I believe silencers are illegal in this country regardless of the weapon

The people. If one group starts its own little war, but no one else joins in, sucks for them. If that group starts a little war with the government and a lot of other people see them as being in the right and join up, that's a revolution.

America didn't work until we had massive gun control?

Yes, but they're no good after a few shots. Improvised, homemade stuff.

The ban has nothing to do with AKs unless they have a lot of mods. You can buy them down the street at your local gun store, in many states.

The ban was on the manufacture and sale of new guns. Millions of older guns remain legal and in use.

I'm quite sure that if we extended the ban to blanket possession of such scary looking firearms, criminals would throw them away or turn them in.

Right?

After all, everyone knows that criminals follow the law.

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

Well agree to your anylizis of the first situation.

For the second, most people, after all, choose to not carry a weapon. To be allowed to carry a weapon or being expected to is not the same thing. I actually considerer it a right to NOT carry a weapon against my will. To create a society that forces people to be armed and fend for themself is not the way to create freedom.

I guess what all this boils down to is:'

1. Some people want's the right to be armed so that they can combat the bad guys themself. This does include the risk of being killed in a firefight.
2. Some other people want the right to not be forced to carry a weapon. Law enforcement are expected to be done by the police.

My conclusion is that true freedom is the right to choose for yourself and have your decision being respected by those that has different opinions.

__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Hey, I agree with that. If one has a conscientious objection to being armed, one doesn't have to be armed. Similarly, if one has a conscientious duty to be armed, one should be armed. Works for me.

Wasn't my point. I was just pointing out a flaw in Catz' logic.

Making "scary looking" guns illegal is nonsensical; function is the key, in my ill-informed opinion.

As far as effect, people are fond of the "only criminals will have guns" argument. This is likely true if you have a complete ban. Short of that, even criminals make judgments on the most effective, least risky way to accomplish their goals. If you make a given gun illegal, you make them harder to get in the first place, and you have another charge you can tack on when you arrest a criminal using one. Maybe they'll switch to alternative weaponry that is less deadly.

Whether banning assault weapons (as defined by function) is an effective way to reduce gun crime is a whole other thing. Given that they account for a small number of crimes, probably not.

Looking at real-world examples, criminalizing firearms doesn't tend to make people safer...Britain and Australia, for example, have both seen an increase in crimes wherein firearms are employed in the years after banning most private ownership and having law-abiding citizens turn in their arms, and (as of 2000, the last year I obtained statistics for), you were more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in those two countries than the States...it wasn't that way before firearms were banned.

Unless one wishes to suggest some fundamental difference in culture between Anglosphere nations that would account for this in particular, I believe the evidence is clear than disarming the populace leads to more violence and crime.