Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if you want to go back to post #291, I already linked to the data - you can have a look or continue to ignore it and just keep bashing that keyboard....

More waffle. Just give us your number of gun owners, if you are capable of anything besides deflection and distraction to hide your inept arguments.

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

bullets kill by energy transfer

That's only one way they can kill.
New to this?

Dar

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's only one way they can kill.
New to this?

Yes, I hear they can be lethal when ingested as well.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

More waffle. Just give us your number of gun owners, if you are capable of anything besides deflection and distraction to hide your inept arguments.

It's in the data cited. Plus the numbers of
gun owners is a poor metric - households with guns and number of people with access to guns would be better - all of which is available in the Gallup data.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's only one way they can kill.
New to this?

Well it's physics - the kinetic energy from the bullet is transferred to the flesh and the flesh is disrupted by it - it's why a Minie ball does more damaged than a 5.56mm round. The energy from the round destroys tissue why can lead to blood loss, shock and trauma.

There may be some scope for infection to finish someone off if they are gut shot or a large calibre low velocity round carried foreign material (clothing) into the wound cavity......and I suppose chemical (lead) poisoning is a possibility

Anyway must go - The Chrimbo pArty beckons!

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I have no doubt about that. Can a gun move food around the country? Can a gun drive a kid to school? Can a gun bring a heart attack patient to hospital? Nope, but it's pretty good at shooting people.
No comparison really.

My Elk arrived. Delivered by car, admittedly but made dead by gun.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

By having a smaller, more rural, less educated, more self sustaining population who lived far shorter lives and used animal based trasnport.

It can. Virtually none of the 100 million US gun owners do.
You're reaching here Jawgap!

15 million hunting licences were issued in 2011 in the US, not to mention gunowners who need no licence either for small game or varmint reduction.

MadsL

http://www.military.com/entertainment/outdoor-guide/ar-hunting/calibers-that-hunt.html

Some education on hunting calibers and the AR platform.

Funny how everyone freaks out about these "military" guns. I always wondered why anyone would buy a "civilian-grade" gun.

"Would Sir like a less safe, less robust, less effective version of his hunting rifle?"

Jawgap

MadsL wrote: »

My Elk arrived. Delivered by car, admittedly but made dead by gun.



15 million hunting licences were issued in 2011 in the US, not to mention gunowners who need no licence either for small game or varmint reduction.

I don't think data registers with him.

Manic Moran

donvito99 wrote: »

And yes, while very few have taken the issue of the 2A head on, Miller [1939] dealing with modern legislation and 20th century issues which held that the 2A did not protect guns not used for military purposes i.e. there was no constitutional right separate and distinct to the "militia" criteria to bear arms.

Be careful of reading more into Miller than what was said. (i.e, your i.e.).

Here's the operative bit of Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense

Of course, the reason that there was no evidence is that Miller was dead and no lawyer showed up to the court to argue the case, but that's beside the point. We take the ruling at face value.

The ruling only said that they couldn't see the relationship between a sub-18" shotgun and militia purposes. What it did not address as a matter of decision was who could own them, and what -else- they could do with it when they had it. I refer you back to my arguments earlier referencing "In addition to..." and "the features which make a weapon suited for military use also make it suited to civilian use." Note also that Miller observes that people were supposed to show up with their own militia-compatible guns.

The Heller case referenced a handgun, which nobody even tried to argue has no militia use, given the US Military has about a half-million of the things. Heller is in no way contrary to any part of Miller. Indeed, note page 2 of the Heller opinion:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

There's a slightly longer section further down.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. <snip> We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns”

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.military.com/entertainment/outdoor-guide/ar-hunting/calibers-that-hunt.html

Some education on hunting calibers and the AR platform.

Funny how everyone freaks out about these "military" guns. I always wondered why anyone would buy a "civilian-grade" gun.

"Would Sir like a less safe, less robust, less effective version of his hunting rifle?"

nonsense.

