all ... it says to wrongly limit. Thus the question is what sort of limit is a valid type of limit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Still nothing....

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

They steal them or import them illegally.

 

[2aguy]

What part of fucking "infringed" do you anti gun extremists not fucking get....

Infringe Definition of infringe by Merriam-Webster

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Poll taxes and literacy tests are unconstitutional...taxes that make owning a weapon for self defense more difficult are the same thing as a poll tax or literacy test for that right....

to wrongly limit or restrict ... wrongly is a vague term. You'll note it does not say to limit at all ... it says to wrongly limit. Thus the question is what sort of limit is a valid type of limit.

Anything that makes it harder for a poor American to exercise a right is "wrongly." So taxes, permit fees, and waiting periods are infringements on exercising the Right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still nothing....

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

And they are still larger than hand guns.....and harder to conceal and get rid of after a shooting......

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

And it is a cultural difference as well...the criminals in Europe seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....and they get those easily in countries where they are highly illegal, and where they are bound by extreme gun control laws.......

 

[RKMBrown]

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment
Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

They steal them or import them illegally.

So are people who import them illegally criminals before they import them or after they import them? Why are they criminals for importing them if the constitution says they can?

 

[RKMBrown]

Still nothing....

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns, assigning that process for more guns will be constitutional for the same reason it's been constitutional for machine guns and silencers.

Not as many... they would be more expensive by an order of magnitude or two... there would be less guns, less guns to get, less first crimes with guns, less criminals with guns all simple math.

Criminals would just move on to cheaper weapons, like sticks & knives.

 

[2aguy]

This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

They steal them or import them illegally.

So are people who import them illegally criminals before they import them or after they import them? Why are they criminals for importing them if the constitution says they can?

Criminals will steal them locally from the police, military or gun stores, or gun owners or if they find a supplier overseas, the Russians or the Chinese they will import them....remember during the Clinton Administration...one of their big campaign donors. Wang Jun, was a chines business man caught trying to sell thousands of AK-47s to California street gangs....

That they stick to pistols is again a culture thing here in the states.....European terrorists prefer fully automatic rifles....even though they are less accurate.....


What the constitution says and what we have allowed to be made into laws are two different things.....having to get permits for guns is one of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still nothing....

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

 

[Brain357]

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

They steal them or import them illegally.

So are people who import them illegally criminals before they import them or after they import them? Why are they criminals for importing them if the constitution says they can?

Criminals will steal them locally from the police, military or gun stores, or gun owners or if they find a supplier overseas, the Russians or the Chinese they will import them....remember during the Clinton Administration...one of their big campaign donors. Wang Jun, was a chines business man caught trying to sell thousands of AK-47s to California street gangs....

That they stick to pistols is again a culture thing here in the states.....European terrorists prefer fully automatic rifles....even though they are less accurate.....


What the constitution says and what we have allowed to be made into laws are two different things.....having to get permits for guns is one of them.

While some would go through the trouble of getting guns, I think most would change to other weapons. But the victims of a knife are just as dead.

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one them violates their right to choose.
Infringement, Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

 

[Brain357]

Still nothing....

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns, assigning that process for more guns will be constitutional for the same reason it's been constitutional for machine guns and silencers.

Not as many... they would be more expensive by an order of magnitude or two... there would be less guns, less guns to get, less first crimes with guns, less criminals with guns all simple math.

Criminals would just move on to cheaper weapons, like sticks & knives.

One thing about the machine gun laws is that new machine guns can't be bought. Only pre 86' guns are in circulation legally. That has more to do with them being rare in crime than increased price.

 

[Brain357]

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment
Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one them violates their right to choose.
Infringement, Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

 

[2aguy]

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one them violates their right to choose.
Infringement, Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns, assigning that process for more guns will be constitutional for the same reason it's been constitutional for machine guns and silencers.

Not as many... they would be more expensive by an order of magnitude or two... there would be less guns, less guns to get, less first crimes with guns, less criminals with guns all simple math.

Criminals would just move on to cheaper weapons, like sticks & knives.

One thing about the machine gun laws is that new machine guns can't be bought. Only pre 86' guns are in circulation legally. That has more to do with them being rare in crime than increased price.

Sorry...if criminals decided they need fully automatic rifles they would get them....but law abiding citizens would still not have them.....and even most civilians don't see a need.

 

[Brain357]

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.
Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one them violates their right to choose.
Infringement, Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

 

[2aguy]

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one them violates their right to choose.
Infringement, Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

 

[Brain357]

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment
Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns, assigning that process for more guns will be constitutional for the same reason it's been constitutional for machine guns and silencers.

Not as many... they would be more expensive by an order of magnitude or two... there would be less guns, less guns to get, less first crimes with guns, less criminals with guns all simple math.

Criminals would just move on to cheaper weapons, like sticks & knives.

One thing about the machine gun laws is that new machine guns can't be bought. Only pre 86' guns are in circulation legally. That has more to do with them being rare in crime than increased price.

Sorry...if criminals decided they need fully automatic rifles they would get them....but law abiding citizens would still not have them.....and even most civilians don't see a need.

You don't need a full auto to rob somebody. People have been robbed with a finger in a pocket.

Imagine the number of people killed by strays if criminals and defenders had full autos. That would be silly. As you said most of the time the criminal runs away with no shots fired.