Okay, lets turn to syria for a quick glance on how well an armed country can wage war against a regular army... it turns out even with real military weapons delivered by outside powers these rebels are still pretty much no match for the syrian army.

You seem to have missed the news where they took one city after another and where they blew up one building in Palmyra after the other... for fun, and unchallenged. Similar in Afghanistan too, by the way. Kundus is officially firm within the hands of rebels again (but of course Kundus was always their "home", so that's not anything new).

And would it have made a difference if every syrian citizen had a home-defense gun at home when the war broke out

Same problem as in other countries (Afghanistan again). Not few people are either passively or actively supportive of the rebels. Not few people silently agree with what they do, too (even if they say otherwise). The biggest problem for the armed forces is (and was) not fighting the rebels, but finding them.

You can see that from what is happening in Germany right now where people who allegedly fled from Islam terror start riots and mass battles with knives and clubs hundreds against hundreds over the Qaran, or over a toilet key or over who is first in the waiting line for lunch. These are the very "every citizen" who aren't rebels that you named.

The recent SPIEGEL report (yesterday or day before yesterday on RTL) stated that in one of these (Kassel if I recall correctly, but could have been Hamburg), they used tear gas against the police who tried to intervene. It's quite difficult for me to get tear gas (or it would be, if I had any interest) -- where did they get it from? Have to wonder what other weapons these poor victims have in their backpacks as well. There was footage where they were attacking some paramedic too, so it's not limited to "between them". Clearly, if you are a victim who fled from violence and if you are against violence, attacking people who are trying to help you is just what you do.

(In the defense of the Syrians: They're not the main bad guys. Not few of these fights involve Pakistani and Albanians either one one side or on both. Of course there is no war in either Albania or Pakistan, none that I'm aware of anyway... so I'm puzzled how our government allows them to stay at all).

funny enough, some states have banned (tried to ban? Not upheld by a judge yet?) .50 caliber guns because they can be "too lethal",

Ironically, if you are a hunter here, and you shoot at deer, the law requires you to shoot a bullet with a caliber of at least 6.5mm which delivers at least 2kJ at a distance of 100 meters (so the minimum ballistic energy at the muzzle must be something like 3kJ, more if you shoot at longer distance). The reasoning is that you do not want a wounded animal to go rampant in the next village, nor are you to cause excess agony in the animal.

Which means that a .308 rifle is only just about powerful enough to be legal, if you shoot at deer. M855 would be "not lethal enough", though you might shoot at small game with it.

Similarly, a pistol that is to be used for a finishing shot for any type of animal (and this is the only legitimate reason to own a hand gun which you may have at home) must deliver at least 200J, so .32ACP is pretty much the smallest gun which is just about legal.

Interesting, where are you from?

So far as I know, the law in states that I have lived in is not that specific. Generally, I believe that pistol hunting requires the use of the more powerful calibers, like .357 or .44 magnum - although outside of some specialty hunting, like wild boar in the South or some of the hand-cannons that people in Alaska carry to defend against bears, I don't know many people that hunt with handguns. As far as rifles go, .22LR and others in that family are disallowed, although the .22-250 and magnum rounds are used for varmints up to coyotes. .223 is a legal hunting caliber, although realistically you'd need to use ballistic-tip hollow-points, since the low bullet mass and the high velocity doesn't have a lot of stopping power with solid bullets.

I would suspect that a lot of the older lever-action rimfire calibers that many people use in the United States for deer hunting would not satisfy that definition. Of course, the terrain that you are hunting makes a lot of difference - the areas I've hunted on the east coast are so thickly wooded, mountainous, or swampy that it is rare to get a shot at more than 100 meters.

Interesting, where are you from?

Germany.

hunting with hand guns

Generally illegal here, regardless of size. You may only, exclusively, use a hand gun for the finishing shot (either after shooting with a rifle, or when the game is in a trap). And then, you need said minimum energy.

Relevant law is here. In summary, it basically says that it's forbidden to use shot or arrows/bolts on deer and seals (heck, who is shooting seals??? everybody knows you use a club for that...) for any reason, including finishing shot. Further for small game and seals (again!) you must meet 1000J at 100m, and for deer 2000J with a caliber of at least 6.5mm. Also, you may not use automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons with more than 2 shots to aim at deer, nor may you hunt using a car (try telling that the guys in Kentucky...), and a good number of other things that aren't legal, like shooting deer at sunset or luring them with light.

