So clearly the whole ideal of "the general public shouldn't have guns, only cops" doesn't make sense either.

Step 1) Have a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd
Step 2) Let me keep my firearms for sporting purposes.
Step 3) ???
Step 4) PROFIT

I'm not Arker, and his analysis hides all kinds of issues, especially considering not every gun out there is a .22lr pistol.

Bottom line, Armatix doesn't want you carrying their firearms for self defense for a reason. Somehow I don't think cops would take kindly to you telling them they have to replace all of their carry weapons with .22lr

Yes. If they are outliers, and the numbers of lives saved dwarfs the statistical relevance of your outliers.

"If we can save just one life" is not a good basis for sound public policy making when it disregards broader consequences.

"Disabling shots" are not used intentionally, and for a reason. Stating that they are "used frequently" is an outright fabrication.

You watch too many movies and/or play too many video games.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

"[T]he adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." - SCOTUS DC v Heller

I agree with this sentiment 100%

Which country?

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.

http://i.imgur.com/BoxA98T.png