Imo that balance is “if you hit a bystander you’re getting charged, so make sure to be careful and avoid prison.” Besides that, the chance to hit the bystander exists at any point a shot is fired, having less rounds and making it less effective at saving lives isn’t worth the negligible decrease in liklihood (especially when it doesnct have to be rnd 11 that hits the bystander, rnd 1 or 2 can hit just fine too). Personally I’d rather not give the two intruders with guns better odds, between them they have at least two dudes usually as per your study and the “action team” typically all has arms and at least 22 rnds loaded (10+1), I deserve 15+1 (pistol) or 30+1 (rifle) to balance it a little considering I’m the one defending, not attacking.

Yeah that happens sometimes, but in my area I’d go to prison for it. Even if the shooting was justified, once he flees continuing to fire would be seen as punitive rather than defensive and “that is the role of the court system not the citizen.” In most areas in the US that’s the case actually, but your DA may neglect to file charges on those cases because that is literally up to them (singular, gender neutral). In fact, “Steve” could do that Monday and have no charges filed, but then “Jerry” does the same on Wednesday, and the DA’s Tuesday this week was a shitshow, wife’s been on his ass and such, so Jerry gets charged for the same crime Steve didn’t even see a police station for in the same week. Much better to not go off “this one time I saw on the news a guy didn’t get charged…” and instead actually look up the laws from your area (imperative if you own guns, informative otherwise.) If your state does allow firing at fleeing felons (unadvisable even if legal, for the reasons you mentioned), you’re better served making that practice itself illegal than limiting the number of rounds they are allowed to wing wildly, that number should be “0.”

I’d rather not be stabbed anywhere tbh, my will to not be stabbed is independant from geographical location.

Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.

A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.

It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.

Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.

Ah - I see you’ve dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we’re going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you’re still losing. If we’re going by more mature content matters strategy, you’ve woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There’s some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.

Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I’ll overlook that you’ve yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.

For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.

You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy “rah but the conservatives” mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of settled law that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.

As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc… and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.

To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren’t paying enough attention to notice. There’s a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you’ve participated in this discussion.

But hey, once you’ve gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.

Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.

I’m not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - “if we’re right, he’s wrong, and we’re pretty sure we’re right”.

Fortunately, this entire notion was already addressed by the Judge issuing the ruling, a thing I’m sure you’ve read.

Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.

Did they? I’m not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they’re once more already corrected by the other source I’d provided.

You… aren’t good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?

Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”

Ahh, I see - it’s all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.

And here’s another article: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=jcl

The comprehensive nature of [digital] archives can give scholars a high degree of certainty that keyword searches accurately reflect common usage since they contain most of the surviving printed material from the colonies and early Republic. The Early American Imprints series contains over 15,500 documents from 1763 to 1791 alone, 273 of which use the phrase “bear arms.”" If we discard the many reprints of the Bill of Rights, all quotations of the text of the Second Amendment in congressional debate, irrele- vant foreign news, reprints of the Declaration of Independence, and all repeated or similar articles, 111 hits remain, of which only two do not use the phrase to connote a military meaning.’ Using the same method of sorting results from the 132 papers published from 1763 to 1791, the Early American Newspapers database returns 115 relevant hits, with all but five using a military construction of “bear arms.” A search of the exact phrase “bear arms” in the Library of Congress da- tabase (which includes Letters of Delegates to Congress,Journals of the Continental Congress, Elliot’s Debates, and the House and Senate Journals of the First Congress) between 1775 and 1791 returns forty-one relevant hits, of which only four do not use the phrase “bear arms” in an ex-plicitly collective or military context. The sources prove that Americans consistently employed “bear arms” in a military sense, both in times of peace and in times of war, showing that the overwhelming use of “bear arms” had a military meaning. [W]hile not every sin- gle source uncovered from these digital archives uses “bear arms” in an explicitly military sense, the handful that do not are merely ambiguous; at most, they tend to show that “bear arms,” on rare occasion, was paired with additional language to mean, idiosyncratically, “carry guns.”

The historical record of usage clearly shows that, before 1791, “bear arms” was used in its idiomatic sense to denote military service and the like, and that usage to denote non-military conduct was rare and idiosyncratic.

Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.

