Yes. You would need a class 3 permit, and the gun itself would be disgustingly expensive. I'm not sure what an M134 goes for, but it's probably tens of thousands of dollars. Then you could be one of these people. The guy at the end of the first video has one. Keep in mind that 7.62/.308 is an expensive round. So you would need a shitload of money to shoot a gun like that.
Here is the reality. This is America, so if you have enough money and/or the right contacts everything is allowed. You can probably get a nuclear warhead for your basement. But for the average person, no, you can't own these weapons. They don't outright tell you that you can't own them. But they make it prohibitively expensive and the paperwork is extremely intrusive.
Utah has become the first in the U.S. to officially designate a "state gun": the Browning M1911. I'm sure the other red states are kicking themselves for not coming up with this first. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792633
I can't really fault them on their choice. The M1911 is one of the best designed pistols of all time. That it went through two world wars and is still in use a century later is a testament to that.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/09/netherlands.mall.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1 I thought crazy spree shootings didn't happen in Western Europe because of your strict gun laws. Looks like this completely disproves that.
I never said they didn't happen at all. Gun laws (like every other law it seems) in the Netherlands are more relaxed than over here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom Because guns are illegal perhaps? The bottom line is the more people who are allowed to have guns, the more shootings there will be.
Don't forget the higher the population and the less social security options the more likely it is for someone who's clinically insane to be able to acquire them too. It's fairly obvious that America isn't set up well to take care of its mentally disturbed, and because of their gun laws it's all too easy for someone to pick one up. I think AKS commented on how little there is to ensure people get the treatment they need and deserve. Frankly, it's appalling.
That's one factor, but there are some others that are more important. One of the key issues with the culture in the US is that the crowds that tend to gravitate most towards gun ownership are kept in constant fear by the right wing extremists on Fox News and talk radio. I would agree that guns are far too easy to acquire here, which is largely due to the power of the National Rifle Association. Access to mental health and psychiatric care for the poor is also extremely limited here; limited access to mental health care and easy access to gun ownership is not the best combination. Tougher screening and background checks would be a good idea, but I definitely disagree with the idea of banning gun ownership. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and do not commit crimes of any sort. There's also a big difference in geography between the UK and the US. Quite a few people live in rural, and sometimes remote, areas. Someone living a 15- to 20-minute drive from any town can't be expected to wait for the police while a group of men are kicking his door in. Gun ownership in rural areas in the US makes quite a bit of sense, and it also tends to be part of the culture. Many kids in rural areas grow up hunting or using rifles to defend farms or ranches from predatory animals at a rather young age; there's nothing wrong with that. Of course I don't want to see citizens acquiring rocket launchers or that sort of thing, but as others have stated that's not something you're likely to see outside of a very wealthy collector who has the connections and money to acquire such things. On the other hand, ownership of a shot gun for personal protection or a rifle for hunting make quite a bit of sense, especially in rural areas and in rural culture in general.
This is a stupid comparison. That's like saying US vehicle deaths can be avoided if we had a public transportation system as good as Europe. It's not feasible. For the most part, guns are banned in major cities and metro areas here, except for the hardcore red states. They make you jump through hoops to own a gun in NYC, even then most apartments forbid having one on the premises. In rural areas you need guns, because there are no police. It literally consists of 2 sheriffs deputies who could be one hour away. Also, our gun homicides include drug cartel killings and all sorts of gang welfare. It's not like 10,000 regular citizens murder their neighbors each year.
This is true. My family is from Vermont, which is one of the most rural states in the US. Everyone owns guns because it could take the police literally an hour or so to get to you if there's a problem.
It's odd though, trouble never seems to crop up in Australian rural areas which if anything seem to be more remote than American ones. So why is it that there is so much more crime in American rural Areas than Australian ones?
That's stupid. No-one NEEDS guns. If guns weren't so easy to come by surely you wouldn't feel the NEED to protect yourself all the time. It's the stereotypical American attitude "If everyone has guns we'll all be safer". Ridiculous. I do kind of sympathise with you guys though. I do think it's too late to ban guns now. There's too many people with too many guns for banning to have any effect. The problem is too large to be sorted, so I guess the only thing to do is arm everyone and hope for the best.
You're told people need guns where there are no police and you think that's stupid? By that rationale, are police needed at all?
There actually isn't that much crime in rural areas. They are pretty tight-knit communities. Most crimes takes place in big cities, where guns are very hard to come by actually. Most of America is grizzly territory.
Like I said, I think I've come to realise the situation over there. I think you do need guns over there because a mistake was made a couple of hundred years ago regarding people owning guns.