Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[homersapien 11,354]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

Fine. Go with that. I retract or restate whatever it is you feel I should to comply with your view. It's not important.

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

An assault rifle (military weapon) has the capability to adjust its firing capability to different military situations. An AR-15 does not. It is a semi-automatic rifle. That's it. At no time can a semi-automatic AR-15 be referred to as an assault rifle.

Fine. I think such a semantical argument is an obfuscation and a waste of time, which is exactly why I tried to work around it using terms like "military-purposed".

I have gone to great lengths to define what class of weapons I feel should be treated the same way as we treat fully automatic weapons and why I believe they should. If you disagree with my reasoning, fine, but at least state why. To say my argument is invalid because the term "assault rifle" has a specific meaning is irrelevant.

As far as military purposed weapons... I'm going to make up a term also *chuckle* My term is "no longer military-purposed weapon". This is a weapon that is a simple variation on a design that was specifially intended for military use (combat), but no longer has the capabilitites needed for combat and NOT ONE SOLDIER uses. Instead, this semi-automatic rifle is sold at Wal-Mart like other semi-automatic rifles. They are very popular with people in the military because it has the look, weight and feel of the rifle they have trained with for years in the military. However, if asked if they would trade their military issued M4A1 for their Wal-mart bought AR-15 for use in combat they would tell you they do not have a death wish and stick with the true "military-purposed weapon;" the M4A1.

Again, this is a "pro-forma" argument based on terminology and a technical difference that I say is moot.

Perhaps having fully automatic capability is marginally more effective if you have a few soldiers providing suppressive fire in support of an attack (for example). But automatic fire capability is not a significant consideration when comparing the effectiveness/lethality/efficiency of an AR-15 to an M4 in a mass shooting or terrorist scenario. The key features are an auto-loading action combined with detachable, high capacity magazines. Auto-fire capability is a moot point. (Not to mention it can be added to the AR-15 by changing one small part.)

IMO, to argue there is a defining practical difference between two weapon systems because one lacks selective fire capability is absurd.

If you don't accept that, fine. We just won't agree. But you can spare me the argument. I have heard it and I reject it.

Ok. We'll just agree to disagree. To some of us, the capability of firing a hail of bullets with one pull of the trigger is the main factor in this discussion. It is also, by definition, the single difference that separates an assault rifle from a semi-automatic rifle. You think that is a moot point, fine. What I think is silly is to ignore this difference and focus on cosmetic differences listed in a previous post of yours. For example barrel length and folding stock. As we saw in the ban of 1994, those things are easily changed and therefore irrelevant.

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

Fine. Go with that. I retract or restate whatever it is you feel I should to comply with your view. It's not important.

The problem is that I base my rebuttle off of what you say. Then you use different words with different meanings to refute my rebuttal and validate your argument. Well, your argument technically changed by doing so. It's quite frustrating. Maybe I'm getting too literal here. A side-effect from studying linguistics.

[homersapien 11,354]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

Fine. Go with that. I retract or restate whatever it is you feel I should to comply with your view. It's not important.

The problem is that I base my rebuttle off of what you say. Then you use different words with different meanings to refute my rebuttal and validate your argument. Well, your argument technically changed by doing so. It's quite frustrating. Maybe I'm getting too literal here. A side-effect from studying linguistics.

No, I am not changing my words to evade a faulty argument. My choice of words in this particular exchange has not been calculated even though it may seem that way to you.

Presumably, you are trying to make the point that an automatic weapon is inherently more lethal (effective, efficient, whatever) based on the simple fact it is capable of firing at a higher rate than a semi-automatic. Literally or technically speaking I don't disagree with that, at least if one assumes the weapon is being employed in a situation that really benefits from that higher rate of fire (such as the example I offered in which a few riflemen are providing suppressive fire to support an assault. (Suppressive fire meaning a high rate of fire focused on a general area to keep the opponents heads down instead of allowing them to respond to the attack.)

I suppose I could think of other examples, such as engaging a massed attacking force at close range where aimed fire would be clearly inadequate.

These (more or less military-specific) situations have little relevance to a terrorist strolling through a shopping mall, building, school, etc. In that case, aimed fire using a semi-automatic mode would be just as effective (lethal) and perhaps even more "efficient" (more bodies per unit of time with fewer rounds and less re-loading) than firing in automatic mode. This is undoubtedly why soldiers are (presumably) taught to use semi-auto mode for most situations.

So bottom line, IMO, the distinction between rifles with auto fire capability and without auto fire capability is moot in this context.

Does that make sense?

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

Fine. Go with that. I retract or restate whatever it is you feel I should to comply with your view. It's not important.

