Well, pretty close. The MILITARY definition of an assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic or burst fire that fires either an underpowered rifle round (such as the 7.62 x 39mm from the AK-47) or fires a sub-rifle calibre round (such as the 5.56mm NATO from the M-16 family), and has a detachable magazine. But that is just tweaking your comment a bit, not dissagreeing.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Ok sounds pretty good, semantically speaking I agree with you on the death point, and no automatic weapons ARE NOT banned but they are HEAVILY restricted.....suppresors (no such thing as silencers) are legal in many states, certain type of stocks do not make any rifle an assault rifle. An assault rifle is ONLY a weapon capable of full auto fire or has a shorter than 16" barrel on a rifle. You are a little confused on your facts here, so I will lay it out as politely as possible, "they must all be modified to remove their capability for automatic fire" not true, once again, you obviously don't know. Yes yes the firing events, thats not what I'm talking about. Assault rifles are not banned friend, you are confusing the Clinton Gun Ban of 94 with other legislation. The Clinton gun ban did nothing but increase gun related crime and the likes. Jonsi there is a difference between Clinton's definition of an "assault WEAPON" and true assault rifles. The former is a term used by the media and those ignorant of actual gun workings. Assault rifles are only fully automatic weapons and SBR and the like and they are NOT banned.jonsimon wrote:
To clarify, death is the cessation of neural activity, the brain has to lose function before you can truely be 'dead'. This is why any disruption in the circulatory system is actually an indirect cause of death.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Sure sure, ok fine whatever, I still don't think it is to the brain though, that doesn't sound right....maybe long term bleeding sure.....but cardiac arrest sounds a lot more common, or what I've read. But I'm interested why you completely dodged your assault rifle claim and that they are just straight banned....I'll admit to not knowing about the oxygen deprivation if you admit that you haven't the damndest clue what you were talking about when you said that.
As for the assault rifles, I was pretty sure any and all automatic weapons were banned in the US, and that bans were in place on many qualities of weapons like silencers and certain types of stocks. I know that truely not all assault rifles are banned, but they must all be modified to remove their capability for automatic fire. Plus they're really difficult to come by. And I do know that at events on military firing ranges a medly of automatic weapons are allowed, by I'm not aware who provides them or under what conditions. Effectively, however, assault rifles are banned, and if all firearms were as difficult to procure as assault rifles, hammers would kill more people than pistols too.
Ironchef. Not trying to flame or anything; I just want to get a better handle on your point of view of things. Where are you from and where do you live now?IRONCHEF wrote:
However, I'm failing to see the justification for the assumption that the low crime is because of gun ownership. Is that stated somewhere I may have missed?
I am going off of the original question of this thread, which is correlating crime going down with firearm ownership. That is what I'm referring to as an unsupported assumption.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Never made that assumption, those facts were in direct response to someone's questions. My assumption or contention is that you cannot blame just guns for high crime just like you can't blame just guns for low crime. That is all.IRONCHEF wrote:
However, I'm failing to see the justification for the assumption that the low crime is because of gun ownership. Is that stated somewhere I may have missed?
"
How can crime be this far down and still going down when firearm ownership and the amount of firearms are on the rise???
And for what it's worth, since I'm actually not arguing, but debating and analyzing the question thoroughly, I agree with your assertion above that you cannot blame "just guns" for high crime, nor can you blame "just guns" for low crime. My intention in this thread is for non-emotional debate since this is too hot a topic for me to truly add my input too. Further, my non-emotional input should not be an indicator of my stance on the broad topic of gun control. I've said I'm a proponent of gun ownership and I'll leave it at that.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-08 09:57:15)
I"m not sure about the relevence of where I live or where I'm from with regards to the question (How can crime be this far down and still going down when firearm ownership and the amount of firearms are on the rise???).imortal wrote:
Ironchef. Not trying to flame or anything; I just want to get a better handle on your point of view of things. Where are you from and where do you live now?IRONCHEF wrote:
However, I'm failing to see the justification for the assumption that the low crime is because of gun ownership. Is that stated somewhere I may have missed?
And your question is not taken as a flame, but I thank you for your consideration.
