Ah, libtard idiocy. The rulings said that being composed of people, they had some of the same rights. For that matter, I don't think I've heard of any laws limiting corporation security forces to weapons any crappier than most civilians. In fact, in most jurisdictions, especially bastions of libtard idiocy, they have more rights to weapons than the average civilian.

The third study that comes up on google scholar is one by Kellerman. KELLERMAN. The man should have been hounded out of the field years ago.

Well, no, it's because the only studies done by the CDC were shoddier than a shed built by a cross-eyed one-armed carpenter without measuring tools. The reason for this is because the CDC has a prior anti-gun bias and so kept hiring that dickcheese Kellerman to perform the studies. Kellerman sucks at even performing studies that at least have the surface appearance of being unbiased and is always immediately ripped apart as soon as his methodology becomes known.

It seems to you, thus proving that you need to retake that 5th grade math class.

Actually, negative rights work just fine to protect those things by fining and jailing the shit out of those who produce waste which lead to health effects off their lands. Of course that requires a healthy court system(we don't have one) and a populace with a basic understanding of said system and the nature of negative rights which requires a non-corrupt education system(we don't have one) and a series of basic civics classes.

Sorry, but between 1934 and 1986 there were no mass killings with full-auto weapons by civilians. Several by people in law enforcement, but no civilians. To get one you merely needed a background check ensuring your lack of felonious nature and a tax stamp. The only reason full-auto weapons are currently banned is because Charles Rangel(D) is a corrupt son of a bitch and SCOTUS are a bunch of fucking hypocrites to allow the bootstrapping of the ban to continue.

Hmmm, perhaps people should be forced to pass a Fundamentals of English Grammar course before being allowed to post on Slashdot on topics concerning English writings, especially ACs.

Except all the statistically reliable and valid studies on the subject cannot find any medium correlation between gun availability and suicide rate. The vast majority don't even find a weak correlation.

Eh, he's a Packers fan, almost certainly from Milwaukee or Madison. His opinions can safely be ignored.

Assuming you are within 7 yards and remotely have a handle on using a knife, bringing a knife to a gunfight isn't the completely losing situation you make it out to be. It's certainly not optimal, but it is feasible.

Um, no, they went from full-auto to burst because the gas impingement system at the time was crap and fouled very very easily. Also as a cost saving measure with ammo. From a tactical standpoint, having everybody with the ability to properly lay down suppressive fire would have been more useful than not but the political and mechanical limitations at the time ruled that out.

Wow you're pretty damn ignorant aren't you. Contrary to Hollywood unreality and the pulp westerns put out by book publishing companies at the time that were sensationalized to, and this part is key, sell books, the Wild West was not wild because people were being gunned down like rabid dogs left and right. In point of fact, they were safer from being shot than most medium to large cities today.

As for your twelve years of EMT work, were you even in a city where at least 30% of the of age law abiding populace owned guns? Somehow I seriously fucking doubt it. Seeing as less than 10% of mexican crime guns come from Non-governmental US sources, what in the nine hells do you fucking think that banning guns would do in the US given our porous borders. We can't even keep things as large as containers of people slipping through.

If by developed you mean stole from Schmeisser with effectively slave labor then yes.

If the groups were large enough, you might have a point. However, the small groups combined with a rat that has an abnormally high cancer rate means the SNR is way to low.

The study was rejected because it's signal to noise ratio was crap and they didn't use enough rats. I don't know about you, but as someone who occasionally reads science literature, knowing such matters is kind of fucking important as to how much weight I give a particular study..