[Skybird]

Eventually, I could live with an argument of legal gun ownership for self-defence. It depends on the single case.

But I also say that there are plenty of people whom I see as such that I do not want to see them with access to firearms. Like I also do not want to see quite some people having the right to hold pets. Or fighting dogs. Or sitting behind the steering wheel of a car. - And that'S why in general I am agai8nst the general permission that in principal everybody can own firearms.

Just the fetish some people - also here in the forum - make of it, regarding how many weapons and ammunitions they claim to need, and why it must be automatic weapons, and weapons designed for use in wartime scenarios - this is what kills the seriousness of it for me, and I use the word "fetish" intentionally and in it's original meaning here. It's much the same why some macho-men think a car with less than 220 HP is not a car to be taken serious.

You do not need assault guns for self defence, you do not need machine guns to protect a farm from the wild bears, and owning a 9mm automatic or a revolver cal.38 (TOTALLY sufficient to protect your house and family in the given crime scenario!) and owning a MP-7 with magazines of 40 rounds and a fire rate of 950 per minute - that are two totally different things.

Why somebody claims a right to own a whole collection of such weapons, or demands the freedom to do so, is beyond me. I do not accept any right of civilian people to turn themselves into one-man-armies. the special case of the first amendement to the Us constitution can only be understood historically, that amendement made sense in the time it was written. In modern times, it makes no sense anymore, since both the Indians and the British are gone since long.

and if you live in a neighbourhood where you think you need the freedom to wage war in order to defend your living there, than you definitely live in the wrong neighbourhood and better should move away before thinking about founding a family.

Every idiot and every one-eyed son-of-a-bitch could use a pistol to kill somebody. With a knife it is a bit more difficult. with bare hands it is much more difficult. With rapiers or swords, it needs special training. But killing with firearms - is no art at all. And that is a problem, imo.

And those wanting to own loads of assault guns and automatic rifles for self-defence: what do you do if you get attacked with a gang-owned mortar launcher, or an RPG? Is that your logic - that then you want a radar-based anti-missile system installed on your roof, or what? Do you sleep in a bunker? Do you claim the right by the example of the aircraft attacks of 9/11 to own your pirvate SAM-launcher in your garden? - The discussion of why owning bigger and bigger guns "for self-protection" is often so easily reaching into the realm of absurdity. For your information: a skilled shooter can kill a person with a soft-powered precision air-pistol. He only needs to aim well for the weak spots of the body.

Assaultguns for self-defence. Daß ich nicht lache.