You require a tool which is sufficient to kill decent sized prey or an intruder and nothing more.

a bog standard bolt loading rifle or mid gauge breach load shotgun will suffice that and any other legal practical requirement.

but many want toys so they can play out fantasies. that is the truth that some are ashamed to admit - they're adults and they want to play soldier and fvck the cost cause its never going to happen to them.

the trade off for having unnecessarily powerful, high capacity or high fire rate play things is your columbines, auroras, virginia tech etc.

all the semantics, anecdotes and whataboutery wont change the physical facts - whats available to buy is far far beyond what is physically required.

the argument to this is always either - (a) I require an automatic grenade launcher to hunt for/ to protect my family or (b) I cant counter your point so heres a rant about the constitution.


In the greater scheme theres no practical legal need for weapons with a mix of high capacity, high fire rate, high caliber, and easy conceal-ability.
For any anecdote of 'oh my ak47 saved me from a burglar' theres an anecdote that goes along the lines of 'the suspect drew the high caliber weapon from his belt and shot 5 victims dead'.


ps; there are however plenty of illegal reasons why you might want a high capacity high rate easily concealed weapon - drivebys, stick ups, slaughtering the public - try it with a cumbersome, low capacity, slow loading, long weapon.

the aurora cinema shooting f.e couldn't have had that many victims if the assailant had to reach to reload after every two shots.

yet if that had been all that was available to buy at the time, people would still be able to eat their elk and sleep in a safe home. say its not so.

Manic Moran

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

nonsense.
a bog standard bolt loading rifle or mid gauge breach load shotgun will suffice that and any other legal practical requirement.

Many of them, yes. That said, there are functions which semi-autos do better. And there are also those such as defense in public which they don't do it at all.

the trade off for having unnecessarily powerful, high capacity or high fire rate play things is your columbines, auroras, virginia tech etc.

Yes, it it. (Without the "powerful" bit as it has already been well established that more powerful weapons are necessary for hunting than the more common smaller calibres like .223). The benefit, though, is weapons which are better able to do the legal things one can do with it. Why do you only bring up the costs in a cost/benefit analysis? Especially when the costs you bring up are statistical (if emotionally jarring) blips in the larger discussion of violence in the US?

all the semantics, anecdotes and whataboutery wont change the physical facts - whats available to buy is far far beyond what is physically required.

We shall have to differ on this matter of opinion.

the argument to this is always either - (a) I require an automatic grenade launcher to hunt for/ to protect my family or (b) I cant counter your point so heres a rant about the constitution.

Forgive me, but who ever said anything about AGLs? Or even smaller types of machineguns like SMGs or automatic pistols? The Constitution is a rather significant practical point. All the ranting in the world about how one may hold the opinion that people shouldn't have weapons, or of various types, becomes rendered utterly redundant when faced with a Constitutional prohibition upon the suggested change. I note you don't list handguns as an "approved" type of firearm in your opinion, which is the one type of weapon the Supreme Court has specifically stated -is- covered by the constitution. As a result the proposed restriction falls absolutely flat on a practical basis, before one gets to debate even the merits.

In the greater scheme theres no practical legal need for weapons with a mix of high capacity, high fire rate, high caliber, and easy conceal-ability.

Every State in the Union now (After the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down Illinois last year) has some form of system for the carriage of concealed weapons, the 7th Circuit's argument being that the Constitutional right to arms mandated it. Easy concealability is a defacto requirement for this.

For any anecdote of 'oh my ak47 saved me from a burglar' theres an anecdote that goes along the lines of 'the suspect drew the high caliber weapon from his belt and shot 5 victims dead'.

Are you suggesting that the value of the life of the AK47 user is less than that of the victims who were shot dead by the criminal?

As to the ratios, you brought up Virginia Tech. Cho used semi-auto handguns, the most commonly used weapon for self defense in the US population. We've gone over "defensive gun uses" earlier in this thread. How many of those tens of thousands (minimum) other victims of crime who used their firearms does it take to balance out the 32 or so killed by Cho that year? (Before we get to the argument that those 32 were in a restricted situation by law and policy)

ps; there are however plenty of illegal reasons why you might want a high capacity high rate easily concealed weapon - drivebys, stick ups, slaughtering the public - try it with a cumbersome, low capacity, slow loading, long weapon.

