Will more gun restrictions reduce gun violence? Maybe, maybe not. I am sure we could both point to studies one way or the other. To me the important question is whether these regulations would create an unreasonable restriction upon the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. Since we are not arguing about the right of civilians to own RPGs, I assume you accept some limitations, it is just a matter of where to draw that line. I tend to think reasonable people can debate this without turning it into a simplistic either/or proposition.As to the food analogy, yes I was being deliberately inflammatory, but again since it is comparing apples to oranges I think depending on the parameters we set we could each come up with contrasting views of the comparative regulations involved.

so, a ruggedized semi-auto is very very close to being a military-grade weapon.

I…um…someone’s walking around with a “man card” rifle on his back, and apprehension is…uh…irrational???

I watched the news clip, and though it’s hard to tell, I see the magazine.  Is it loaded?  

Why did the guy have a note in his pocket?  Sounds like he was trying to commit suicide by police.  Still willing to go with that “irrational” nonsense?

Like the NRA instructor interviewed said, this reflects badly on gun owners, and responsible gun owners should know that walking around with a military-looking rifle slung on your back is going to make people uneasy.

I know “reasonable” and “responsible” are taboo subjects here in ‘Murica these days, though.

The whole point of “ugly guns” is to look bad-ass (correct me if I’m wrong and there is some civilian utility beyond looking like they are made by the lowest bidder on a government contract) .  If someone preemptively decides that he’s the “bad guy with a gun” and they want to be the “good guy with a gun”  or just the good guy with a canned ham, it should come as no surprise.

statistically, the last gun murder in the US happened less than an hour ago.

mass killings are sensational and horrible, but, statistically, they are insignificant when compared to the every day gun-related slaughter of Americans.

You see the slippery slope?

The Second Amendment doesn’t say “guns,” it says “arms.” The slippery slope began when we banned private ownership of nuclear warheads.

What’s that, you say? You oppose private ownership of nuclear warheads? Well then welcome aboard the “we need to have reasonable regulations for weapons in the name of public safety” train.

on average, 30 people are killed by firearms, every day in the US.

that doesn’t count the 50 people who kill themselves, every day, with a gun, in the US.

nor does it count the 230 people who will be non-fatally injured by a gun, every day, in the US.

roughly 100,000 people, every year are killed or injured thanks to a gun.

so, your “latest shooting” ? it happened roughly 6 minutes ago.

They are not designed to kill people.

Give me a break. Even if you don’t intend to use a semiautomatic rifle like the AR-15 to kill people, its utility as a tool for self-defense rests soley on its ability to do so.

How will banning and limiting prevent what happened in Newtown?

Because countries that don’t have easy access to these kinds of weapons also tend not to have those kinds of mass murders.

In Newton specifically, the crazy dude only got his hands on those guns because his mother had legally acquired them. There is no reason to assume that shooter would have gone to a black market source or 3D-printed his own weapons if he didn’t already have those guns readily available.

Good thing criminals obey the law!

I am not defending anyone, especially not the dude at the store – the law defended him quite nicely, and showed he was completely innocent. I’m referring to the absurd claims like “this makes it harder to spot those who would mean you harm”. 

I’m not sure how you don’t see the comparison I’m drawing, or why you believe it irrelevant, so let me break it down a little more. The media inflates the fear and importance associated with these events to unrealistic levels. Again, how much coverage have we had about events that have been perpetrated by 62 individuals in 30 years, claiming around 300 people’s lives? Versus the 130,000+ (recorded) civilian deaths due to the Iraq/Afghan wars, perpetrated by the 100,000+ troops and their leaders in just the last 10 years?

It is the same with plane accidents versus vehicular death. Here’s an article on Freakonomics.

One MIT study found that airplane crash coverage on the front page of The New York Times was 60 times greater than reporting on HIV/AIDS per 1,000 deaths; 1,500 times greater than reporting on auto hazards; and 6,000 times greater than cancer.

NPR did a great writeup a while ago about parental fears versus reality. See also: Our fears of terrorist attack vs. reality. It’s pretty much the same thing. The fear we have over events like this doesn’t match the reality of the situation.

I will address the quote directly, if that would make you feel more comfortable. It’s ridiculous to claim that this is watering down our ability to spot the “real” dangers…because, in reality, the people most likely to harm you are the ones closest to you or the ones your trust the most. Suicide, domestic harm, law-enforcement gone wild – these are all realistic fears.

How long would I live if I pointed a realistic-looking toy gun at the President? It’s not real! Not right to kill a man for pointing a toy at someone! Nothing in the Constitution against pointing a toy at anyone!

“They are not designed to kill people.” Now you’re arguing that assault weapons are not designed to kill people? Wow, again. You gun nuts, because that is what you are, apparently, are truly amazing.

This isn’t terribly complicated stuff.

Now, what is the purpose of an AR-15?  Is it really a variety of hunting rifle?

Or was it originally designed as a type of assault rifle with full auto disabled, so to speak?