But in principle, it boils down that you can legally use for example a .50 Barrett M95 or a .408 CheyTac intervention (both are bolt action), and you are allowed to have it at home (and may have it with you, presumed that you can make believe you are on your way to hunt) if you wish so.

Don't ask me what deer looks like after an encounter with a .50 BMG bullet, though... unless it's the size of an elk or a bison, I imagine this will be rather nasty.

I don't see why anyone would be against this compromise on either side of the aisle.

Ok, I can understand the argument for not needing a permit to own a gun. 2nd Amendment right and such. But, if you're selling guns, then I want you to have a permit. You don't need to be your own black market. If people need licenses/permits to sell alcohol and tobacco, then they sure as hell should for firearms.

I saw what I did there :D

Okay, lets turn to syria for a quick glance on how well an armed country can wage war against a regular army... it turns out even with real military weapons delivered by outside powers these rebels are still pretty much no match for the syrian army.

You seem to have missed the news where they took one city after another and where they blew up one building in Palmyra after the other...

I think you may be confusing the Syrian rebels with IS. They aren't the same thing.

The exact number is disputed, so they included a very low minimum, and a very high maximum. Let's take their cautiously very low minimum. Hell, half it if you want.

1/2 their cautiously low minimum would mean that guns are used for self-defense 250,000~ times a year in the country, when there's only 300,000~ violent crimes reported per year. If in those cases victims sustained fewer injuries (Above point), guns are a definite keeper for me.

The cautiously low minimum is 108k, not 500k. The difference in injury rate between armed resistance and no resistance is negligible according to the study. That is, there is a very slightly lower chance of injury if you resist with a gun than if you hadn't resisted at all. That hardly seems like a glowing indorcement when you consider how many innocent lives are lost due to the prevalence of guns.

Of course, guns are used for suicide very often in the USA because it's an effective way to do it. If we're going to ban guns to prevent suicide, we also need to ban carbon monoxide, medicine, and ropes.

I seriously wish you people would stop with this FUD. The ONLY people talking about banning guns in the country are the anti-gun control crowd. It's a scare tactic designed to derail rational gun control discussion.

It's greed that is the cause.

It's greed that is the cause.

You're going to have to elaborate on that. A lot.

Can you find that law? Because I can't.

Page 245. And, interestingly, the Congressman who delivered the amendment now regrets having done so. He wishes we had another two decades of research to draw on and acknowledges his role in chilling it.

The NRA pointed out anti-gun agenda in the initial research, congress said the evidence of that looked legitimate and the CDC took a self-imposed ban on the topic to avoid their own bias.

Scientists, especially professional researchers, don't shut down research altogether forever because they're concerned about biases. They address them as best they can, and when research is published others assess how well they did. Do you have any links to statements from CDC researchers or administrators backing up your claim that they felt the appropriate response to potential bias was to do no more research?

Obama reversed their decision by executive order, and the CDC published gun statistics for last year as well that showed guns had either a nuetral or positive impact.

The law is still on the books, so the legal risk still exists. Further, the CDC didn't do anything new in the report you linked to previously-- it's a review of existing studies done by others and a suggestion of priorities for future research. It's interesting to note that every study or statistic anyone has posted that suggests guns might be a problem you decry as biased and totally unreliable or trot out "correlation is not causation", but a result that suggests neutral or positive impacts from guns... gold! Science shows guns are awesome and safe. I've appreciated the links you have posted on this topic, but if we're talking about critical bias undermining investigation your argumentation suggests that it isn't with the CDC.

Of course, guns are used for suicide very often in the USA because it's an effective way to do it. If we're going to ban guns to prevent suicide, we also need to ban carbon monoxide, medicine, and ropes.

I seriously wish you people would stop with this FUD. The ONLY people talking about banning guns in the country are the anti-gun control crowd. It's a scare tactic designed to derail rational gun control discussion.

This.

Also, conquestor3s argument is a nirvana fallacy. Gun control won't prevent all suicides, therefore we should do nothing about it? That's patently ridiculous, like arguing that you can still die in a car crash, therefore seat belts are pointless.