And one damned good legal one. Try conducting your daily business with a Lee Enfield over your shoulder for protection.

the aurora cinema shooting f.e couldn't have had that many victims if the assailant had to reach to reload after every two shots.

True. And of all the armed defense videos one finds on YouTube, liveleak etc, how many of them are resolved with the defender only firing two shots? Statistically, it takes four shots for even a cop to obtain a hit. And, statistically, one hit won't stop the threat.

Cookie_Monster

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

the trade off for having unnecessarily powerful, high capacity or high fire rate play things is your columbines, auroras, virginia tech etc.

That's the trade off of living in the US and it's culture, rather than access to particular weapons IMO.

How come we see so little rampages and shootings in other countries with the same or similar freedom of arms compared to the US? Canada, Switzerland are the obvious two.

In fact Switzerland allows full autos to be held perfectly legally. Despite this it has the lowest murder rate in the world...

The Diabolical Monocle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That's the trade off of living in the US and it's culture, rather than access to particular weapons IMO.

How come we see so little rampages and shootings in other countries with the same or similar freedom of arms compared to the US? Canada, Switzerland are the obvious two.

In fact Switzerland allows full autos to be held perfectly legally. Despite this it has the lowest murder rate in the world...

Surprisingly the US and its culture would still exist if you tightened gun laws.

Swiss weapons are kept in the local armoury and issued rounds are sealed and regularly inspected. If you want to go blast off your govt issued weapon you can do so at a govt site.

Sounds like a great system - all for it, it allows you to indulge your inner robocop with all the exploding water melons you want and most importantly means you can go to the cinema knowing the killing machines are under lock and key.

That said, its beside the point, I know a man who smokes a lot of drugs and goes about his day fine ... doesn't mean I can do the same without going green.

Switzerland did it and he's cool isn't reason enough. You can still hunt intruders and elk with a nice boring slow weapon which has the free added bonus of being impractical for the plans of the local nutter planning on wiping out your kids class.

Cookie_Monster

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Swiss weapons are kept in the local armoury and issued rounds are sealed and regularly inspected.

420k fully automatic weapons in Swiss homes, 320k semi auto & pistol ex military weapons in Swiss homes, 'several hundred thousand other semi auto' weapons in Swiss homes, not at local armouries

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You can still hunt intruders and elk with a nice boring slow weapon which has the free added bonus of being impractical for the plans of the local nutter planning on wiping out your kids class.

There's an animal welfare issue with that. Your slow firearm is not going to be able to humanely dispatch a wounded elk quickly if you manage to not put the animal down. You, and your rifle, need to be quick as animals tend not to run towards someone firing at them. Hence the trend toward semi-automatic rifles rather than bolt action.

Dan_Solo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

420k fully automatic weapons in Swiss homes, 320k semi auto & pistol ex military weapons in Swiss homes, 'several hundred thousand other semi auto' weapons in Swiss homes, not at local armouries

Well obviously Swiss guns laws suit Swiss society. American ones do not appear to be of overall benefit to Americans.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

many want toys so they can play out fantasies.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

gun nuts.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yes boo hoo I said gun nut. [/B]

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

And after all - thats whats most important.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

fantasy and pleasure, which is paramount.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

gun nuts from playing rambo,

Since a shooter cannot recreationally shoot without you labelling shooters "gun nuts" etc. Let me ask you, what is the harm you see in recreational target shooting? If I go rent a full auto at a range, is there harm in that? What do you propose as a reform?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well obviously Swiss guns laws suit Swiss society. American ones do not appear to be of overall benefit to Americans.

There is quite a significant utility for many Americans, from hunting to 911 response times measured in hours for rural dwellers, to varmint control.

Let me ask you what laws and restrictions would you pass that would balance this utility against incidences of the mentally ill killing schoolchildren?

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Let me ask you what laws and restrictions would you pass that would balance this utility against incidences of the mentally ill killing schoolchildren?