And off the topic, I am from Northern California. I'm neither Dem or Republican, I wish Bush would be tried, hung, quartered, and dragged for his crimes against humanity, but I'll be voting for Arnold in November because Angelides is a friggen loser. I vote for people, not parties. I sustain our forefathers' declaration of my rights to bear arms -- imho, it's granted to me so that I can properly rebel against my government should it become tyrranical. But I do NOT agree with the NRA's overly aggressive tactics to shove guns in my face and the fringes of the NRA saying it's my DUTY and COMMAND to own a gun or I'm not a patriot/american, etc. As for the cycle of violence revolving around gun ownership, gun laws, etc, and the ensuing debating about that topic, I believe it's too difficult to gain an accurate perspective. That perspective is also hindered because both sides of this debate LIE and mistate data as well.
Oh, my solution for gun ownership is that everyone should be properly trained in firearm usage before taking ownership. This can be done by passing written and fire safety testing. This will be the only added benefit of legally registering/applying for ownership of a firearm as it will truly have a greater effect on those who pursue illegal means of firearm ownership and wish to commit crimes against law-abiding citizens. Because it is a crime that legal gun owners have to register their firearms while the crooks don't. Since registration is required by law and that requirement will never go away, make it a benefit to do so by training legal gun owners to relentlessly pop any would be criminal invading your home or your person!! Oh, that and allow exotic assault rifles for legal owners too...after all, the ammendment was designed as a way to overthrow a tyrranical government..not just to have guns laying around.
Anyway, I hope this gives you an idea of where I stand.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-08 09:51:17)
I agree with ironchef here. Although i am an Australian and in no way am i affected by or care how many americans shoot each other each day. I mean c'mon, seriously apart from a legitimate reason like overthrowing a too powerful government would you possible want firearms for. They're made for one purpose, to kill. and last time i looked, that was kinda illegal. Im narked that our govt took away all our guns but it was more the principle of not having that freedom than the loss of guns that annoys me. When someone is shot here it makes headline news, when i was on holidays in LA with my fiancee (an american) people were getting shot all the time and nobody seemed to really give a sh!t *shrugs* go figure
Word to that! EVERY news cast in the evening here starts with a murder, drive by, or otherwise gruesome GUN death. It would be nice if there was a removal of ALL firearms from EVERY citizen, then start over giving them to law-abiding citizens. Sure the crooks will end up with some but if all law-abiding citizens were trained as I mentioned above..i think it would HELP.
As for the legal purpose for ownership in the USA (2nd ammendment - protection against tyrranical gov'ts), I think it's high time for such an overthrow. I think the military should mutiny, rally citizens around someone like Wes Clark, and take Bush and make him cell mates with Milosevic in the Hague. And yes, I'd risk my life to follow such a cause.
As for the legal purpose for ownership in the USA (2nd ammendment - protection against tyrranical gov'ts), I think it's high time for such an overthrow. I think the military should mutiny, rally citizens around someone like Wes Clark, and take Bush and make him cell mates with Milosevic in the Hague. And yes, I'd risk my life to follow such a cause.
Thanks friend for the more specific definition, I was just keeping it simple! I agree with you.imortal wrote:
Well, pretty close. The MILITARY definition of an assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic or burst fire that fires either an underpowered rifle round (such as the 7.62 x 39mm from the AK-47) or fires a sub-rifle calibre round (such as the 5.56mm NATO from the M-16 family), and has a detachable magazine. But that is just tweaking your comment a bit, not dissagreeing.
My question is misleading yes, but you have to read my entire post to understand the context, which people seem to be having a problem doing (not you). That question is in DIRECT response to people asserting that guns CAUSE crime. So if that is true, than why is crime down when there are so many guns....get it? I didn't mean to imply as stated previously that just guns decrease crime as you have already understoodIRONCHEF wrote:
I am going off of the original question of this thread, which is correlating crime going down with firearm ownership. That is what I'm referring to as an unsupported assumption.
How can crime be this far down and still going down when firearm ownership and the amount of firearms are on the rise???
And for what it's worth, since I'm actually not arguing, but debating and analyzing the question thoroughly, I agree with your assertion above that you cannot blame "just guns" for high crime, nor can you blame "just guns" for low crime.
Thanks.
