Support NeoGAF

[LuCkymoON]

ohhh he's such a badass!

 

[THRILLH0]

I live in California so I have to deal with the 10 round magazine restriction.

I can empty a 10 round magazine with my G19 in about 1-2 seconds. Reload takes another 2-3 seconds.

Given the 10 round restriction, I have to carry 3 magazines on me to have 30 rounds which is highly uncomfortable. The Sheriff expressed his sympathy for me when he informed me he carries the same piece as me but has 30 rounds with only 2 magazines.

Do you realise you just completely contradicted your previous point and have disproved your own argument?

 

[markot]

You can get higher capacity magazines for handguns and .223 ammunition is not significantly more lethal than most handgun ammunition. Banning "Assault Rifles" is not going to stop or mitigate mass shootings.

Right. So why do they use assault rifles then?

Could it be, they are more leathal and designed to do more damage in a limited amount of time?

Your argument holds no water, you have to know thats not true... a hand gun is not as dangerous as an assault rigle, otherwise, armies would use them as main assault rifles. They dont. They use the deadlier weapon with longer range and higher capacity for killing in a short amount of time.

And the idiotic 'we need guns to keep gov in check' falls to pieces because most guns legally obtainable are rather innefective against a marine with full equiptment and body armour... and you have to deal with missiles and capacities the 'founding fathers' never could have dreamt with. To keep the US gov in check and actually act as a 'deterrant' youd need sam, youd need a nuclear capability... And people 'lol' this argument, but its 100% true, a few assault rifles wont stop the US army if it decides to flatten NY. Because they were talking about Muskets. Muskets.

Inaccurate, long reload, single shot, muskets.

Had it been written in ye olde times they would have used swords in their wording. Had they been alive, do you honestly think they would think it a good idea to keep a 'citizen militia' alongside the US army with the same capabilities? For one, only billionaires would be able to affor any decent equiptment.

Times change, and rather then living in fear of government, how about actually getting involved with it?

 

[CyclopsRock]

You don't have to support their position to acknowledge that digital printing will have a huge impact in the effectiveness of any future weapon legislation. Obviously you can't print cordite, but it's better to take these things into account than to pretend they don't exist. This isn't just the case in the domestic weapons market either, of course.

 

[THRILLH0]

Nope not it. I'll try to find it. Stockton had 71 homicides just last year. 58 in 2011, so it's increasing. Things sorta get buried with that sort of data.

The local news has even become lazy in reporting it nowadays.

But back on page one you told us that shootings are not rising. Then within the space of 2 posts you conceded that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns but then argued that criminals in your area are packing AK-47s.

You equivocating like a motherfucker.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Right. So why do they use assault rifles then?

Could it be, they are more leathal and designed to do more damage in a limited amount of time? Considering the bodycount in the Virginia Tech shooting I believe pistols are just as deadly in a lunatics hands.

Your argument holds no water, you have to know thats not true... a hand gun is not as dangerous as an assault rigle, otherwise, armies would use them as main assault rifles. They dont. They use the deadlier weapon with longer range and higher capacity for killing in a short amount of time.

The real question is if semi-automatic rifles blinked out of existence would that stop any suicidal lunatic from obtaining a handgun or a shotgun and going on a rampage?

And the idiotic 'we need guns to keep gov in check' falls to pieces because most guns legally obtainable are rather innefective against a marine with full equiptment and body armour... and you have to deal with missiles and capacities the 'founding fathers' never could have dreamt with. To keep the US gov in check and actually act as a 'deterrant' youd need sam, youd need a nuclear capability... And people 'lol' this argument, but its 100% true, a few assault rifles wont stop the US army if it decides to flatten NY. Because they were talking about Muskets. Muskets.

Inaccurate, long reload, single shot, muskets.

Had it been written in ye olde times they would have used swords in their wording. Had they been alive, do you honestly think they would think it a good idea to keep a 'citizen militia' alongside the US army with the same capabilities? For one, only billionaires would be able to affor any decent equiptment.

You want to piss all over the 2nd Amendment that's fine, but why stop there? Let's re-work the 1st Amendment too. Make it illegal to put the face of the mass shooter anywhere on TV/Print media. Make it illegal for the media to say his name. His identify should be sealed and remain a mystery. The coward should be remembered as his lived his life: Alone and forgotten. I mean, there's a fucking fan club for the Aurora Shooter. The name "Eric Harris" is still a household name. They have achieved what they wanted: To be remembered. I say fuck the law and take that away from them. The founders never meant for the 1st Amendment to be used to glorify mass murderers. Do it or else you obviously don't care about keeping people safe! Same with violent entertainment. We obviously should limit that because of a few fringe lunatics that can't seem to digest it properly and feed on it to fuel their violent delusions. For the greater good!

