When i see this, i am not surprised of the "serial killing events" in schools or public places...

Where is the limit?

totally free wheapons buying should be strictly limited... What about if somebody becomes mentally disturbed with such a gun in the hands... or just get the idea to robber a bank...

i would like one to mount on my riding lawn mower...

They're not that dangerous. You would totally notice a small child carrying around a gun that big and it takes a good 20 - 30 minutes to set up. More than enough time to punch him in the face and take the gun away.

Bill, this is true, but the habit to get easily weapons "at home" and to associate the use with "having fun" still makes me afraid, anyway..

I understand that point of view but at the same time, I served in the US army, shot hand guns, machine guns (a few times out of the side door of a helicopter buzzing a target range), assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, and have tossed a few grenades (and no, that's not a euphemism for something dirty - lol) and I have never personally owned a weapon though it is perfectly legal for me to do so.

I enjoy shooting. I have been to a few shooting ranges since the army and fired rented and borrowed weapons.

Why do I not own a weapon? I don't see the need. I feel like owning a weapon to protect my home, even if used properly (i.e. I shoot and kill/wound the intruder), has more potential for harm than good. Accidents happen. You're far more likely to accidentally shoot someone you know than you are to stop a robbery. Also, introducing a lethal weapon into a tense situation could cause the other person to react in a way that escalates the violence rather than ending it.

So, my experience with weapons has made me respect them even more. Unlike many people who live in countries where it is illegal to own a gun, I do not fear them. I know how to use them. I know the good and the bad that can happen with them.

The problem with guns is that there's no way to tell who is and is not a good gun owner. So either you ban ownership and punish responsible gun owners or you allow them and live with the fact that some idiot is going to do something stupid with one.

I too served in the US Army back in the late 1960s in an assualt helicopter division. Had close to 1k hrs sitting behind a M-60 machine gun, and crewed on a few UH-1D & C gunships with dual mini-guns mounted along with a 40mm fwd grenade launcher and other ships with rocket pods. Since leaving the service I became an active collector. I enjoy shooting pistols, shotguns and rifles, and have seen the value of my collection triple. I have never in 40 yrs needed to "show iron" to diffuse an ugly situation. 99% of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens who either enjoy collecting, shooting or both. A Japanese admiral once stated at the beginning of WW11 that to invade the US would be foolish, as there were rifles behind every blade of grass.

A lot of Europeans are shocked at the US access to guns and I try to explain to them the rationale behind it.

The founders of the country wanted to make it difficult for the government to subdue the people by force. This is how dictators, kings, and such rose to power. So the original intent of making it a right to own weapons was to keep governments from thinking that they could run over an unarmed population and seize power.

The response I always get to this is that in today's modern society this is silly because the government has such advanced weapons. The citizens don't have tanks, airplanes, nuclear bombs, or biological/chemical weapons.

While that's true it still makes it difficult to rule by force. Millions of people armed with handguns, rifles, and rifles would deter any government that got was considering rule by force as we've seen in most guerrilla style wars.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that, as a nation, the US was founded on the premise that government is bad but a necessary evil and should be kept to the minimum. This is why the US seems so resistant to things like national healthcare or anything else that smells like socialism and an expanded/increased role of the government.

I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership. I'm just trying to explain the mentality behind it.

Gun ownership makes the US a unique country, no doubt. Having grown up with ownership, its difficult to imagine the playing field any other way. The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution protects the rest of the Amendments. It may seem primitive, but thats the way we roll. Despite the fact that there are so many firearms in the US, we have very few actual firearm related incidences.

Nice to see both viewpoints. There is a large historical wheapons needs gap between Europe and USA...

US historical recent "virgin" territories conquest did make wheapons necessary. In far north areas, everybody must carry a rifle when out of the city or villages centers, because of polar bears. I think most europeans can understand personnal defence wheapons, even if some do not agree. The problem is some specific war wheapons, with massive destruction power, which has no proportion with personnal needs... even if some "pillage" scenes, facing gangs in some suburbs should need them if you want to face in place of running away. But than, there will be climbing process and the gangs will use the same or more...

In Europe, since the fall of the Wall, and the eastern country annexation within EC (against most EC citizens wishes), evry serious "hold up" includes the famous "kalachnikov"... anyway, there is no perfect solution of the self defence problem. Personally, i think a hunting coumpound bow, which is legal and very efficient is a good option. Hunting arrows can even go threw most bullet proof vests, and are silent, which is of great adavantage because it is difficult to found where you are really. I found that largely enough to defend a home.

Actually, there are really only two suitable home defense guns. One is a shotgun and the other is a handgun. In most CQC (close quarters combat) environments like your own home, far more rounds are fired than would seem necessary. Even at ranges of 5 - 10 feet, there have been many instances of a shoot out with 5 or 10 rounds shot *each* and neither person hitting the other.

So, if you're a skilled marksman with a handgun then it makes for a suitable weapon for home protection because it doesn't have a long barrel which can be grabbed or is hard to use in a close quarters situation. You'll also note that most special forces units like US Navy SEALS or Delta Force use short barrel weapons like handguns or heavily modified assault rifles (with the barrel shortened) in close quarters combat.

If you're not a skilled marksman with a hand gun then your second best option is the shotgun. It can be fired from a distance and spreads out which eliminates the need to be a good marksman. In a very stressful situation like someone breaking into your home this is probably your best bet since you are unlikely to be accurate.

OK.. And if you have some moral questions, it is always possible to put rubber bullets wich can put anybody "out of service" without killing him...

A lot of people used to load up their shotguns with rock salt for home protection. Instead of steel pellets ripping though the person and killing them the rock salt would just rip some skin off and give them a good reminder not to break into that person's house again.