This is interesting that you are now claiming only the mentally ill murder people with firearms. Well, why would you only want to talk about school massacres where the perpetrator is obviously insane I wonder?
None of the utility you put forward outweighs the carnage firearms cause in the US.
I've decided my hobbies are growing weaponised smallpox and assembling thermonuclear devices. It's a sport thing you see. Exact same argument.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

There's an animal welfare issue with that. Your slow firearm is not going to be able to humanely dispatch a wounded elk quickly if you manage to not put the animal down. You, and your rifle, need to be quick as animals tend not to run towards someone firing at them. Hence the trend toward semi-automatic rifles rather than bolt action.

Very well lets say I entirely concede that, theres an animal welfare issue with using tight gun laws, and its terrible and causes additional suffering to hunters prey.
Even putting aside that there are probably many ways to correct that problem without resorting to loose gun laws, you still are left with the choice of that problem or the current situation where someone can enter a cinema and kill 12 and wound 58 in seconds - something made difficult to do if the only weapons made available by you through your laws take time to reload.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Since a shooter cannot recreationally shoot without you labelling shooters "gun nuts" etc. Let me ask you, what is the harm you see in recreational target shooting? If I go rent a full auto at a range, is there harm in that? What do you propose as a reform?

Theres no harm in that, have a specialist place you can go to fire off all manner of exotic firearms to your hearts content.
Id be there joining in maybe once or twice a year for the lulz - all for it.

But the ""recreational firearms"" capable of wiping out a campus should be kept at a secured range.

The boring slow hunting weapons incapable of wiping out a cinema you can have 100% access to, allowing you to eat your deer and stay safe at home.

Cookie_Monster

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well obviously Swiss guns laws suit Swiss society. American ones do not appear to be of overall benefit to Americans.

So is American society just too juvenile to be able to handle the same level of freedoms as the Swiss?

Manic Moran

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So is American society just too juvenile to be able to handle the same level of freedoms as the Swiss?

I'm not sure if "juvenile" is quite the right word, but certainly American society needs to seriously sort out its issues on these matters.

Dan_Solo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So is American society just too juvenile to be able to handle the same level of freedoms as the Swiss?

Why are you using the word juvenile? You think Americans are juvenile? That isn't very nice, is it?
It's more likely the lack of national service that has US civilian gun owners so poorly trained to handle themselves with firearms. Switzerland has plenty of guns. It also has trained everybody with a gun how to respect it and use it safely. National service also has a way of identifying looneys who shouldn't be let buy a hedge clippers nevermind an AR15.

The Diabolical Monocle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So is American society just too juvenile to be able to handle the same level of freedoms as the Swiss?

Swiss laws are more restrictive and you do not have a right to bear arms.

copypasta from an American living in Switzerland follows:

Firearm possession in Switzerland is either an Obligation or a Privilege - It is NOT a Right!!! It is an Obligation to possess your Sig-550 if you are conscripted into the Swiss Army, and it is a Privilege to own & possess firearms if you meet certain requirements. It is NOT a Right as it is in the US - and, legally, the Police or any other Authority could confiscate your firearms at will.



myths vs facts:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

"Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S."


The stats on the page show Switzerland, with its relatively looser gun laws at the time, having higher levels of gun crime than those with tighter gun laws.
<end>


wiki:
"The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[20] However, the annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52, which is higher than neighboring countries".



Put in context of the surrounding counties of Germany, Austria, Italy and France - Switzerland has the highest firearm-related death rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Manic Moran

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

"Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S."


The stats on the page show Switzerland, with its relatively looser gun laws at the time, having higher levels of gun crime than those with tighter gun laws.
<end>


wiki:
"The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[20] However, the annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52, which is higher than neighboring countries".



Put in context of the surrounding counties of Germany, Austria, Italy and France - Switzerland has the highest firearm-related death rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I don't see how that proves a heck of a lot. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
you'll see that though Switzerland has a higher firearm homicide rate, it has a substantially lower overall homicide rate. This would make sense: Since firearms are rather efficient at killing, that they would use them if available. The knife homicide rate, presumably, is substantially higher in France, Germany, Austria and Italy to compensate in large part for the overall numbers. If you want 'intentional death rate', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate
which would include suicides as well, you'll find that French, Austrian and Italian people are finding ways to kill themselves in larger numbers than the Swiss without firearms, with only the Germans having a lower suicide rate.