Times change, and rather then living in fear of government, how about actually getting involved with it?

The point was that the People should be involved with their Government and always maintained the means to resist tyranny should the government ever go crazy in such a way. Reading history books it's pretty evident to see it's happened time and time again. I never bought the argument that "Oh the US would roflstomp you so fast and easy" line. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq show otherwise. Wars aren't won by who has the most nukes, tanks, and jets...they're won by who can endure the most. George Washington lost more battles than he won....but he out endured the British. He didn't "beat" them in terms of destroying their Nation or anything like that. Same with the North Vietnamese. In a straight fight they stood no chance against the might of the US. But they endured. That's what the Second Amendment is about in theory. And forgive me for getting on this little rant. Do I truly believe the US Government is going to flip out any day now? LMAO no. But that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. To give Americans the ability to resist such a possibility. Don't ignore that because we're currently comfortable with our iPhones and Netflix.

 

[remist]

Right. So why do they use assault rifles then?

Could it be, they are more leathal and designed to do more damage in a limited amount of time?

Your argument holds no water, you have to know thats not true... a hand gun is not as dangerous as an assault rigle, otherwise, armies would use them as main assault rifles. They dont. They use the deadlier weapon with longer range and higher capacity for killing in a short amount of time.

Armies use assault rifles because they are not shooting at unarmed people. They need to be accurate at longer ranges. Most mass shootings take place at relatively close range where a handgun is just as deadly as a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[u mad]

Do you realise you just completely contradicted your previous point and have disproved your own argument?

What argument was I making again? I know I said I'd leave this thread, but I thought it might come off as rude to not respond. If you want we can converse via PM.

But back on page one you told us that shootings are not rising. Then within the space of 2 posts you conceded that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns but then argued that criminals in your area are packing AK-47s.

You equivocating like a motherfucker.

I said mass shootings are not on the rise. IIRC there is also a decline in homicides

No rise in mass killings, but their impact is huge
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218,0,6511082.story

As homicides decline, rate of mass killings constant
http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2012/12/as-homicides-decline-rate-of-mass.html

Mass, multiple murders rates constant despite overall decline in homicides
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2012/dec/17/mass-multiple-murders-rates-constant-despite-overa/
---

Yes, there is an increase in crime where I live. But where I live is not representative of the USA as a whole.

 

[LuCkymoON]

The real question is if semi-automatic rifles blinked out of existence would that stop any suicidal lunatic from obtaining a handgun or a shotgun and going on a rampage?



You want to piss all over the 2nd Amendment that's fine, but why stop there? Let's re-work the 1st Amendment too. Make it illegal to put the face of the mass shooter anywhere on TV/Print media. Make it illegal for the media to say his name. His identify should be sealed and remain a mystery. The coward should be remembered as his lived his life: Alone and forgotten. I mean, there's a fucking fan club for the Aurora Shooter. The name "Eric Harris" is still a household name. They have achieved what they wanted: To be remembered. I say fuck the law and take that away from them. The founders never meant for the 1st Amendment to be used to glorify mass murderers. Do it or else you obviously don't care about keeping people safe! Same with violent entertainment. We obviously should limit that because of a few fringe lunatics that can't seem to digest it properly and feed on it to fuel their violent delusions. For the greater good!




The point was that the People should be involved with their Government and always maintained the means to resist tyranny should the government ever go crazy in such a way. Reading history books it's pretty evident to see it's happened time and time again. I never bought the argument that "Oh the US would roflstomp you so fast and easy" line. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq show otherwise. Wars aren't won by who has the most nukes, tanks, and jets...they're won by who can endure the most. George Washington lost more battles than he won....but he out endured the British. He didn't "beat" them in terms of destroying their Nation or anything like that. Same with the North Vietnamese. In a straight fight they stood no chance against the might of the US. But they endured. That's what the Second Amendment is about in theory. And forgive me for getting on this little rant. Do I truly believe the US Government is going to flip out any day now? LMAO no. But that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. To give Americans the ability to resist such a possibility. Don't ignore that because we're currently comfortable with our iPhones and Netflix.

This would only be true if these armed militia groups in the states got outside help like in the case with all of your examples. The majority of these militia groups are separatist movements and probably would not receive or seek outside help.