Impossible, and questionable if it would do anything. The media overreports crime, more than know unless you've studied it as throroughly as I have....the media is looking for ratings, whats the worst crime thats happened, they rarely report stories (on such a wide basis as the bad ones at least) such as those concerning crimes prevented from daily justified firearm use. Most law abiding citizens are trained, at least to some extent, that overthrow you mentioned is only directed at one person....not exactly legal, its the government you should overthrow not just the President ( ). But glad we're at least on the same page.IRONCHEF wrote:
Word to that! EVERY news cast in the evening here starts with a murder, drive by, or otherwise gruesome GUN death. It would be nice if there was a removal of ALL firearms from EVERY citizen, then start over giving them to law-abiding citizens. Sure the crooks will end up with some but if all law-abiding citizens were trained as I mentioned above..i think it would HELP.
As for the legal purpose for ownership in the USA (2nd ammendment - protection against tyrranical gov'ts), I think it's high time for such an overthrow. I think the military should mutiny, rally citizens around someone like Wes Clark, and take Bush and make him cell mates with Milosevic in the Hague. And yes, I'd risk my life to follow such a cause.
Also only 5% of adult Americans carry a concealed weapon outside of their home.
Oh, I got ya. And true, I too agree that it's impossble to state factually that guns cause crimes. Crimes are caused by poor decisions. Sure many variables contribute to the person making the bad decision; bad upbringing, lost job, lost girlfriend, under-educated, mental retardation, even easy access to guns and associating with other under-educated or otherwise malicious persons who instill in you to kill people with guns -- is not even a scenario where "guns cause crimes."
There is merit to the argument, however, that access to guns "contributes" to crimes. It would be foolish to assume otherwise. If you are already on the track to commit crimes, would not having access to a firearm embolden/encourage success to commit said crimes? Of course it would. And i think the bulk of the anti-firearm lobby's argument is to limit access. Of course that is a vague idea as it does not address limiting weapons from illegal purchases of firearms and only inhibits law-abiding citizen's their access to them.
I am a spiritual person and I believe literally that Satan would tempt me to become more aggressive if I owned a firearm thus exploiting the strength of my God given right to defend my family with the same firearm. Who knows, if I had a bad day, or something adverse caused me to go a little more nuts than i normally do, I can see how I'd be more inclined to express myself if I had a firearm. And frankly, I don't see myself being anywhere near that reality, but i can obviously see that reality happening to others..daily. Just gotta watch the news and see all the first time murderers have their neighbors saying "he was such a nice boy..wouldn't hurt a fly..then just snapped..."
Anyway, getting ahead of myself on a topic i didn't want to indulge in.
There is merit to the argument, however, that access to guns "contributes" to crimes. It would be foolish to assume otherwise. If you are already on the track to commit crimes, would not having access to a firearm embolden/encourage success to commit said crimes? Of course it would. And i think the bulk of the anti-firearm lobby's argument is to limit access. Of course that is a vague idea as it does not address limiting weapons from illegal purchases of firearms and only inhibits law-abiding citizen's their access to them.
I am a spiritual person and I believe literally that Satan would tempt me to become more aggressive if I owned a firearm thus exploiting the strength of my God given right to defend my family with the same firearm. Who knows, if I had a bad day, or something adverse caused me to go a little more nuts than i normally do, I can see how I'd be more inclined to express myself if I had a firearm. And frankly, I don't see myself being anywhere near that reality, but i can obviously see that reality happening to others..daily. Just gotta watch the news and see all the first time murderers have their neighbors saying "he was such a nice boy..wouldn't hurt a fly..then just snapped..."
Anyway, getting ahead of myself on a topic i didn't want to indulge in.
True. I believe the only legal recourse for overthrowing our government (could be a branch or all 3 branches) if written protest, legal recourse, and then petitions don't work, is to have state militias/national guard (owned by the governor of each state, NOT the president as he thinks) to march to washington and remove said members of government. And I do believe it could be an individual like the president alone who could be acted upon legally like this..if my constitutional studies serve me.
DING DING we have a winner!! Of course its poor decisions, finally someone with some common senseIRONCHEF wrote:
Crimes are caused by poor decisions. Sure many variables contribute to the person making the bad decision; bad upbringing, lost job, lost girlfriend, under-educated, mental retardation, even easy access to guns and associating with other under-educated or otherwise malicious persons who instill in you to kill people with guns -- is not even a scenario where "guns cause crimes."