The Diabolical Monocle

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't see how that proves a heck of a lot. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
you'll see that though Switzerland has a higher firearm homicide rate, it has a substantially lower overall homicide rate. This would make sense: Since firearms are rather efficient at killing, that they would use them if available. The knife homicide rate, presumably, is substantially higher in France, Germany, Austria and Italy to compensate in large part for the overall numbers. If you want 'intentional death rate', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate
which would include suicides as well, you'll find that French, Austrian and Italian people are finding ways to kill themselves in larger numbers than the Swiss without firearms, with only the Germans having a lower suicide rate.

The Intentional homicide rate can be affected by a myriad of reasons other than the country's gun policy.
Thus it is not a reliable gauge of how gun laws should be set.
To use it to justify a gun policy would be stupid.

For example.
Sudden political turmoil and poverty in France could give that country a higher intentional homicide rate as riots took place on the streets.

Economic boom and huge spending on crime prevention in Germany could reduce that country's intentional homicide rate as unemployment was reduced to 0, minimum wage set to 40 euro per hour and police spending levels were brought record levels.

In the above scenarios you could even introduce a 100% lockdown on all firearms in France while having discount machine guns available in Germany. You'd still have a higher homicide rate in France.

Pretty straight forward.

Your neighboring country's intentional homicide rate does not reflect the intelligence of your own country's gun policy.

All that said and done Im yet to hear an intelligent justification for having certain types of weapons available in the US.

Try this one - 44 caliber hand gun. Justify its public necessity.
You wont because you can't.

Hunting - a bolt load rifle/ a shotgun will do that.
Defending your home - a bolt load rifle/ a shotgun will do that.

Sticking up a newsagents - tricky walking down the street unnoticed with rifle, cumbersome to fit in the belt.
Shooting up a cinema - tricky again, you might get 4 shots off.
Doing a drive by shooting - you might get 1 shot off, it will almost certainly miss unless you work closely with the driver.


The one category where it is really a public necessity is going to a range and pretending to be dirty harry and having lots of lulz as you blow up a watermelon.
That can be done in a controlled place where you can rent such a toy, sure you dont get to take it home (oh the humanity) but then again neither does the guy in the corner of the range mumbling about gods voice and giggling as he sprays a mock crowd, one of whom looks peculiarly like your wife.

And before any anecdote about how your 44 magnum stopped a baying mob attacking your house in the middle of the night there are just as many stories from victims of assailants who were shot by the same weapon. So zero sum. Random tales cancels random tale.

Leaving you with zip.

Manic Moran

The Intentional homicide rate can be affected by a myriad of reasons other than the country's gun policy.
Thus it is not a reliable gauge of how gun laws should be set.
To use it to justify a gun policy would be stupid.

Is it more important to you how someone is killed than it is how many people are killed? If it is demonstrated by a comparison of the neighboring European countries that the availability of firearms seems to have little relevance to the overall rates at which people are being killed (homicide or suicide), then surely laws and government policy should be aimed at reducing the overall levels of death, not the method used to carry it out, no?

Hunting - a bolt load rifle/ a shotgun will do that.

Hunting with a handgun is a sport in the US, and for larger game such as hogs, a .44 revolver (or bigger) is quite suitable. It's considered a more challenging sport than using a rifle given how much closer the hunter has to get.

Besides, given how big a .44 is, more crime is conducted with smaller caliber handguns such as 9mm.

Defending your home - a bolt load rifle/ a shotgun will do that

Both have their disadvantages in the scenario, but the bolt-action rifle is absolutely unsuited for it.

The semi-auto handgun is the weapon most commonly chosen by the law abiding US citizen for self defense. The semi-auto rifle is the weapon most commonly chosen by the law-abiding citizen for rifle uses. There is a reason that this is the case, it's not because tens of millions of US citizens are a frothing-at-the-mouth gun nut who orgasms at the thought of the word 'semi-auto.' It's because they are so good at the roles that the law abiding citizen uses them for that they put their money up for them.