 

[markot]

Vietnam Afghanistan and Iraq prove nothing you're trying to prove.

I can't even bothered going into the rest. Your ate not gonna change my mind. I won't change yours.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

This would only be true if these armed militia groups in the states got outside help like in the case with all of your examples. The majority of these militia groups are separatist movements and probably would not receive or seek outside help.

LMAO. Let me clarify. I'm not talking about some wacko para-military group that decides to overthrow Obama or some silly shit. In theory I'm talking about a HUGE portion of the American population resisting what most rational people would consider a tyrannical Government. Once again, let me clarify: I'm talking about a tyrannical government in theory. As such I believe popular support in the world would be on the side of those fighting against such obvious tyranny.

(I really do hate this line of thinking about overthrowing a tyrannical government. I don't think that's a current concern in 2013. I really don't. But it wasn't a concern when the founders wrote it either. But they wanted to make sure...just in case so it could never happen slowly over time again.)

 

[commedieu]

LMAO. Let me clarify. I'm not talking about some wacko para-military group that decides to overthrow Obama or some silly shit. In theory I'm talking about a HUGE portion of the American population resisting what most rational people would consider a tyrannical Government. Once again, let me clarify: I'm talking about a tyrannical government in theory. As such I believe popular support in the world would be on the side of those fighting against such obvious tyranny.

(I really do hate this line of thinking about overthrowing a tyrannical government. I don't think that's a current concern in 2013. I really don't. But it wasn't a concern when the founders wrote it either. But they wanted to make sure...just in case so it could never happen slowly over time again.)

You should write a script or something with all your retorts... I gotta give it to you for being so adamant about this. I just see the same arguments from everyone every single thread... maybe ill make an app...

yeah...gaffers love apps...

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Vietnam Afghanistan and Iraq prove nothing you're trying to prove.

It shows that wars aren't won by raw force anymore. It's about who achieves their goals in the long term. The North Vietnamese won. Popular support has faded dramatically for Iraq and Afghanistan and we're leaving there. You think they're gonna build Walmarts and Microcenters now? They endured.

I can't even bothered going into the rest. Your ate not gonna change my mind. I won't change yours.

Something we can agree on. I can respect that.

 

[LuCkymoON]

LMAO. Let me clarify. I'm not talking about some wacko para-military group that decides to overthrow Obama or some silly shit. In theory I'm talking about a HUGE portion of the American population resisting what most rational people would consider a tyrannical Government. Once again, let me clarify: I'm talking about a tyrannical government in theory. As such I believe popular support in the world would be on the side of those fighting against such obvious tyranny.

(I really do hate this line of thinking about overthrowing a tyrannical government. I don't think that's a current concern in 2013. I really don't. But it wasn't a concern when the founders wrote it either. But they wanted to make sure...just in case so it could never happen slowly over time again.)

I would like for you to explain the scenario in which this could actually happen. Keep in mind Swamp People comes on soon and I may or may not read your post.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I would like for you to explain the scenario in which this could actually happen. Keep in mind Swamp People comes on soon and I may more not read your post.

Oh stop, lol.

Hold on, lemme pull this crystal ball out of my ass. Done. Well, I can tell you the future stinks. No seriously, I have no idea. And I'll be the first to concede that. But there's no denying the founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution as a contingency against such an occurrence. As unlikely as it has been it seemed likely enough to them to justify its inclusion.

I never grew up thinking the government was my friend and had my best interest at heart. Something about Slavery, Segregation and the Tuskegee experiments always made me question blind faith that the government would never hurt its people...

Do I think it's likely to happen in the next 50 years? No. Long after we're dead and gone? I do not know how things could change that could create the conditions. But as long as more and more people are willing to give up freedom for the illusion of security that's always a risk.

 

[subrock]

No seriously, I'm curious what they mean by undetermined.

The intent was undetermined.

 

[subrock]

What does adding suicides to violent crimes committed against others statistics do besides inflate a number to make it seem worse?

Do you think that the number of suicides by gun is unrelated to the number of guns?

 

[jchap]

So they printed a box and bought the parts you actually need to make it a clip

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

So they printed a box and bought the parts you actually need to make it a clip

No.

They printed a box and bought the parts you actually need to make it a magazine.

 

[Dead Man]

Do you think that the number of suicides by gun is unrelated to the number of guns?

Do you think the number of suicides is related to the number of guns?

No.

They printed a box and bought the parts you actually need to make it a magazine.

Nomenclature again, I love it

 

[Bodacious]

So they printed a box and bought the parts you actually need to make it a clip

If they can print the 'box', then they can also print the follower. The only other necessary component is the spring, and that's not exactly a hi-tech item either. Some steel wire, basic tools, and a butane torch and voila:

 

[antonz]

Do you think that the number of suicides by gun is unrelated to the number of guns?

I find that people who intend to commit suicide pick whats the easiest option available to them at that particular moment in time. Gun ownership being legal means it will likely be the easiest option available for many but removing the gun from the equation does not remove the suicide.

There are some very interesting numbers with these deaths too. Government has found its men who make up the bulk of Gun Suicides while women prefer to poison themselves. That poisoning is typically with legally obtained pharmaceuticals which could raise the question on why don't we have stricter control there. 40% of female suicides are directly tied to legal drugs.

Japan has been on a 15 year trend of over 30,000 suicides a year that is with the lack of guns etc. In fact they have a far more violent society statistically in that regard than even the US

 

[Spring-Loaded]

If they can print the 'box', then they can also print the follower. The only other necessary component is the spring, and that's not exactly a hi-tech item either. Some steel wire, basic tools, and a butane torch and voila:

I'm not sure how to feel about this

 

[StudioTan]

Can you explain?

Guns = liberty and freedom

 

[Hitokage]

But as long as more and more people are willing to give up freedom for the illusion of security that's always a risk.

If only we had other societies to compare to so we could determine whether that security is illusory.

 

[travisbickle]

Guns = liberty and freedom

How is killing a person exercising that persons rights of freedom in a Libertarian society?

 

[Hitokage]

How is killing a person exercising that persons rights of freedom in a Libertarian society?

If we can't kill people then why do we have guns?

 

[I H8 Memes]

I'm looking forward to when nonomachines are used for assassination. Just fly that fucker inside the target body and wreak havok. Like tear up their heart or something. Going to be awesome when we can 3D print those too.

 

[Yagharek]

The real question is if semi-automatic rifles blinked out of existence would that stop any suicidal lunatic from obtaining a handgun or a shotgun and going on a rampage?

No, but the slower reload times and nature of the weapons themselves (shotgun spread versus a single bullet from an AR) and killing range etc would surely see a different type of incident. It's not a stretch to assume that more reload time + smaller clip/magazine and less accurate weapons would result in smaller death tolls next time someone goes nuts and starts shooting people.

How many people do you think would have died a the batman cinema shooting if he went in armed with a 12-gauge instead of an AR before he got overpowered and disarmed?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm looking forward to when nonomachines are used for assassination. Just fly that fucker inside the target body and wreak havok. Like tear up their heart or something. Going to be awesome when we can 3D print those too.

Artificial immune systems as part of standard universal health care laugh at your nanobot attack.

 

[Freshmaker]

How is killing a person exercising that persons rights of freedom in a Libertarian society?

You enhance your freedom by removing theirs.

 

[Shig]

Do you think the number of suicides is related to the number of guns?

Yes, most definitely. I'm certain I wouldn't be here if my parents had kept a gun around during my teenage depression years. 100 percent.

Suicide's a very selfish act but there are those who approach it with a measure of practicality and are mindful of minimizing any potential societal disruption. I wasn't going to throw myself off a bridge and ruin a bunch of peoples' days, I wasn't going to do anything that would give me prolonged pain and potentially end in failure, shame, and hospital bills. Were there an option as easy as point & click, with a guaranteed outcome? I would have gone for it.

Sorry, I know that's really dark, but it's the truth. I'm really glad now that's not how it played out.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Yes, most definitely. I'm certain I wouldn't be here if my parents had kept a gun around during my teenage depression years. 100 percent.

Same here in my current situation. I'm perfectly fine being denied that right.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Here’s a video of Defense Distributed’s latest testing. The clip begins with a dry question from Wilson: “How’s that national conversation going?” a reference to Democratic House majority leader Nancy Pelosi’s call for a “national conversation” about gun control following the December massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q10Jz2qIog8

What a smug piece of shit.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, most definitely. I'm certain I wouldn't be here if my parents had kept a gun around during my teenage depression years. 100 percent.

Suicide's a very selfish act but there are those who approach it with a measure of practicality and are mindful of minimizing any potential societal disruption. I wasn't going to throw myself off a bridge and ruin a bunch of peoples' days, I wasn't going to do anything that would give me prolonged pain and potentially end in failure, shame, and hospital bills. Were there an option as easy as point & click, with a guaranteed outcome? I would have gone for it.

