Paraphrasing one of them - "it's not the same, a god's so much bigger than a teapot, so it's easier to believe he exists".
Paraphrasing another one (or perhaps the same one?) - "blurble blurble, I'm an idiot".
The meat is not halal - requesting substitute. Mutton is preferred, but we can make do with beef if needed, just get it here fast.
Don't worry about the timing with the tomato - the boy has cut himself while slicing it, so it will take more time for him to finish the job than originally expected.
Plastic (and paper) cases have worked for ages for shotgun shells, which make far more useful and efficient homemade firearms than "Liberator" and similar single-shot pistols, anyway.
Slugs are trickier, but shell shot can be made from virtually anything that's hard enough. I suspect that glass balls would actually work, and would also make a serious mess of the target at close range, complicated by the fact that you can't later detect glass in the body via X-ray.
What else is new? A lot of firearms related law is very vaguely worded, such that the entire field is very much a gray area subject only to ATF interpretation of laws.
For example, a limit on barrel length. How, exactly, do you define that? ATF uses a method where they basically prescribe how to measure it, and the result of that measurement constitutes the length, but it is still somewhat variable. The way they do it is by closing the bolt, and then lowering a measuring rod from the muzzle until it hits the bolt face; the amount that is concealed is the length of the barrel.
Fine, but depending on whether the gun is cocked or not, the firing pin might or might not be protruding from the bolt face, and if it is protruding, then your measuring rod will hit it first. If your barrel is already near the legal length, this can actually push it over into the illegal territory. There is a persistent rumor (for which I haven't seen any evidence, so take it with a grain of salt), that it is precisely how ATF agents "busted" Randy Weaver when he modded a shotgun for them in a sting operation.
Basically, the laws as they are, turn ATF into an agency that is exceedingly powerful, because they can reinterpret a lot of laws by executive fiat in such a way that what was perfectly legal yesterday suddenly becomes illegal today - and the infringement of those laws is a very serious felony punished by many years in prison, and a reasonable suspicion of it is considered a legal justification to have a SWAT team raid your house.
Can you please share your number crunching, say, as a spreadsheet on Google Docs, for convenient linking?
Russia does not have a "total gun ban". It certainly is a pain in the ass to own a gun with the legislation that surrounds it, but it's quite possible, and a lot of people do so - including semi-automatic centerfire rifles like Saiga/AK and AR. Mags are limited to 10 rounds.
Murder rates went down at the same rate they were already going down prior to the ban.
You also haven't addressed general violent assault (of which rape is a subset). And, of course, both that and rapes are relevant, because, while the crime itself usually does not involve a gun, defense from it may well do so.
The thing with statistics is that it's averaged out over a lot of different people. Yes, it's true that, on average, guns are more likely to be used in a family dispute than they are in self-defense. This doesn't mean that it holds true for your typical middle-age white guy buying a gun for personal protection - simply because he is a very abnormal data point among all the people who actually end up using a weapon for domestic violence. There's no magic there that says that if you have one, it'll automatically place your family in danger simply by virtue of possessing it. It's all about the people who handle it.
Yes - so we need to reasonably estimate the proportionality and the efficiency of those laws. For example, restricting the magazine size - an AR can be reloaded in under 2 seconds with a modicum of training (which is literally just repeating the reload again and again, which can be easily practiced in the privacy of one's home), and even less so with coupled (duck taped etc) magazines. This amounts to one, at most two not particularly well-aimed shots. Given the number of shots in a typical spree vs the number of victims, you're unlikely to save even a single life that way. And that's not even accounting for the rarity of sprees themselves. Basically, as laws go, it has a very low return, but is rather costly, especially if you don't include grandfathering provisions (and therefore police has to go and hunt down any remaining hi-cap mags, as they're doing in NY).
Stalin was afraid of a military coup against him, and seeing how many heads he trodded on in his path to power, he was not entirely unjustified of being afraid of that. There are some reasons to believe that some high-ranked officers, at least, were actually conspiring against him. Of course, 99% of people who perished in the purges didn't have any connection with that, but it wasn't just shadows. And, from Stalin's perspective, he survived, so the means justified the end.
Plastic guns are not a "proven technology" so far. The proven technology has, however, existed for a long time now.
So what are the practical limits, and why are they practical, while the ones GP listed are not?
(You can only make a limited amount of guns for personal consumption, as well.)
So what happens when 80% are unemployed, 10% employed, and 10% hold all the wealth. It won't be pretty whatever it is going to be.
What will happen is that the unemployed 80% will vote to disband the arrangement, such that the wealth is collectively held. They probably won't call the result "communism" because of the stigma associated with that label, but that's pretty much what it'll actually be.
The alternative is that they will have their right to vote taken away from them, in which case they'll be voting with bullets instead of ballots. Either way, the system where the minority control all of the wealth without sharing any of it with the majority is not going to last for long.
Because implementing the robots that pick up items and put them elsewhere is more expensive then implementing robots that wheel around carts (specifically, it's more expensive than the minimum wage).
If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer