Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

Show how the laws imposed in those countries changed those countries. Comparing current state in those countries to the US and claiming a causal effect of gun laws without showing a causal effect isn't a valid comparison.

Why have the ratios of homicide rates of the US to UK improved in favor of the US even though the UK imposed draconian gun laws on its people?

 

Now you’re a conservative Supreme Court Justice ? Make sure you include both left and RIGHT leaning state, federal and Supreme Court judges in your statements. There are NO Supreme Court Judges of either leaning that have said your rights are absolute.....none. If we decide to legislate that a five shot revolver is the only firearm that qualified civilians can carry with out a special license, there is nothing in any previous decision that prevents that legislation from being past. It will have to be challenged, accepted and passed on.

 

Re:

No, I'm afraid we don't know that countries with a disarmed populace have less violence as there are over 80 countries with complete gun bans that have more homicides than the US:

"Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

Please note that the US is the only country with a 2nd Amendment and is quite different from the cherry picked "developed" countries often cited:

"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan."CONTINUED

 

You have nothing to refute the stats I see. You’re left to make up suppositions.... at some point, and we have reached it, you’ll need to do your own research into the behavioral sciences. I have.
Keep reaching though. It’s funny. Nations and states with stronger gun laws on average have fewer gun deaths.

 

So all other weapons that are "in common use for lawful purposes" could be banned?

 

Make up your own regulations , you’re the Justice now. Have regs been passed that did this before ? .

 

Your stats aren't applicable. Vermont had a lower homicide rate than California for decades. Does that statistic show that gun laws increase homicide rates?

You keep trying to claim a univariate solution to a multivariate problem. The very fact that you only shows statistics from "industrialized" countries shows that there are more variables to be considered.

The ratio of homicide rates of the US to Australia was 4.5:1 in 1995. It's still 4.5:1. The ratio of homicide rates of the US to the UK was 6.4:1 in 1995. It's now barely 4:1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

 

You need to follow the posts. We’re talking about industrialized democratic nations. Smell the roses.

 

Passed <> Constitutional. Given that Heller and Caetano do actually protect all bearable firearms in common use for lawful purposes, how would you support banning all firearms but 5 shot revolvers?

 

So it's not just the gun laws?

 

I was waiting fir it. Took you a while. I’ll excuse your lack of statistical insight. “On average” includes outliers, mainly those with a very small sample size. You’re laughable comparison of Vermont to California. That’s what happens when you’re wrong. You start grouping for invalid suppositions. But keep trying, it’s funny.

 

I wouldn’t ban anything. I NEVER proposed that. Heck, we don’t even ban nuclear power plants from private corporations. .

 

Show the effect the gun laws had on the homicide rate of the countries you try to compare to the US. Present state isn't a complete data set. If you want to claim that the laws had an effect on their homicide rate, you have to show before and after.

As an example, in the data from UNODC in the link provide earlier, the homicide rate in England/Wales was 1.28 in 1995, prior to their gun laws. In 2016, the last year of data included, the homicide rate was 1.22, for a 5% decline. For seven years of the 1990s, the England/Wales homicide rate was equal to or less than 1.22 rate in 2016; the homicide rate in every year of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s in England/Wales was significantly less than 2016's 1.22 rate.

 

You proposed this "what-if": "If we decide to legislate that a five shot revolver is the only firearm that qualified civilians can carry with out a special license, there is nothing in any previous decision that prevents that legislation from being past. It will have to be challenged, accepted and passed on."

If you truly believe the bold portion, explain how the restriction you've proposed doesn't violate Heller and Caetano.

 

Haha
This is how gun cultist completely try to confuse the issue. Regulating is not banning. You’ll never understand that because you don’t even believe the conservative Supreme Court and you don’t have access to a dictionary.

 

Regulating can include banning. If legislation to limit "qualified" civilians to 5 shot revolvers is Constitutional, then "banning" can be Constitutional. Explain how the regulation that limits qualified civilians to carrying a single type of firearm would be Constitutional in view of the protections noted in Heller and Caetano.

 

Why are you pretending to compare banning to regulating without using a real dictionary . Does this need an explanation ?

 

Are you having fun turning yourself inside out in order to rationalize making guns available to any breathing humanoid including terrorist, illegal immigrants, 15 year olds, felons and the mentally ill ?

 

Why do you ignore the request to explain how your proposed "regulation" is Constitutional given Heller and Caetano?

Banning is a subset of regulation.

 

So, you can't explain why the England/Wales homicide rate is higher now that it was for four decades prior to the NFA 1995?

We don't make guns available to terrorists, illegal immigrants felons and those adjudicated mentally defective, as these are all prohibited persons. Not all mentally ill are dangerous nor prohibited, and while 15 year olds can't buy guns there is no reason to prevent every 15 yera old from possessing a gun.

 

Can you explain how we can have an economy where 1/3 is directly based on quantum mechanics and the remaining 2/3 is dependent upon upper lever science and we have a president who doesn’t believe in science ? It’s just as relevant as your question.
States and countries in the industrialized democratic world that have stronger gun laws have fewer gun deaths on average.

 

Who cares? You've not shown that those laws reduce the homicide rate, and you can't show that those laws would be Constitutional, effective or enforceable in the US, either. You just have some statistics.

 

You can’t explain if or why those laws did reduce gun violence rates and you can’t explain why we are so high in the world in gun violence given our laws. They are facts.
The fact is too, that average gun violence per capita goes down as with increased gun laws in 48 of 50 states. That, along with the countries makes an excellent indirect variation. Look up indirect variation.

 

You brought up foreign laws. You have to prove their efficacy. What we have seen is that they didn't affect the overall homicide rate in England/Wales.

We don't ban guns. We don't require licensing. We don't require permission from the government. We don't enforce current gun laws. We don't punish criminals. We don't have the same social networks for support of low income and the mentally ill. We aren't an island. We have a War on Drugs that exacerbates violent tendencies. We have gangs that are willing to use lethal violence as policy.

Show the causal effects of before and after those laws were put in place. Show that those laws don't violate Constitutional protections.

 

Wrong again, mental health records are prohibited for use on NICS.

The NRA wants them included but the mental health fight hard to prevent that from happening.

Wow you should know a NICS check will not pull up mental health issues but still you demand background checks that will not do such.