Sorry, I know that's really dark, but it's the truth. I'm really glad now that's not how it played out.

That is shitty, and I hope you are doing better now, and thanks for being able to tell your story, but there is a very low correlation between gun ownership and suicide rate by country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

[ClassyPenguin]

But gun ownership is one of the reasons for the higher rate of veterans suicide compared to civilians. Up until very recent it was illegal to ask soldiers and veterans about private gun ownership even in high risk cases.

Drug overdose is on the rise compared to gun suicide.

 

[DarkFlow]

I know this won't be a popular post, but the 2nd Amendment wasn't put in the Bill of Rights so citizens could go hunting, or so they could defend themselves within the confines of their homes in the event of a burglary, or so they could go out an practice at a target range as a form of recreation. The 2nd Amendment is there to make sure that people can fight, effectively, with guns. Guns that are on-par with the standard issue weapon in the army. The SCOTUS has issued rulings consistent with this interpretation, repeatedly.

If you don't like that this has been included in the Bill of Rights, then do your best to get it repealed. It was intended by those who wrote the Constitution as in integral component of the contract between the government and the governed - the people were to always keep in their possession the ability to meaningfully resist any foreign invasion or imposition of tyranny. It was an attempt by soldiers in 1775 at Lexington/Concord to confiscate privately owned weapons that sparked the Revolutionary War, so there can be little mistake that this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee. It doesn't matter if you think it is anachronistic, or unrealistic .... it is still the supreme law of the land. It is a fundamental right, which the Constitution specifically says shall not be infringed.


More kids will die this year from drunk driving than have ever been killed in random mass shootings involving semi-auto weapons, and a simple 'blow-n-go' device could easily be built into every car at a reasonable cost, but nobody's out there screaming for that to happen. Why? Because it's the drunk's fault, not everyone else's.

Sweet, I'm going to go get a m240b and set up a machine gun nest in my window. Need to protect myself ya know.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So...

...we will be able to download an automatic assault rifle off the internet?

edit: watched the video. I can't lie...that shit was dope. "...tastes like Dianne Feinstein's lunch..." I chuckled a bit and the lack of fucks given. The boldness of it all. Maybe because it's 6am and I'm tired as hell.

People are already trying that, but the types of plastics they use in 3D printers are too weak to work for guns.

No doubt. I guess I meant more "down the road" as opposed to today. I know the types of materials these machines can work with are very limited at the moment. But a few years from now? A decade from now? Smells like a brave new world. I hope the regulators are ready for it.

 

[lednerg]

So...

...we will be able to download an automatic assault rifle off the internet?

People are already trying that, but the types of plastics they use in 3D printers are too weak to work for guns.

 

[Dead Man]

So...

...we will be able to download an automatic assault rifle off the internet?

edit: watched the video. I can't lie...that shit was dope. "...tastes like Dianne Feinstein's lunch..." I chuckled a bit and the lack of fucks given. The boldness of it all. Maybe because it's 6am and I'm tired as hell.




No doubt. I guess I meant more "down the road" as opposed to today. I know the types of materials these machines can work with are very limited at the moment. But a few years from now? A decade from now? Smells like a brave new world. I hope the regulators are ready for it.

You thought internet regulation was bad before, wait until you can download a car.

 

[Jackpot]

Can't print bullets. Time to ban them.

Also possession of a printed mag will still be a crime and only people with access to 3D printers will be able to get them. Basic rule of supply and demand will see there's a lot less in circulation.

 

[iapetus]

What does adding suicides to violent crimes committed against others statistics do besides inflate a number to make it seem worse?

Let's look at those same countries with most recent per-100k-population gun homicide rates, then.

US: 3.7
Switzerland: 0.52
France: 0.22
Finland: 0.26
Belgium: 0.29
Austria: 0.18
Canada: 0.5
Iceland: N/A
Norway: 0.04
Czech Repulic: 0.12

Hey, look! The US is even worse compared to these countries if we just look at homicides!

 

[Bodacious]

Sweet, I'm going to go get a m240b and set up a machine gun nest in my window. Need to protect myself ya know.

First of all, an m240b is not the 'standard issue weapon' of the US Army (look back at my post). For that matter, neither is an AR-15. But anyway, CaptYamato already made a similar reply on the last page. You'll need a Class 3 ffl dealer for that. And probably around $50,000 to $75,000, maybe more.

