Summations Only

Actually it doesn't. There's no requirement to be regulated by the states in order to "be constitutional".

I don't agree with this. The government has a vested interest in its people being alive. Without the people there's nothing to govern. There's no situation where the government would go to war with its own people, which is what it would take if the people are armed.If the people are not armed, then there's no need for any military-like 'invasion' in the first place. The people are already defenseless and could be pushed around in much more subtle ways.So in the sense that the 2nd amendment provides arms to the people and the people being armed would require government tyranny to be a military-like invasion like you describe, since the government would not do something like that, then the 2nd amendment does provide protection against government tyranny.ABE:Maybe a more consice way to say it:An armed populous ups the ante to the point where the government doesn't want to play the game of tyranny.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Huh? They had to have another country invade them to start to get their shit together. What are you talking about? Oh, did we eliminate the terrorists? Has the resistance really been put down? Because they might start shooting.

It worked out fine for them until another country invaded. But it required just the sort of thing that the US government would not do to its own people. That makes my point. Large scale search and seizure.

I haven't contested that point. Its not what the militia can do, its what their presence does: increases the cost of the enforcement. The people having guns ups the ante; now there's a big cost to enforcing tyrannical desires. Without them having guns its a cakewalk. No, they wouldn't even try because it be so costly. Exaclty, and because the government has a vested interested in keeping their poeple alive, they wouldn't go door-to-door with SWAT teams against an armed cilivian population because it would just be too costly. Well sure, against one house. But a whole city? The larger the scale the bigger the problem becomes for them, as long as the people remain armed. Without arms, there's nothing stopping them.That's a way that the people having guns can help against a tryannical government; not that the people would win the battle, but that the government wouldn't start it.ABE2: Look, you're saying the having an armed population doesn't help because the government could just drive in with tanks and kill everyone. I'm saying that because that is their option, then they wouldn't do it. Therefore the guns are helping prevent it.ABE: did you see Message 612?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

So I looked into reducing murder rates, thanks to the links from T12C in Message 685: List of Countries by intentional HomicidesNumber of guns per capitaI grabbed the top 20 countries by number of guns per capita, and then looked up their intentional homicide rate: Here's the plot: Doesn't look like any correlation to speak of to me. The linear trend line had an R² value of 0.2.I don't think that gun control can be predicted to reduce the murder rate.

First thoughts: Looks like someone hit it with a shotgun. I wonder what the R² value is? I count 37 or 38 dots on there.From this linkList of countries by Human Development Index - WikipediaI see there are 47 countries in the Very High category. And then if I look down to where it goes below 73%, i find that to be country number 77.What's up with that? Who are "they"? Where'd you get the image from?

What do you think the R² value is? Its probably due to overlap. For example, Latvia and Chile both have values of (0.805, 0.003), Luxembor and the EU are both at (0.867, 0.002). Yeah, I think that's probably right.

How would that even be possible? I mean, besides just being unconstitutional, how would you go about taking them?

Sorry, I meant how would it be possible to take The Peoples' guns away?First off, its unconstitutional. Secondly, yeah, exactly how do you go about taking someone's gun from them? Its not like they're just going to hand it off...

Its seems like such a vacuous statement: "just take away the guns" Get real.

That's what I'm sayin' I think its fairly far reaching... Guns can be made privately and ammunition can be refilled.You're right that eventually it'll run out, but I think you far underestimate how long it would actually take. And I don't think those who would back you are willing to wait many multiple years for the plan to be implemented. Handguns are the best for personal defense. I don't see those going away.And I've never seen a good defintion of an "Assault Rifle".

How do they know? Market surveys?And are we talking about 'Murica? For home defense, sure. But not for personal defense. There's a reason cops carry handguns.I like Bill Burr. He's right that you miss a lot with handguns, but that only takes training. And he counters your point about only limiting handguns and "assault rifles" with his I'll-take-the-shotgun joke

That doesn't really support your contention. Just psuedo-cops with knives, bats, and MMA? Why draw the line there?And that's not fair. The biggest guys are going to dominate everyone else. Well okay, but then what's the point in reducing handguns and "assault rifles"? I presumed it was 'cause they're dangerous.In Message 836, you wrote:

quote:

---

I guess some work on what legal ammunition gets manufactured and sold would also be required. So there's no overlap. This is where experts would need to come together and figure out the best way to do that.

---

And when the experts tell you that 'no overlap' is impossible, then what?In Message 865, you wrote:

quote:

---

I'm sure eventually some people in the know can decide what a strictly for hunting use rifle will be and then we can go from there.

---

And when they tell you that you can't classify guns by how they're gonna be used, then what?

Which part? And how do you know?