Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

It ain't hard if you know where to go. I know a lady who's from South Africa, and as far as i know she can't go into a gunstore and buy a firearm. Yet she has a couple, that she says she got off "The black market". I don't know the details, and i don't want to know. All this lady wants, is the ability to defend herself.

The self defense argument is the most potent, I think. If someone were threatening my life or the life of a friend or family member, and I happened to have a loaded gun to hand, I am absolutely sure any principles I may have on the issue would quickly evaporate. The firearm as a leveler for the weak against the strong (or the innocent against the criminal). Trouble is, rather than being a leveler, in the end it just substitutes 'the strong' with 'the most heavily armed'. Also the counter argument that unless you sleep with it loaded under your bed, in the case of a home invasion you are likely to be surprised and overwhelmed, is not without merit.

The real question is how do you tell a criminal from an innocent before a crime is committed? Considering that the subjective judgement of criminality will differ depending on the observing individual, and that we may or may not personally agree with some already extant laws. The lady you mention is a case in point.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 (which happen to be one the best self defense rifle you could own) as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

The definition of terms is important though. Arms in the sense of your right to bear arms means weapons in common usage not designed for military use, which is ambiguous in that the only difference between weapons designed for military use and those designed for civilian use is one of marketing. Military design requirements tend to be focused around reliability, ease and cost of manufacture and light weight, some of which will be of a lesser concern to civilian design requirements. I'd go as far to say weapons designed purely for civilians may even occasionally end up being better quality and more destructive than their contemporary military counterparts.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You may as well be suggesting that we

A nuclear suitcase does not fit the current common usage and non military definition whereas explosives might.

Currently, my thoughts are along the lines of you should retain your right, but that the majority of people would choose not to exercise it for the lack of need. Unfortunately that's an idea that probably has about as much potential as a bovine bicycle.

P.S. your link to the video about the M14 was brilliant, thanks for sharing. It consigned me to yet another evening of watching utube videos by gun enthusiasts.