However, The more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the less crime there is. (look at the crime stats in places with tighter gun laws vs those with fewer gun laws)
Uh, what? Statistically speaking, the exact opposite of this is true. Perhaps state by state it is correct (I can't say as I don't have the facts), but in places like Canada or Great Britain, where gun control is much more strict, gun-related violence (and crime in general) is much lower. MUCH lower. The United States is obsessed with guns, it is pretty obvious. The police at the airport have assault rifles; why? What do they expect is going to happen? Do they really think heavily armed jihadists are going to storm in with AKs and start shooting up the place? A pistol is enough to subdue an individual or even an entire group of people. Hell, for many years British police didn't even carry guns; the idea of authority and the obvious notion of crime and punishment was enough to keep the power in the hands of the police. Their proficiency with clubs didn't hurt, either.
Generally speaking, guns only lead to escalating violence. If the police have a club, all you need if you want to protect yourself from the police is a bigger club, or more guys with clubs. If the guy next door has a club, then all you need is some rocks and a club and you've trumped him. But if the guy next door has a gun, well shit, what is your club going to do? Sure, he's a damn good neighbour and a nice guy and a family man, but he has a gun! At any moment, he could take everything you own. YOU NEED A GUN TOO, RIGHT? And the criminals, well, they see you guys have guns. But they're criminals, and they want to rob you. But you have guns. But they want to rob you! Ugh, it's so confusing for them! But wait, they can get guns. Bigger guns. More guns. Lots of guns. Then they can rob you. Which they want to do, because they are criminals.
Locks are for the honest man, KK4. I don't lock my door because I am worried some burglar is going to try my front door and find it unlocked and invite himself in, I lock my door so some punk kid doesn't wander into my house because he is dumb and drunk. If some burglar wants to get into my house, he will smash the lock, or break a window. The same goes for guns. If a criminal wants to rob you, he's not going to be stopped by your gun. He might go after an easier target, but they're only easier until they get a gun. Then he is at an impasse. Everyone has guns, but he still wants to rob people, so he buys a gun. He's more resolute and determined to use it, and all you've done by arming yourself is to make you more of a threat to him. He robs you, and because you have a gun, he shoots you. You later die on the operating table, because all the (privately owned) ambulances are busy trying to rescue other gunshot victims.
The reason crime rates in small towns that have more guns are lower is not because they have more guns, it is because they have less poor people and thereby have less criminals. I'm not saying all poor people are criminals, or anything, but generally speaking being completely out of money and hopeless is the leading cause of criminal development.
Gun ownership is a microcosm (and a very obvious one) of the arms race in general; you need a bigger gun to make sure your neighbours bigger guns don't outclass yours. I don't own a gun, and no one I know owns a gun. Not even the guys who I know to be criminals. Hell, no one I have ever talked to has mentioned having seen a gun outside of a police holster (barring the internet and TV and pictures and shit, obviously). Therefore, I don't feel in danger because I don't have a gun. If a criminal robs me, he might beat me up and take my money, but he doesn't have a gun, and neither do I, so nobody is going to get shot. Sure, violent crimes still happen, but generally speaking they wouldn't have been prevented if one party had a gun, anyways. If you see some guy walking toward you at night, are you going to pull your gun out and shoot him at twenty paces? No, you're going to have to wait until he's within arm's reach and he stabs you, or whatever.
I think the Wild West played a greater part in American Civilization than most people like to take seriously; in Europe cities were built and walled and people got on with their lives. The town had a town guard, a militia, who took care of minor matters of defence while the rest of the city got on with their lives. The national government took care of serious military threats, as was their role. Over time, the militia evolved into police forces, and the walls fell into disrepair because nobody needed them anymore. In the USA, frontier towns were rugged and on their own; no walls, no militia, just a sheriff and a handful of deputies and every other man for himself. Each man carried a gun to make his own fortune, each town had their own justice, only loosely affiliated with any singular national body. If that doesn't play to the sentiment of modern day libertarians, I don't know what does.
I understand collecting guns because they are interesting; I myself am very interested in them. But I wouldn't need to fire them. Hell, they wouldn't even have to have firing pins, never mind being fully automatic. They are interesting tools of history, but do you really need to shoot them? Yes, it's of course more interesting, but does it really outweigh the cost? And do you really need looser blanket gun laws (that govern modern day armaments) because you want a WW2 Luger that fires, and you want your hobby to be less expensive?
I hope my words have stirred some thoughts in you.