Summations Only

I realize you hold that view, but you've seemingly chosen to ignore the entire rest of my post that actually dealt with that view. Do you think you could go back and actually reply to it?

No, you're not; I was just thinking it would save you the effort. But, do as you will.

Well, far be it from me to ask for more details about stuff, I guess.

But we better control guns anyway, just in case?

That's a pretty sound principle, which is why I was surprised that you chose to compare NY and Texas, which have nowhere near a similar population density:Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Ok, go ahead and do that. I'll wait.

Sigh... I hate to even engage with you on this, because it's fairly clear you're an idiot, but I guess I'd like to see how deep the idiocy goes. Every Western nation "pays single mothers" to "have fatherless bastards," why would that uniquely be the cause of a high murder rate in only the US?

Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense while not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals.

You are aware, surely, that hunting rifles, assault rifles, and handguns use the same ammunition? Or can, anyway.

Nobody's talking about "taking the law into your own hands." The point is to shoot someone who is going to kill you before the police can arrive.

But surely you don't think you can conflate denying access to new guns with seizing guns from criminals without the rest of us noticing, right? Even if you completely disarmed legitimate gun owners - and that's sidestepping the ethics of penalizing a vast majority of responsible gun owners for the actions of a criminal element they're not responsible for, as most guns aren't even stolen even once - and thereby prevented 600,000 guns from entering criminal hands each year, that wouldn't do anything to remove the guns already in criminal hands, or prevent criminals from gaining guns simply by stealing them from each other.And in the meantime you've eliminated basically any possibility of regular people from participating in their own defense against armed criminals. As we've seen in the UK that doesn't work well for society.

Guns aren't the only tool for committing the crime of murder. You can be stabbed, strangled, or beat to death with a bludgeon as well, and a handgun is an appropriate tool in defending yourself against those attacks, as well.

I mean that while in theory there are loads that are best for hunting, best for semi-auto assault rifles, and best for handguns, in practice there is substantial overlap about which guns use which ammo. The "varmint-hunting" .22 long rifle is also a popular caliber for small handguns. 9mm Parabellum is shot from both pistols and rifles. The classic Western rifle, the Winchester Lever-Action Repeater, is most commonly chambered for .45 Colt.I mean, suppose we enact your "no ammo for handguns and assault rifles" law, and the guys who make 9mm and .223 simply say "well, we're not making handgun or assault rifle rounds. We're making 9mm and .223, which are popular and effective hunting loads, and if someone should decide to load them into pistols or assault rifles which were already chambered for those ammunitions, what's that to us?" Now what? How are they, in fact, not legally in the right since "hunting ammunition" means any ammunition used by hunters in long rifles?

"Fuck those children", right, Panda?

Except that it's already been made illegal to carry those items, based on the premise that legitimate self-defense is accomplished with handguns and the others aren't protected by the Second Amendment. And it stands to reason that, broadly speaking, to the extent that lethal weapons form somewhat of a hierarchy of danger, you're better protected by the superior weapon than by the inferior one. Based on what?