There is merit to the argument, however, that access to guns "contributes" to crimes. It would be foolish to assume otherwise. If you are already on the track to commit crimes, would not having access to a firearm embolden/encourage success to commit said crimes? Of course it would. And i think the bulk of the anti-firearm lobby's argument is to limit access. Of course that is a vague idea as it does not address limiting weapons from illegal purchases of firearms and only inhibits law-abiding citizen's their access to them.
Of course access contributes to crimes, but it also contributes to the suppression of crime, anyone that doesn't see that is blind, thousands of crimes prevented every year by justifiable firearm use, and billions, yes billions, of dollars of money saved in property damages, liability, and insurance. Guns save a lot more lives and money than they cost.
What is neccessary now is to make firearm crimes more harsh with the sentencing so that those that commit such heinous crimes are put away longer. Yep we have a prison problem here in the U.S. but we also have a criminal problem. I certainly don't mind paying more money to keep criminals in jail to reduce crime. (I also love how people say OMG prisons are overcrowded, and have been for almost a decade) Really, wow crime is at a 30 year low. I don't care.
Well it is your own decision whether or not to own a firearm, and generally speaking just because someone owns one does not mean they are more inclined to do harm, that is a silly notion. They just snapped...those types of crime make up less than ~2% of firearm related crime. Like I said before the media over reports such incidents.
Thanks for your comments.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-08 11:51:32)
Hey, I have a question for you...
What do you think of the San Francisco supervisor's bill (Daley, I think) that passed and caused San Francisco citizens to outlaw handguns within the city? hehe
Oh, and thank you too for your comments and mature reasoning! It's refreshing to be on a game site and actually conduct mature conversation.
Also, my wife has started going to school again and she's currently in some Administration of Justice courses and one of the classes is firearm safety, so I may actually get to buy a gun now! Woot! Of course the problem is which one to pick???? lol
I'd prefer a boring berretta 9m or a good old 1911 colt..and a Garand m1 replica..and then a 12 gauge for home defense. Getting the wife to be "on board" with weapons in the home has been a long journey for me in our 7 years of marriage, and I think it's finally time!
Oh, and I actually just love guns themselves...Since I will likely go through my life never having a home invasion or other reason to use the gun in self defense, and because I'll never have a need to hunt for my food, i want weapons because they are amazing devices and learning to use them optimally would be a great hobby.
What do you think of the San Francisco supervisor's bill (Daley, I think) that passed and caused San Francisco citizens to outlaw handguns within the city? hehe
Oh, and thank you too for your comments and mature reasoning! It's refreshing to be on a game site and actually conduct mature conversation.
Also, my wife has started going to school again and she's currently in some Administration of Justice courses and one of the classes is firearm safety, so I may actually get to buy a gun now! Woot! Of course the problem is which one to pick???? lol
I'd prefer a boring berretta 9m or a good old 1911 colt..and a Garand m1 replica..and then a 12 gauge for home defense. Getting the wife to be "on board" with weapons in the home has been a long journey for me in our 7 years of marriage, and I think it's finally time!
Oh, and I actually just love guns themselves...Since I will likely go through my life never having a home invasion or other reason to use the gun in self defense, and because I'll never have a need to hunt for my food, i want weapons because they are amazing devices and learning to use them optimally would be a great hobby.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-08 12:01:09)
Absolutely horrible, it had NO exeptions for military, it had no exceptions for LEO's and retired LEO's it had NO exceptions for MUSEUMS!!!! Completely ridicolous and it only outlawed CITIZENS of San Francisco not to have handguns. That means if you leave outside the city and have a business in the city, you get to keep your gun. Besides those few things, its a horrible idea, refer to my long post about how many crimes are prevented annualy by firearm use.IRONCHEF wrote:
Hey, I have a question for you...
What do you think of the San Francisco supervisor's bill (Daley, I think) that passed and caused San Francisco citizens to outlaw handguns within the city? hehe
I don't care if I'm off topic ... It looks like a lot of kittens will be dying this November!!!!!
