It still doesn't explain why murder and violent crime rates vary so widely even between the states in US, with seemingly zero correlation between those and gun control. And we're not talking just urban/rural here - compare the rates in e.g. Texas vs Oregon.

In truth, the difference in numbers between US and UK (or any other two countries) doesn't really tell you anything other than there is a difference. It's certainly not enough to ascribe that difference to a particular factor X, because there are so many other factors that are different. To remind, US is the only Western country with no public healthcare system; it has highest poverty rates and lowest social mobility. Is it that surprising that it has more social tension and crime?

There is a guy in prison in UK at the moment because he wrote and published a book on how to construct a 9mm submachine gun out of plumbing tubes, using tools like a file and a hacksaw - no mill and lathe needed.

Really, the only reason why there's a panic over 3D printing now is because the mass media chose this particular topic to hype the audience.

That's the law in US, but it's not universal. Are you knowledgeable about UK firearm laws?

In this particular case, "the best you can" is to lock the person up indefinitely, so that you can let them go if you find out that you're wrong. There's simply no reason to prefer killing them. Locking up is a perfectly efficient deterrent, and is a harsh punishment in its own right, especially in more secure prisons, solitary confinement etc.

I mean, we're talking about, what, about 40 people per year. Don't tell me that our society can't afford the extra dough to keep them in prison, and has to kill them for the sake of saving taxpayers' money.

At the point where you have all the parts that are necessary to assemble a working gun, you are deemed to be in a constructive possession of one.

Of course, such a law would be tricky to enforce in any meaningful cases, since buying parts separately is not illegal, and by the time someone actually assembles a gun and uses it, it's too late. So in practice it's mainly just an extra headache for legal gun owners - e.g. in US, you have to be careful to never be in a possession of an unmated short-barrel upper if you also have another full-length gun with a compatible lower, since that can be argued to be constructive possession of a short-barreled rifle (even if you never actually put the components together, or even disassemble the full-length gun).

No, he's right. In England, coffee could only possibly be used to blow something up, because for everything else there's tea.

Yup. They can even use the lead-free ones. You know, for environment's sake.

In most other cases, when a mistake happens, you can at least fix it later, pay compensation to the person etc. With death penalty, what do you do? Dig out the corpse and say "we're sorry"?

Funnily enough, you're very convincing at arguing that Americans in general are responsible for mass killing in the Iraq war and should be punished accordingly. Osama would be proud.

American politics was pretty partisan during Prohibition, and yet they managed to pass two Constitutional amendments about it.

You may not care about Iceland, but you will care about, say, China+India+EU+Russia+Brazil. Even if you personally won't notice the difference, US economy certainly will - and you will pay for a part of that out of your pocket at some point.

You forget that this was the time before effective delivery vehicles were available - all you have is bombers. The reason why it was so easy to nuke Japan is because their air force was already decimated. I don't think that a bomber carrying a nuke to, say, Berlin would have a good chance of getting there if you take the hypothetical "Great German Reich from Atlantic to the Urals" scenario, with all the industrial base and resources of Europe and USSR at its disposal. You'd need to send several to get any reasonable chance of getting one through, which is very costly, and even then would probably only work for the first attack, since afterwards they'd just start going after bombers disregarding any losses.

No, the nukes were as much a wunderwaffe toy as German V-2. What won the war was the determination and courage of soldiers on the ground, and the sheer manufacturing capacity that Allies had - US and USSR both. The turning point was really in 1941, when blitzkrieg in Russia failed before taking over Moscow, and Soviets succeeded in fully relocating their industry to the Urals and getting it up and running on full capacity. Germans were good at blitzkrieg, but they simply didn't have the resources for a prolonged meat grinder kind of warfare, and that's what they got into in the USSR.

As far as who contributed most to victory, I think it's a fair assessment that USSR bore the brunt of the war in Europe, and US did the same in the Pacific. Everyone else was kinda tagging along - yes, even Brits. It's all really obvious when you look at losses and inflicted casualties. 5 out of 6 Axis soldiers killed in Europe died on the Eastern front, and this also represents about 2/3 of total Axis casualties everywhere. Most of the remaining 1/3 are Japanese soldiers dead from American action.

As far as lend lease goes, it was certainly a noticeable aid to the USSR, esp, in 1941-42, but it is unlikely to have been decisive - it didn't play much role in stopping the Germans at Moscow in 1941. Without it, it would probably have taken an extra year or so for Soviets to build up enough to be ready to go on the offensive, so Kursk (or equivalent) would have been somewhere in mid-to-late 1944, with the corresponding cost increase in human lives. So I think that USSR is by all rights entitled to a claim of being the country that defeated Germany in WW2 even with lend lease in the picture, much as US can claim victory over Japan.

If the politicos want to fight terrorism, let them. Any volunteers get a full USMC rifleman loadout and a paradrop to the location of their choice, out of: Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria. Godspeed.

So far as I know, the problem is that they use two different drugs - one is the anesthetic, and the other one paralyzes the victim. If the first one wears off prematurely, you have no means of detecting that from observing the victim, but they will die a rather unpleasant death, effectively being asphyxiated while fully conscious and unable to vocalize their distress.

I don't see anything good whatsoever about any of your suggested regulations. As a customer, why the fuck do I care about the local dealerships? I just want cheap cars and good service. If the dealership can't compete with the manufacturer on price, and doesn't add any value that would entice me to use their services, they are not entitled to my patronage, period - and I resent any law that would say otherwise.