Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

I was talking about federal, state, and municipal.

So if you think the federal government has "effective regulation" of firearms there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your idea of what "effective regulation" is different than my idea of "effective regulation". The key word here is "effective". We all know they have been able to pass some regulations (constitutional or not).

"BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control."

Please quote where I haven't done this. I'd be very surprised if you could find anything. Please note: "newtboy" literally asked.

Edit: oh wait. You think my warning about making assumptions is an insult! I see. No, it isn't. If you weren't taught that making assumptions is dumb then the reminder may well seem like an insult. Rest assured, it is good advice.

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.

"The modern interpretation".

Which brings it in line with the original intention of the document. I.e. the people are the militia and they have a right to bear arms.

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

"with a few lobby organizations like the NRA"
Why are you including the NRA? At the last presidential election they didn't even make the top 50 contributors.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

Does this change your assessment?

No, I don't talk as if there has never been an amendment. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that since I'm referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Changing the constitution is very difficult. It was made that way on purpose. Article 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability."

Whether you believe it is unsupported or unpopular has no bearing on anything. Just to be clear, I never wrote or implied they don't have the ability, only that the constitution prevents "government from effectively regulating arms."

The party in power may not fully represent your views, or the views of the people who directly support the party, no party ever does. But enough Americans wanted them in, and not the opposition who resoundingly lost, that they rule the roost. Considering how many Americans don't vote there is no such thing as a majority of Americans - there can only be a majority of those who vote. And this is not a measure for winning an election. The measure for winning is electoral college votes. The rules were set, one side played it better, the other side lost and whined about the rules.

"You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!"

I'll answer straight up. You. You are acting dumb. And paranoid. I don't know who those people are. Your "popular opinion" of what? I literally gave links to authoritative statistics for anything under contention. You need to see someone about your mental state.

Try to make people feel welcome. There is a reason this website is sinking into obscurity (look at the rankings).

You talk like it matters if "an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right". It doesn't.

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

That's the thing about being a republic, the tyranny of the majority is thankfully neutered.

BTW, don't be dumb and assume my stance on gun control.

I believe your typical American, no matter their political persuasion, cares about his fellow American. I'm sure you agree that trying to paint either side as demons who don't care is nonsense.

People shouldn't care about what type of guns or the number of guns - there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).sv
g

(the line of best fit would have a positive slope if there was a correlation)

There is a correlation between weapon type and firearm murder - pistols (of all sorts) account for approximately 89% of all firearm murders (where a firearm type is specified in the police report). Rifles (of all sorts) are about 5%. Shotguns (of all sorts) are about 3%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

This wiki has better data than you presented - you can isolate gun violence from other violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

The military voted Republican at about twice the rate of voting Democrat at the last election. So the left doesn't have that going for them either.

The modern definition of regulated is not the same as the definition used when writing the document.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, regulated means "trained" or "disciplined".

This has been researched and documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_%22well_regulated_militia%22

"I dream of a day where each waking day we rise equal".

You sure about that bro?

You're equating a cult with voting Republican. Not super helpful. But hey, anything to maintain partisanship, right?

I'm back as I said I may be. It took a little longer than I thought.

Well, that's a very adult reply from you. Actually walking away?

We'll see.

I'm off again. This time for only 2.5 months.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

Even though NZ's laws were relatively stricter at the time, the real issue was that Australia's laws were lax. We went from one end of the spectrum to the polar opposite (which is a not uncommon illogical human reaction to bad events).

The laws you speak of were enacted a few years before Australia changed theirs. The salient point is that they didn't restrict or legislate for some things over the following years.

The standards you have there (fit and proper person) for gaining a license are almost exactly the same as in Australia. The endorsement for getting an AR15 can be obtained by shooting in IPSC or 3 gun competitions. Basically, if you're a fit and proper person and join one of these clubs then you can get an AR15 and full capacity magazines.

I didn't dismiss it. I stated what he provided and implied it was inadequate.

I literally just wrote that there are opposing papers. I hope you don't think putting opposing papers up is some sort of "gotcha" moment.

"Are you calling them liars?"

No. Are you calling the authors of the papers I've put up liars? I'm sure you can see how silly a question that is now it's put back at you.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%"

I haven't been talking about suicide - but if you must then yes, it dropped the suicide by firearm rate. I never contended otherwise.

"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]"

43% variance is large. The reality is the data isn't very good (as multiple studies have pointed out) and it makes it very hard to measure, analyse, and draw appropriate conclusions.

"NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

Note the language, "seems to have". They aren't affirming that it has because they probably can't back it up with solid data.

"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings"

Again, non-concrete affirmations. The same data sets as analysed by multiple other studies points to no change in the rate. Are any of them liars? I doubt it.

I believe the McPhedron paper is one of the most important, illustrating that some of the key legislative changes had no effect when comparing it to our closest cultural neighbour who didn't legislate the same changes (and maintained a lower overall average homicide rate and lower average homicide by firearm rate for the last 20 years).

As I already wrote, it's a contentious issue and there are opposing papers on this topic.