But being San Francisco, the heart of descent (for everything) in this country, there have been good liberals who realize how unconstitutional that law is and how unlawful that law is..protesting outside city hall, with their legally owned hand guns on their person. I think after they were arrested for possession, they've got our courts tied up with civil cases against the city for their wrongful arrest and infringement on their right to bear arms -- and of course their claim against the city for an unconstitutional law.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Absolutely horrible, it had NO exeptions for military, it had no exceptions for LEO's and retired LEO's it had NO exceptions for MUSEUMS!!!! Completely ridicolous and it only outlawed CITIZENS of San Francisco not to have handguns. That means if you leave outside the city and have a business in the city, you get to keep your gun. Besides those few things, its a horrible idea, refer to my long post about how many crimes are prevented annualy by firearm use.IRONCHEF wrote:
Hey, I have a question for you...
What do you think of the San Francisco supervisor's bill (Daley, I think) that passed and caused San Francisco citizens to outlaw handguns within the city? hehe
I love Mayor Newsome. That guy is what EVERY leader should be. He does the will of his people and fulfills the promises he makes..even if they're questionable and even unlawful (marrying gays, etc). I hope he runs for Governor where his constituents will be more moderate and he'll really get to shine. Anyway, i'm done rambling here...sorry for the diahrea.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-08 12:10:00)
Haha, tru.dat! Will be a nice November finally...unless Rove has some secret weapon up his sleeve that will destroy that hope.mUnKi_UnKel wrote:
I don't care if I'm off topic ... It looks like a lot of kittens will be dying this November!!!!!
however if you get robbed while not home and the robber steals ur guns, and sells em on the black market, now who owns the gun?Barnyard wrote:
IMO fire arm ownership doesn't have a direct correlation to crime. As posted above registered gun owner are typical not the ones commiting the crimes. I think the drop is related to what Mexico posted with all the tech available there is more deternets and distractions.
but it makes a good points that the stats on crimes are like 50% lower, thats awesome. Probably more to do with the fact that everywhere u go u got videotapes, and if not, people got phones on their cameras they can snap a pic then BAM its on the news and everyone reports ur ass and BAM ur in jail and then BAM u get fucked in the ass.
PS people dont like getting fucked in the ass. (for the most part)
Last edited by norge (2006-09-08 12:12:41)
Not if you have them secured like the majority of gun owners, no, criminals do steal guns yes, but it is such a low percentage when compared with the good that firearms cause. 50% lower robberies, yeah, it has a lot to do with a great many things, higher prison population, highest gun ownership ever, more cameras help, and too many other things to list. But the problem is not guns, it is behavior. The problem is not cars kill more than double and triple what firearms do, its people's behavior. Its not the cigarettes that are killing people, its their behavior to smoke them.... (which is in effect the cigarettes, but you get my point)norge wrote:
however if you get robbed while not home and the robber steals ur guns, and sells em on the black market, now who owns the gun?
but it makes a good points that the stats on crimes are like 50% lower, thats awesome. Probably more to do with the fact that everywhere u go u got videotapes, and if not, people got phones on their cameras they can snap a pic then BAM its on the news and everyone reports ur ass and BAM ur in jail and then BAM u get fucked in the ass.
Not all crimes are committed on the street.jonsimon wrote:
Right, someone's gonna walk up to you on the street and hold up his hand yelling "Give me your purse or I'll strangle ya!" Firearms enable people to more effectively endeavour in criminal activities, and thusly, if restricted, would reduce ability of people to endeavour in criminal activities with effect.
The gun and the bullet are at equal blame.
The person, the source of the needle, and the source of the poison are all to blame. Without the needle or the poison the person could not have committed the crime. It's that simple. Remove the weapon with greatly similar effect to removing the criminal.
So the medical labratory who intended the use of the needle for administering life saving medicines should be to blame because a criminal used it in a way that it was not intended for. even though similar needles have been used worldwide for vaccinations and other treatments saving the lives of millions.
And the poison is used to kill mosquitos to prevent the spread of malaria. But because a criminal used it in a criminal activity, it is to blame as well?
If there was a way to prevent the criminals from getting their hands on them then Im all for it but unfortunatly any idea brought up in todays world would be like trying to convince a country to turn back to communism. Sure its good in theory but it never works due to human nature.