UCDVet

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Swiss laws are more restrictive and you do not have a right to bear arms.

copypasta from an American living in Switzerland follows:

Firearm possession in Switzerland is either an Obligation or a Privilege - It is NOT a Right!!! It is an Obligation to possess your Sig-550 if you are conscripted into the Swiss Army, and it is a Privilege to own & possess firearms if you meet certain requirements. It is NOT a Right as it is in the US - and, legally, the Police or any other Authority could confiscate your firearms at will.

Aside from people quoting things online - I think you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that there is any practical difference in the 'right' US citizens have to own a gun verse the 'privilege' Swedish folk have. (but maybe I'm wrong, no offence intended)

It depends a lot on the individual state - but many states in the US require a license or permit to own a gun. They may also require the gun to be registered. There are also a lot of laws that dictate what types of gun you can own, along with where guns can be brought. That includes entire cities where you can't carry a gun at all.

Aside from all that, there are a whole lot of people who aren't allowed to legally own guns in the US.
Fugitives
Illegal aliens
Unlawful users of certain drugs
Those committed to a mental institution
Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
Those convicted of domestic violence.
Anyone convicted of a felony.

In addition to the above you need to submit to a background check (and pass).

Those are just the federal regulations. Individual states can have more. For example in Massachusetts you need to own a approved lock/gun safe for storage of the fire arm.

So, in practice, it's a 'right' in exactly the same way it's a 'right' to drive a car. You have to follow the rules, drive the right kind of car, and if you do something bad, they take away your ability to legally drive.

The Diabolical Monocle

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is it more important to you how someone is killed than it is how many people are killed? If it is demonstrated by a comparison of the neighboring European countries that the availability of firearms seems to have little relevance to the overall rates at which people are being killed (homicide or suicide), then surely laws and government policy should be aimed at reducing the overall levels of death, not the method used to carry it out, no?

Does it matter how people are being killed ? .... eh, yes.

Obviously its going to be a wee bit difficult to introduce a new policy to suddenly reduce homicide and suicide in all forms.

But when you find a stat thats sticking out like a sore thumb and that you can actually apply measures to, well then you have something to work with.

Its significantly more difficult, sticky and (in certain circumstances) dangerous to kill someone, including yourself, with practically any weapon other than a gun.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hunting with a handgun is a sport in the US, and for larger game such as hogs, a .44 revolver (or bigger) is quite suitable. It's considered a more challenging sport than using a rifle given how much closer the hunter has to get.

Besides, given how big a .44 is, more crime is conducted with smaller caliber handguns such as 9mm.

You're now actually basing your approach to gun control policy on the challenge level of close in hog hunting.

Didn't ask you to explain the public necessity of 9mm handguns, although Id challenge that too.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Both have their disadvantages in the scenario, but the bolt-action rifle is absolutely unsuited for it.

As its equally unsuited for shooting up a school. A shotgun will more than suffice for defending your home.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The semi-auto handgun is the weapon most commonly chosen by the law abiding US citizen for self defense. The semi-auto rifle is the weapon most commonly chosen by the law-abiding citizen for rifle uses. There is a reason that this is the case, it's not because tens of millions of US citizens are a frothing-at-the-mouth gun nut who orgasms at the thought of the word 'semi-auto.' It's because they are so good at the roles that the law abiding citizen uses them for that they put their money up for them.

Yes it the most chosen .... and what.
If I lived somewhere where monster trucks were available to the public as road vehicles the beastmax1000 would be the most chosen, doesn't mean theres any practical civil need for it. Im sure if you could get crack in tescos there'd be a most popular, best selling crack pipe too for the good law abiding crack smokers.

Indeed theres not 10's of millions of gun nuts in America with its population of 300+ million, but I'd wager that there are millions, many of whom do indeed froth and at least some who add in the orgasm.

If you think theres not just say so and Ill be back soon to show you some youtube clips of people with a fetish for weapons even at their adult age.

They'll be sporting high speed high caliber killing machines with more bad ass bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at - but of course they need them for hunting hogs.