Ah, I see - because it disagree with it, we’re supposed to trust your assertion they rewrote history despite their rich citations and arguments and your absolute lack thereof.

That is, unfortunately, exactly the kind of quality comment I’ve come to expect from the thoughtless anti-firearm brigade.

If your goal is to feel good about Doing Something then you are right. If the goal is to meaningfully reduce violence without curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens, you are dead wrong. The only effective way to go about this is to logically look at what the effect of a law would be.

Okay, so if it’s not a bullshit excuse to do nothing, what has the pro-gun community done to address the issue of gun violence over the last 25 years?

Oh look, they’ve done nothing. In fact, they’ve done worse than nothing because they’ve actually made it easier to enable criminals, abusive partners and domestic terrorists to arm themselves on a whim.

But despite this, they continue to insist they they and they alone have the answers and what a susprise, the answer is once again “don’t change anything”.

First of all, you are mistaken here. Guns used by criminal groups are most often straw purchases, which are very much illegal.

Okay, so you’re openly admitting that the current laws are a failure, but you’re also staunchly opposed to anyone fixing them. If your goal was to arm criminals and people who hit their wives, how would your actions differ from what you’re already doing?

You’re not going to allow straw purchases to be stopped, despite them being borderline non-existent in comparable countries. You’re not going to allow the gun show loop holes to be closed, despite them being openly acknowledged ways of buying guns without a background check. You’re definitely not going to support mandatory safe storage to punish dildos who leave handguns in gloveboxes, because those dildos are your friends.

More importantly, looking at the problematic people and just banning whatever they have in their hands has a long history of failing to make any meaningful impact on crime.

Yet more bullshit. “Oh look at this stupid ban or this thing law that didn’t work”. If those laws done work, go out and buy an RPG. Get a box of grenades without the appropriate license. Hell, pick yourself up a truck full of ANFO, I’ll cover the cost.

But you can’t, because it turns out banning precision engineered weaponry is actually easy as fuck.

You have to predict the holistic effects of the law, long term, to see if it will have a positive impact.

Is that your excuse for 25 years of the “good guys with guns” accomplishing absolutely nothing except lining the pockets of Republicans and lobby groups? You’re still looking at the holistic, long term effects of the laws that just happen to be the most personally convient to you.

Restricting legal guns had little long term benefit in Brazil at stopping crime with firearms.

And should we use the same dogshit, pro-gun logic for all laws? It’s illegal to fuck kids, but people fuck kids anyway, so by pro-gun logic it should be legal to fuck kids after a 2 day waiting period.

It’s illegal to drive while intoxicated, but that’s probably super inconvenient for some people so by pro-gun logic it should be allowed as long as their on their way to or from a gun show.

It’s illegal to kill people, but… Oh nevermind, judging by the murder fantasies on most pro-gun platforms, they’d be throbbing at the idea of those laws getting changed.

It has only gotten easier to make them at home as time goes on. No manufacturing facilities needed

Oh well you’ll be all set without your guns then. If any authoritarian dictatorships come along, all the pro-gun people who promised to protect us from it (but wouldn’t even wear masks in a pandemic) can just grab a $200 PLA printer from AliExpress and print themselves off a machine gun.

Right after they finish enthusiastically voting for them and losing 130lbs of course.

Nah. You think it’s the problem, you can prove it’s the solution.

And you clearly didn’t get mine. You print yourself an RPG and fire it. Use an actual 3D printer that you actually own, print yourself an RPG (and whatever ammo you need for it), hold it in your own hands and fire it.

People have walked on the moon. You can link a YouTube video of it and pretend you totally could too if you wanted to.

Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.

Thoughts and prayers for whatever point you thought you had.

I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.

And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.

I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.

Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.

But whatever “social support and safety nets” you find are still going to be paired with vastly better gun laws that try and balance social risk rather than protect profits.

You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.

Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms?

Probably not, since you’ll just deliberately miss the point to try and deflect.

The pro-gun community routinely claims that gun laws are pointless because they’ll just be broken anyway, a philosophy which is deeply stupid and morally reprehensible when applied to absolutely anything else, but they seem to think they logic is sound when it comes to gun laws.

Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?

Yes. Vastly more so than pro-gun promises to keep people safe from criminals and tyranny.

Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.