The problem is that I base my rebuttle off of what you say. Then you use different words with different meanings to refute my rebuttal and validate your argument. Well, your argument technically changed by doing so. It's quite frustrating. Maybe I'm getting too literal here. A side-effect from studying linguistics.

No, I am not changing my words to evade a faulty argument. My choice of words in this particular exchange has not been calculated even though it may seem that way to you.

Presumably, you are trying to make the point that an automatic weapon is inherently more lethal (effective, efficient, whatever) based on the simple fact it is capable of firing at a higher rate than a semi-automatic. Literally or technically speaking I don't disagree with that, at least if one assumes the weapon is being employed in a situation that really benefits from that higher rate of fire (such as the example I offered in which a few riflemen are providing suppressive fire to support an assault. (Suppressive fire meaning a high rate of fire focused on a general area to keep the opponents heads down instead of allowing them to respond to the attack.)

I suppose I could think of other examples, such as engaging a massed attacking force at close range where aimed fire would be clearly inadequate.

These (more or less military-specific) situations have little relevance to a terrorist strolling through a shopping mall, building, school, etc. In that case, aimed fire using a semi-automatic mode would be just as effective (lethal) and perhaps even more "efficient" (more bodies per unit of time with fewer rounds and less re-loading) than firing in automatic mode. This is undoubtedly why soldiers are (presumably) taught to use semi-auto mode for most situations.

So bottom line, IMO, the distinction between rifles with auto fire capability and without auto fire capability is moot in this context.

Does that make sense?

It does makes sense. I just disagree. And I don't think the words lethal and efficient are interchangable. If the guy who shot up the movie theatre would have been holding a true assaut rifle, he may have killed every person there. Because he could only shoot one bullet per one pull of the trigger, he was not able to do that. The assault rifle, because of its automatic capability, is more lethal; capable of causing death. Maybe not as efficient, but absolutely more lethal.

[homersapien 11,354]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

Fine. Go with that. I retract or restate whatever it is you feel I should to comply with your view. It's not important.

The problem is that I base my rebuttle off of what you say. Then you use different words with different meanings to refute my rebuttal and validate your argument. Well, your argument technically changed by doing so. It's quite frustrating. Maybe I'm getting too literal here. A side-effect from studying linguistics.

No, I am not changing my words to evade a faulty argument. My choice of words in this particular exchange has not been calculated even though it may seem that way to you.

Presumably, you are trying to make the point that an automatic weapon is inherently more lethal (effective, efficient, whatever) based on the simple fact it is capable of firing at a higher rate than a semi-automatic. Literally or technically speaking I don't disagree with that, at least if one assumes the weapon is being employed in a situation that really benefits from that higher rate of fire (such as the example I offered in which a few riflemen are providing suppressive fire to support an assault. (Suppressive fire meaning a high rate of fire focused on a general area to keep the opponents heads down instead of allowing them to respond to the attack.)

I suppose I could think of other examples, such as engaging a massed attacking force at close range where aimed fire would be clearly inadequate.

These (more or less military-specific) situations have little relevance to a terrorist strolling through a shopping mall, building, school, etc. In that case, aimed fire using a semi-automatic mode would be just as effective (lethal) and perhaps even more "efficient" (more bodies per unit of time with fewer rounds and less re-loading) than firing in automatic mode. This is undoubtedly why soldiers are (presumably) taught to use semi-auto mode for most situations.

So bottom line, IMO, the distinction between rifles with auto fire capability and without auto fire capability is moot in this context.

Does that make sense?

It does makes sense. I just disagree. And I don't think the words lethal and efficient are interchangable. If the guy who shot up the movie theatre would have been holding a true assaut rifle, he may have killed every person there. Because he could only shoot one bullet per one pull of the trigger, he was not able to do that. The assault rifle, because of its automatic capability, is more lethal; capable of causing death. Maybe not as efficient, but absolutely more lethal.

Fine. I just don't think the difference in lethality between semi and fully auto fire capability in rifles with detachable mags is significant enough to conclude one needs to be more regulated than the other. The real advantage for both is the large capacity detachable magazines. That, more than anything else, is what distinguishes them as being military or combat purposed rifles.

So, if one thinks fully automatic weapons should be more highly regulated than semi-automatic rifles because of their greater lethality, then it seems to me the same reasoning should apply to any semi-automatic rifle that uses detachable high capacity magazines. It's the detachable magazines that make both types so much more lethal than rifles with box or closed magazines.

Or to put it another way, I would rate an AR-15 only slightly less lethal that a M4 (say, a "lethal index" of 9 instead of 10) whereas a semi-automatic rifle with a 5-7 round closed magazine is 5-6. The big gap is due primarily to the detachable magazine

So, if one assumes that "lethality" is the controlling logic for stricter regulations on the M4, the AR15 should be in the same class.

