Yes, but you can't sneak *that* gun past airport "security".

A fine sentiment, except many schools in the US have metal detectors. I know, I know "wontsomebodythinkofthechilluns", but before you spout "who cares" you might want to think "just because *I* don't care about or understand aspect X, doesn't mean others don't (or shouldn't)".

Tis a pity you posted anonymously, since this is about the most insightful comment I've seen on /. in a while.

If the only thing keeping you from having sex with children is a law stating so, then you're beyond all help as it is. Laws aren't made for the righteous, they're made so that *when a transgressor is caught* there's a system in place to apply punishment.

Who said they had to be?

Snap. Chat. Supposedly a method of instant messaging, but with photos. Yeah, I don't get it either. My (still a teen, but just barely) niece uses it to send me pics of her goofing around with her younger siblings. Beyond that I think whatever appeal there is exists in how simple it is to use. Heard a story on NPR where the kids aren't even using SnapChat for sexting.

stuffed? STUFFED??

If it's legal, by definition it cannot be fraud.

There is no need for a healthy firearm black market when the country is flooded.. oh what the hell, you're anonymous so you'll never realise the logical fallacy of your "argument".

I know you'll never see this as you posted anonymously, but it would be rare to meet a responsible (well-regulated) gun owner who is against closing the gunshow background check loophole. I could however imagine many gun *sellers* weeping as all that business goes away...

Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?
 
BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!

I'm so glad you thought your argument through with such clarity.

So.. a slug would be better than buckshot because buckshot wouldn't spread enough to increase the chance of a hit? How much is that single slug spreading? You really think you've got a better chance of multiple lethal shots with it vs. #1 buck?

Hydrostatic shock only affects the (single, at most two from a slug) victim, so with even a reasonable spread, hydrostatic shock from buckshot will affect more people than from a slug.

From your description I'm guessing you have a Mossberg, probably a 12ga 500. A very capable gun and very scary in the hands of someone even moderately skilled in its use. You'll also realise that firing a bunch of slugs is going to take its toll on the shooter very quickly - the phrase I believe is "a shotgun kills on one end and wounds on the other". I'd favour #00 or #1 buckshot for maximum devastation in a crowded area with improved capacity for rapid fire, over slugs that make a big boom, tear a big hole in something, and give you a big thump in your shoulder for your troubles. Remember, the ballistic impact (that pesky half emm vee squared) depends on the mass of each projectile (approx 9 .38 calibre pellets in #00 buck), not the total mass of the shot, but the recoil depends on the total mass.

Oh, and that more shallow penetration? The slug is gonna tear a big hole, for sure, but at close range it's going right through your target. Those little pellets of buckshot are gonna bounce around and cause massive trauma inside, that's if they don't also punch *multiple* holes through.

And one parting shot (ha!) - I'd take the extra round over the magnum shells, thanks, but to each his own - reloading a 7- or even 8-shell shotgun is no quick task.

You do know 322 is not a rate, right? Neither is 1,704. Taking population into account then, we have rates of 53 million/ 332 =~ .6264 knife deaths per 100000 people for England (not the UK, just England), vs 314 million / 1704 =~ .5426 deaths per 100000 people for the US.

That's right, you stand a higher chance of being killed in England with a knife than you do in the US.

Your point being what, again?

Uh huh, and which world would that be?

You are clearly not a driver.

The reason tickets aren't given out at 1km over the limit is because various factors (tyre pressure, weight of occupants, etc) can affect the accuracy of the speedometer. Also, in the US at least, speedometers can legally register high (tell you you're going 45 when you're only doing 40) but never low (tell you you're doing 35 when in fact you're going 40). This means a cop matching your speed can assume you are actually going less than the displayed speed, but not more. Thus, there is some flexibility above the speed limit.