This is exactly the point. The things that drive violent crime are not caused by increased firearm ownership rates. To that extent, you an expect any efforts to reduce firearm ownership rates to have no effect on violent crime.
What are the odds that somebody is going to run up to you while you are target shooting or hunting, wrest your firearm from you, and shoot you with it?
Non-critical firearms are generally stored locked and unloaded when there is a concern that a child or unauthorized person might get a hold of it.
I'm not sure I follow. I am saying I dislike all legislation that makes firearms less reliable, including mag disconnects and poorly designed drop safeties.
I don't think most LCIs (unless very poorly designed) affect reliability, aside from the fact that they add more (pointless, IMO) complexity to the slide.
In any case, the problem with roster legislation is that while their stated purpose is "safety", they are invariably expanded to include any tech that can be added, such that it is becomes harder and harder to import new models into the state. A perfect example is CA's roster laws: even firearms that are identical (except cosmetically) to rostered models have to be re-submitted for testing *and* are required to adhear to all new rostering requirements, even though other identical models (albiet older) are already on the roster.
At no point are any new features ever subject to any scrutiny with regards to safety.... for example, microstamping. Is a firearm that does not have microstamping less safe than one that does?
Now you could argue that to you, it doesn't matter. All you care about is that there are less firearms being sold in CA. That is fine. That is your opinion. But you cannot claim the roster is about the "safety" of individual firearms, only that it is having the desired effect of slowing importation of firearms into the state.
Cite, please? Any kind of evidence at all to back this up?
"[T]he adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." - SCOTUS DC v Heller
Personally I think private citizens should be allowed to carry whatever the police forces are allowed to carry.
I agree with this sentiment 100%
Which country?
Most are sold for hunting and/or self defense
Citation? This is not my experience. Most of the people I know that purchase firearms do so either because they are collecting (finding a new, interesting firearm for their collection), or for target shooting (plinking, clays, paper, etc). Certainly that is what 99.99999999999% of the rounds run through those firearms end up being used for.
Hunters in my area are rare (urban) and maybe one or two firearms out of their entire collection (often dozens) are for SD.
"It happens enough that there is a story about it"?
No, that just means it is outlandish enough to warrant a breathless, hyperbolic headline.
Media reporting does not represent the "average story", only the most outrageous outliers. The occurrence of reporting of incidents by the media says nothing about their statistical likelihood.
Can't be done in the U.S. due to the 2nd Amendment; even in its current state of murkiness (what with the Drake/Moore/Peruta circuit split) mass confiscation isn't going to happen any time soon. But we can look at other countries - and there is no consistent correlation between violent crime and firearm ownership rates. Violent crime seems to correlate with other factors, e.g. socio-economics, poverty levels, corruption, etc.
Still looking for AD/ND injury/fatality rates, but certainly suicide *alone* is the leading cause, and AD/ND likely follow. It stands to reason that combined, they are still the leading cause.
CA, NJ, NY, IL, DC have not experienced a decrease in suicide rate that correlates with gun control efforts. Not that it matters, because even if they did, you'd be hard pressed to give proof of causation. You're the one making the claim, you provide proof of causation.
SCOTUS has left a gaping circuit split on the topic between Moore and Peruta. At some point they will have to opine on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to keep/bear regulation(s), since Heller/McDonald incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states. If they do not resolve it, I'd say the Constitution has failed, since that is their role.
SCOTUS declining a case has no legal bearing on litigation. Only an actual holding carries any weight. The Castleman holding you cited has absolutely no relevance to the circuit split in question, since neither Moore nor Peruta (nor Drake, for that matter) are prohibited persons.
You could argue that SCOTUS has significantly lowered the bar when it comes to scrutiny of prohibited persons legislation, but that really doesn't directly apply to the circuit split problem.
The 9th made an interesting decision in Peruta v San Diego
Trap full -- please empty.
