[samsonradu]

> The gun culture is the locus of a lot of important values in the US -- service to the country, acceptance of danger, self control, precise and accountable behaviour

I have a hard time understanding what does acceptance of danger and self-control have to do with assault rifles? Can't those be exerted with a pistol?

Also I fail to understand how people don't see guns as a liability. Just having one in the house would cause me a lot of headache. Guns can be stolen, kids might find it etc..

[solidsnack9000]

What you are trying to do here, is find some justification for guns; but that is not how a free country works. We don't need to ask the government permission to do stuff. We can still do things without having a good reason.

Not sure what policy you're proposing but whatever it is, it needs justification -- that's what limited government is about. No restrictions without reasons.

[samsonradu]

I'm not proposing any policy. Trying to assess if having assault guns causes more problems than it solves, considering it's hard to keep control of who buys/sells them in a country of 300M+ population. That would probably stand for a justification, wouldn’t it?

We’re also forbidden to keep plutonium or enriched uranium in our basement regardless of what we use it for.

Hell there’s many free countries where it’s illegal to possess weed.

[solidsnack9000]

It seems like you’re obliquely arguing for something, since you say “it’s hard to keep control of who buys/sells them” and offer this as justification, but justification for what, exactly?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to look at service pattern rifles in isolation to try to sort out whether they are a problem. They don’t seem to be a major contributor to gun deaths, overall — rifles of all descriptions contribute ~5% of gun deaths every year in the US. Their potential danger may seem great but the data does not bear that out.