Yes. Any medical labratory with security so lax that anyone can sneak inside and steal poisonous material should be shut down. And if it was an inside job, perhaps they don't screen well enough before giving access to deadly chemcials.phnxfrhwk wrote:
Not all crimes are committed on the street.jonsimon wrote:
Right, someone's gonna walk up to you on the street and hold up his hand yelling "Give me your purse or I'll strangle ya!" Firearms enable people to more effectively endeavour in criminal activities, and thusly, if restricted, would reduce ability of people to endeavour in criminal activities with effect.
The gun and the bullet are at equal blame.
The person, the source of the needle, and the source of the poison are all to blame. Without the needle or the poison the person could not have committed the crime. It's that simple. Remove the weapon with greatly similar effect to removing the criminal.
So the medical labratory who intended the use of the needle for administering life saving medicines should be to blame because a criminal used it in a way that it was not intended for. even though similar needles have been used worldwide for vaccinations and other treatments saving the lives of millions.
And the poison is used to kill mosquitos to prevent the spread of malaria. But because a criminal used it in a criminal activity, it is to blame as well?
If there was a way to prevent the criminals from getting their hands on them then Im all for it but unfortunatly any idea brought up in todays world would be like trying to convince a country to turn back to communism. Sure its good in theory but it never works due to human nature.
The poison was the weapon, of course its to blame.
There is a way to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, BAN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FIREARMS. No supply? Sorry, demand won't be satisfied. Thats the meaning of ban, I mean, if you didn't understand it before.
The all time mass murder was accomplished with a One Gallon can of Gasoline at the "HappyLand Disco" Fire in NYC.
BAN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FIREARMS Will Not End the Supply, We all know this. So do you.
Drugs have been banned From manufacture and sale. I made a STEN MkII, MkIII in my garage for fun.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse ?
BAN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FIREARMS Will Not End the Supply, We all know this. So do you.
Drugs have been banned From manufacture and sale. I made a STEN MkII, MkIII in my garage for fun.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse ?
If you think so....mUnKi_UnKel wrote:
I don't care if I'm off topic ... It looks like a lot of kittens will be dying this November!!!!!
AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
It is weird isn't it, its totally arbitrary and see even a lefty like you would agree the Clinton Gun ban did totally jack shit, I'm starting to actually enjoy takling to you jon, sorry for shortening your name though, I'll refrain from that or just use jonjonsimon wrote:
Yeah I looked it up now, that's a wierd bill. Anyway, please call me jon or jonsimon. You guys coming up with wierd shorthand for my name are annoying.
In case you missed my last to posts to you jon, here they are.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Yes but you can't restrict firearms from criminals without restricting them from people who benefit from them on a daily and annual basis, the thousands of crimes that are prevented. Jon heres the bottom line, we have to work harder to enforce the laws and ensure those who commit crimes with firearms are held to a higher sentencing standard. You can't take away guns because if you do that, than criminals will still be able to get them and than the thousands of lives and crimes prevented every year would drop dramatically. See now? I'm all for criminals NOT having guns, but if you take them away from the populace at the same time, you have accomplished nothing and actually taken one step forward and two steps back.jonsimon wrote:
and thusly, if restricted, would reduce ability of people to endeavour in criminal activities with effect.
I did miss them, actually. Nice call.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
In case you missed my last to posts to you jon, here they are.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Yes but you can't restrict firearms from criminals without restricting them from people who benefit from them on a daily and annual basis, the thousands of crimes that are prevented. Jon heres the bottom line, we have to work harder to enforce the laws and ensure those who commit crimes with firearms are held to a higher sentencing standard. You can't take away guns because if you do that, than criminals will still be able to get them and than the thousands of lives and crimes prevented every year would drop dramatically. See now? I'm all for criminals NOT having guns, but if you take them away from the populace at the same time, you have accomplished nothing and actually taken one step forward and two steps back.jonsimon wrote:
and thusly, if restricted, would reduce ability of people to endeavour in criminal activities with effect.
Seriously though, if firearms aren't manufactured or sold in the US, no one can get their hands on them without importing them illegally. Criminals would not have guns and law abiding citizens could not kill in anger. And besides, firearms only kill about 300 people in self defense.