 

[MIMIC]

I know this won't be a popular post, but the 2nd Amendment wasn't put in the Bill of Rights so citizens could go hunting, or so they could defend themselves within the confines of their homes in the event of a burglary, or so they could go out an practice at a target range as a form of recreation. The 2nd Amendment is there to make sure that people can fight, effectively, with guns. Guns that are on-par with the standard issue weapon in the army. The SCOTUS has issued rulings consistent with this interpretation, repeatedly.

Could you please explain this? I don't quite understand the difference between what I put in bold and what I underlined.

If you're in your home warding off a burglar, aren't you "fighting" there, too?

1) Well, I took constitutional law, passed the bar exam, and have about 15 years' experience in criminal law including 5 years as a prosecuting attorney, so I'm probably qualified to state an opinion on the subject. How 'bout you?

heh

 

[Deleted member 1235]

this can't be right, switzerland is always held up as the model of 'but everyone in switzerland has a gun and they're fine!' by pro gun folks...

 

[Cotton McKnight]

Not to go completely off topic here but:

1. I have no clue what the new New York statures are calling for.

2. If they are calling for a person that is not mentally fit to have a fire arm, I am ok with this.

3. If they are calling for a person that is not mentally fit to go through a process that would make them mentally fit, then I am ok with them having a firearm. (I have yet to see someone who is not mentally fit actually become a reasonable mentally fit person that I would trust with a fire arm).

4. If they are calling for the forcing of a mentally unfit person to be detained because they are mentally unfit, then I am not ok with this (I would have to assume that the new New York statures are not calling for forced mental lockups).

5. If they are calling for a more progressive way to offer help to a mentally unfit person, then I am ok with this.

6. (conspiracy theory time) - how long before all states adopt a no fire arm for the mentally unfit, and then declare all of us mentally unfit.

this thread is fun...

 

[Cotton McKnight]

You thought internet regulation was bad before, wait until you can download a car.

OMG, I can't wait!

Joe: Hey Cotton, watcha doin?

Cotton: Oh me? I am just building this Ferrari I printed out from my 3d printer. lol

 

[Dead Man]

this can't be right, switzerland is always held up as the model of 'but everyone in switzerland has a gun and they're fine!' by pro gun folks...

When you seperate out gun deaths like that it kind of skews the results if you are trying to make a statement about levels of unneeded death in a society.

Homicide rate per 100,000 people:

USA: 4.8

Switzerland: 0.7

Suicide rate per 100,000 people:

USA: 12.0

Switzerland: 11.1

 

[Kite]

Change the 2nd amendment so you actually have to be currently in the Reserves or National Guard (you know, an actual militia with a chain of command that has to go through brm training) in order to own an "assault" weapon that gets locked up in the armory when not being used. Seriously, civilians waving around Ar-15s is nothing more than a dick-waving gesture. The NRA is correct that banning fully automatic weapons won't stop a school shooting, semi-auto is actually more accurate and effective. That isn't the point imo, it is just common sense that non-soldiers don't get to play with soldier toys. The same way non-soldiers don't get to play with 203s, 249s and at4s.

If you want to play militia than enlist and actually put your life on the line and you'll get to play with all the cool stuff, otherwise gtfo with your civilian militia bs. The idea that your lil ar is going to threaten the government is laughable, you are going to get rolled the moment the actual militia or active duty folks show up. The only person you are scaring is the little old lady across the street.

 

[iapetus]

The prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, i.e. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a dependent clause. In other words, it does not stand alone on its own as a sentence. The operative clause, i.e. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a standalone sentence in its own right. So, the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on any participation in, or even the existence of, a Militia.

While there may be specific US legal rules applied here, that line of thought is laughable from the point of view of language and common sense. Let's look at:

"In cases where his actions are directly threatening my life and no other recourse exists to me, it is legal to shoot Bodacious in the head."

My interpretation of this would be that in general it is not permitted to shoot you in the head. But "In cases where his actions are directly threatening my life and no other recourse exists to me" is a dependent clause, and does not stand alone on its own as a sentence. The operative clause - that is, "it is legal to shoot Bodacious in the head" is a standalone sentence in its own right.

So should I feel legally justified in shooting you in the head based on that statement? Common sense says "fuck no".

Change the 2nd amendment so you actually have to be currently in the Reserves or National Guard (you know, an actual militia with a chain of command that has to go through brm training) in order to own an "assault" weapon that gets locked up in the armory when not being used.

My understanding would be that the militias would have to be able - in case of governments turning evil - to operate independently of them. Of course, part of the problem in the US is that the sort of people who want guns and the sort of people who believe providing healthcare to poor people is evil have a large intersection. :|