I understand the position that nothing at all should be regulated, which is a perfectly logical reason to reject regulation of AR-15's but that raises the rational question of benefit vs. risk. I see no rational reason to think society would be better off with thousands - or millions - of modern military weapons readily available to basically anyone who wants one.

The only real argument for no regulations on anything is to arm ourselves to counter our own government, which is fantasy IMO. (And I have yet to hear a rational hypothetical scenario for that.) One can hold the primary intent for the second amendment was to counter our government (which is debatable), but if so, then the amendment should be modified to reflect a more modern reality.

I also assume we will never be able to screen out all, or even most, of the individuals who shouldn't own such weapons, which I think is a fair assumption.

Universal and more effective background checks is an obvious need along with strict enforcement of same. Maybe that will happen, but I would be surprised. Frankly, I don't expect anything more than a restriction on high capacity mags (a futile joke).

I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see more "terrorist shootings" using AR's and similar weapons as they become more available. Of course, as several have pointed out, such shootings will represent only an incremental increase to the large numbers of fatalities already occurring by pistols.

I guess living with gun violence is just part of the American experience and we just have to live with it.

Meanwhile, if someone knows of a nice semi-auto Browning in .270 or .308 for sale, especially with a good scope, give me a PM.

[AUGradinTX 0]

They are not "military-purposed weapons". The only selector switch on these rifles is "Safe" & "Fire". I don't have an option for Full Auto or 3-round burst on my AR like they do on military issued rifles.

They most certainly are military purposed weapons. They are simply variations on a design that was specifically intended for military use (combat). That's why they are called "assault rifles".

As I have said (repeatedly) I don't consider automatic fire capability to be a significant difference in terms of performance (lethality). It's a minor red herring.

You don't consider firing 900 rounds a minute more lethal than 45-60 (depending on how tired your finger gets)? Really?

No. It would be more efficient to "clear" a building of unarmed people using large magazines in semi-automatic mode. I don't know for certain, but I suspect that is what is taught in the military and law enforcement.

If you mean efficient, say efficient. You used the words performance and lethality.

The efficiency would depend on the user.

???

By efficient I meant that for any given shooter, more people could be targeted with fewer wasted rounds - thus less re-loading - by firing in semi-automatic mode. In other words a semi-automatic AR-15 would be no less lethal and efficient than a fully automatic version.

I think you are making semantical distinctions without a real difference. Roughly speaking, Efficiency = lethality = performance

I know what efficient means. That's not the word you used, though, and they are not interchangable.

Performance would mean the performance (mechanical) capability of the rifle. As in 900 rounds per min versus 60.

Lethality would mean it's ability to kill. Natually, if one weapon can fire far more rounds than the other, its ability to kill is greater.

Efficiency. Maybe it would be more effiecient in semi-auto mode. Probably so. The user would have some say in that.

Fine. Go with that. I retract or restate whatever it is you feel I should to comply with your view. It's not important.

The problem is that I base my rebuttle off of what you say. Then you use different words with different meanings to refute my rebuttal and validate your argument. Well, your argument technically changed by doing so. It's quite frustrating. Maybe I'm getting too literal here. A side-effect from studying linguistics.

No, I am not changing my words to evade a faulty argument. My choice of words in this particular exchange has not been calculated even though it may seem that way to you.

Presumably, you are trying to make the point that an automatic weapon is inherently more lethal (effective, efficient, whatever) based on the simple fact it is capable of firing at a higher rate than a semi-automatic. Literally or technically speaking I don't disagree with that, at least if one assumes the weapon is being employed in a situation that really benefits from that higher rate of fire (such as the example I offered in which a few riflemen are providing suppressive fire to support an assault. (Suppressive fire meaning a high rate of fire focused on a general area to keep the opponents heads down instead of allowing them to respond to the attack.)

I suppose I could think of other examples, such as engaging a massed attacking force at close range where aimed fire would be clearly inadequate.

These (more or less military-specific) situations have little relevance to a terrorist strolling through a shopping mall, building, school, etc. In that case, aimed fire using a semi-automatic mode would be just as effective (lethal) and perhaps even more "efficient" (more bodies per unit of time with fewer rounds and less re-loading) than firing in automatic mode. This is undoubtedly why soldiers are (presumably) taught to use semi-auto mode for most situations.

So bottom line, IMO, the distinction between rifles with auto fire capability and without auto fire capability is moot in this context.

Does that make sense?

