Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

Do you think that the 11,000+ people who are killed with firearms are worthless? Because they are being killed by sociopaths, you know, the kind you list above.

You are alright with 11,000+ deaths (per year) because you feel, one day, maybe, there might be a possibility of a tyrannical government. That's not democracy, that's straight up lunacy. Get a straight jacket, my friend. Paranoia is abound.

We're living in 2013, where communication and technology live. You're living in a time where tyrannical ideas are put to rest swiftly due to intelligence, due process and strong desire for freedom. Not something witnessed in the timeframe of the nuts you listed. Get a tinfoil hat.

You're discounting the very people you claim to be vigilant, without realizing it.

Ok.

"It isn't for me, so I like the AR15 for home defense. I've got a cabin that is even more remote, and comes replete with occasional threats from various wildlife, and I like it there too -- but that is with the knowledge that the nearest human being should be no closer than 50 acres away."

Most victims of mass shootings aren't afforded that luxury.

"Regarding the ammo, for a small caliber weapon, and the accuracy of the average person who shoots, your odds of stopping an assailant with 10 rounds is pretty good, at about 85.1%. If there are multiple assailants though, 10 rounds doesn't provide particularly great odds - at 35%. 12 rounds gets you 50% odds against 2 assailants."

Exactly why mass shooters prefer high capacity weapons.

"Further, according to the Supreme Court, bans on arms "in common use" are effectively unconstitutional, and banning down to a 7 round capacity limit is a violation of that decision."

Free negros were also unconstitutional at one point. The constitution means nothing to me.

"I forgot to mention also that banning high capacity magazines is an extra-special futile endeavor since I can make them with a 3D printer."

People print counterfeit money too but we put measures in place to minimize it.

Lastly, fully-automatic firearms are heavily regulated in comparison to semi-automatic firearms and have only accounted for 2 homicides in the last 80 years. On the other hand, semi-automatic firearms have accounted for more than 3/4ths of mass shootings, of which 88 people died and 151 were injured in 2012 alone:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-m... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-...

As for the criminals who engage in mass shooting, I think that we can agree that it's a disgusting, cowardly act, but we can't very well pass laws to prevent every crime someone might commit. As for "Exactly why mass shooters prefer high capacity weapons", that's not even necessarily true. The VA Tech shooter had 17 low-capacity magazines and just reloaded whenever he felt the need. Again though, per DC v Heller, standard capacity magazines are 'in common use' and 'for lawful purpose', which means that effectively, on Constitutionality, should not be bannable.

Regardless, of all the homicides that have been committed, the vast majority are perpetrated with handguns, not rifles of any sort, and nobody is moving to ban those in any way. Moves to ban guns based on their aesthetic features is, in my opinion, naive. Banning guns with "military style features" like barrel shrouds (that exist on every rifle made since 1880) or sliding stocks (which simply allow a gun to be shared by people of different stature) are akin to banning cars with racing stripes or bucket seats.

It's also pointing out that while mass shootings are indeed terrible, the citizenry in the United States has had access to the same type of weaponry since 1936, and these school shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon. The weapons themselves are certainly not to blame, so I believe we should look for other causes.

"Most victims of mass shootings aren't afforded that luxury."

Nor are they generally afforded the luxury of being armed themselves. Every mass shooting (except perhaps the Gabby Gifford shooting in Arizona) in the US since 1950 has been perpetrated in a "gun free zone" (not yet sure if Dormer counts), where the citizenry would be expected to be unarmed.

The Aurora, CO shooter for example, bypassed 6 theaters nearer to his home, including the largest theater in the area, and instead effected his spree at the one theater that enforced a gun free zone. Virginia Tech, Newtown, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc. The elimination of gun free zones may prove effective at deterring mass shooting. Despite the President's scoffing at the NRA's suggestion to put armed guards in school, he has effected that very policy through executive order, so perhaps that will mitigate shootings as well. Others have suggested that we investigate the link between mass shooters and prescription medication, but I can't speak intelligently on the subject myself.

"People print counterfeit money too but we put measures in place to minimize it."

So, perhaps I didn't make that remark with the care that I should have, but nobody is seeking (except perhaps California) to ban the possession of magazines, but the sale and import of those magazines into the state. Using my home state of MD as an example, I am not allowed to buy 30 round magazines here, and similarly, nobody here is allowed to sell them to me. But I can cross state lines to Pennsylvania or Virginia (which is no more than 20 minutes in either direction) and buy them and bring them back in without violating any laws whatsoever. Moreover, I can buy magazine "parts kits" from anyone I choose, on the internet or even in state, and then I just have to assemble them, which is a fairly trivial endeavor.

That there are also federal provisions that allow me to manufacture my own weaponry for personal use would mean that banning the sale of high capacity magazines would be particularly ineffective for too many reasons. 1) There are literally millions of them already in existence in the United States, 2) anybody can download a template and print them off in a 3D printer, 3) Criminals planning to commit crimes like mass murder are almost certainly going to ignore any such statutes, 4) Limiting capacities to 10 or below hasn't proven to be effective in reducing the body count even in cases where the criminals chose to use them and of course 5) It would almost certainly be an unconstitutional provision based on recent case law precedent.

Edit: Note, I made this reply before you edited to add your rhetoric about negroes, "Free negros were also unconstitutional at one point. The constitution means nothing to me."

In hindsight, it makes me wish I hadn't bothered to respond at all. Kudos for having wasted a good deal of my time.

For what it's worth, I could put forth statistics that show that guns are used to deter crime at a rate of 80 times the rate with which they are used to commit crime. I could put forth statistics of how many lives were saved the by presence of a firearm. I can show other factors that would mitigate gun crime far and above the proposed legislation.

If we're really going to ignore the Constitution though, why would we ban rifles at all, when the sweeping majority of gun crime is done using handguns? Why not ban those? If we're trying to save lives, then why look at guns at all? Why not ban alcohol, or automobiles, or things that contribute to heart disease (the leading cause of death in the US), or foods contributing to Diabetes, or poisonous toxins. All of these contribute to more deaths than guns. In 2011, more deaths were attributable to blunt objects than rifles - should be ban heavy things?