It does makes sense. I just disagree. And I don't think the words lethal and efficient are interchangable. If the guy who shot up the movie theatre would have been holding a true assaut rifle, he may have killed every person there. Because he could only shoot one bullet per one pull of the trigger, he was not able to do that. The assault rifle, because of its automatic capability, is more lethal; capable of causing death. Maybe not as efficient, but absolutely more lethal.

Fine. I just don't think the difference in lethality between semi and fully auto fire capability in rifles with detachable mags is significant enough to conclude one needs to be more regulated than the other. The real advantage for both is the large capacity detachable magazines. That, more than anything else, is what distinguishes them as being military or combat purposed rifles.

Here lies our difference of opinion. I absolutely think this distinction is what is most significant. If I can fire off 30 rounds in 7 seconds, reload and do it again, and again, and again.. you get the idea. An AR-15 doesn't even come close.

So, if one thinks fully automatic weapons should be more highly regulated than semi-automatic rifles because of their greater lethality, then it seems to me the same reasoning should apply to any semi-automatic rifle that uses detachable high capacity magazines. It's the detachable magazines that make both types so much more lethal than rifles with box or closed magazines.

Or to put it another way, I would rate an AR-15 only slightly less lethal that a M4 (say, a "lethal index" of 9 instead of 10) whereas a semi-automatic rifle with a 5-7 round closed magazine is 5-6. The big gap is due primarily to the detachable magazine

So, if one assumes that "lethality" is the controlling logic for stricter regulations on the M4, the AR15 should be in the same class.

I understand the position that nothing at all should be regulated, which is a perfectly logical reason to reject regulation of AR-15's but that raises the rational question of benefit vs. risk. I see no rational reason to think society would be better off with thousands - or millions - of modern military weapons readily available to basically anyone who wants one.

The only real argument for no regulations on anything is to arm ourselves to counter our own government, which is fantasy IMO. (And I have yet to hear a rational hypothetical scenario for that.) One can hold the primary intent for the second amendment was to counter our government (which is debatable), but if so, then the amendment should be modified to reflect a more modern reality.

I also assume we will never be able to screen out all, or even most, of the individuals who shouldn't own such weapons, which I think is a fair assumption.

Universal and more effective background checks is an obvious need along with strict enforcement of same. Maybe that will happen, but I would be surprised. Frankly, I don't expect anything more than a restriction on high capacity mags (a futile joke).

I hope I am wrong, but I expect to see more "terrorist shootings" using AR's and similar weapons as they become more available. Of course, as several have pointed out, such shootings will represent only an incremental increase to the large numbers of fatalities already occurring by pistols.

I guess living with gun violence is just part of the American experience and we just have to live with it.

Yes. It is to a certain extent. What you should take from this is the fact that England would rank 15th in murder rate (per 100k residents) if it were a US state. Why does this matter? It matters because in England you can't get a gun just because you want one. You have to provide proof that you have good reason to have one and prove that you can be trusted with it. In the USA, there are 88.8 guns per 100 residents. In England there are 6.2. This obviously tells you that guns aren't the reason that people are murdered. Gun violence isn't what you should focus on. It is violence, period. As we see in England, less guns do not mean less murder. Take away guns and crazy people will kill with something else. It's all there in the numbers.

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

Meanwhile, if someone knows of a nice semi-auto Browning in .270 or .308 for sale, especially with a good scope, give me a PM.

[AUDub 11,131]

Here lies our difference of opinion. I absolutely think this distinction is what is most significant. If I can fire off 30 rounds in 7 seconds, reload and do it again, and again, and again.. you get the idea. An AR-15 doesn't even come close.

I would debate the purpose for having the weapon in full auto would be for a suppression fire scenario, unless one is firing into a tightly packed crowd of people. It would mean a lot of wasted lead if you're firing multiple rounds to hit every one person.

I would also point out that the time it takes you to reload is time you're not firing. Hence the call for magazine restrictions.

Yes. It is to a certain extent. What you should take from this is the fact that England would rank 15th in murder rate (per 100k residents) if it were a US state. Why does this matter? It matters because in England you can't get a gun just because you want one. You have to provide proof that you have good reason to have one and prove that you can be trusted with it. In the USA, there are 88.8 guns per 100 residents. In England there are 6.2. This obviously tells you that guns aren't the reason that people are murdered. Gun violence isn't what you should focus on. It is violence, period. As we see in England, less guns do not mean less murder. Take away guns and crazy people will kill with something else. It's all there in the numbers.

The stats paint a completely different picture to me. We are much more prone to kill each other than the Brits. We have a lot more guns, too. You may say that correlation doesn't equal causation, and that wouldn't be an unreasonable assertion. But I don't understand how you think it "obviously" excludes the possibility of guns being an important contributing factor.

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

United States 4.2 12,996

United Kingdom 1.2 722

Per. Total

100,000