Rifling is a higher tech and increases accuracy and range over smooth bore guns.

Rifles are more expensive to produce - particularly on a mass scale in a time before assembly lines - which is why muzzle-loading smoothbores remained the weapon of choice for use by national armies well into the mid-19th century.

@draug - I agree with you to some extent and my thoughts on gun control only really extend to the pros and cons rather than how to change the law. As you know I'm not an American so it isn't really my place to comment anyway. Except to say that I hope that if enough people wanted something then the constitution of any country shouldn't limit their desires.

In the UK we have a convention that one government cannot bind the next. The coalition have passed law that states that any treaty with our European allies which cede powers to the EU must be ratified by a referendum. However, that cannot bind a successive government. We are a parliamentary democracy and if we vote Labour in next time we accept that they can govern and if that means ceding powers to the EU without a referendum then so be it. It will of course be damaging on a PR level but they would be entitled to do what they want,

The Constitution doesn't stop anything with majority suppprt being.implemented. It just provides a very clear path to making the change, and that change is a Constitutional amendment. But remember that the uniqueness of the US is that each state is much like your countries in the EU in that they have some.pretty expansive rights and autonomy as long as they don't violate any of the principles established in the Constitution.

"Each 'state is much like your countries in the EU" - I'd think you will find quite a few people would disagree with that. Each EU member is a separate sovereign country with their own armies, head of state, flag, national anthem etc. they choose to share some objectives and work very closely with each other. Some choose to share a currency, some choose to relax boarder controls and all of them seek to operate an open market where labour and capital move freely. They also choose to be governed by the same laws to a degree. But each member state can withdraw at any time. In the UK the main political parties favour the EU but generally don't want to be ruled by it.

Also we don't elect the president of Europe directly as you do in the USA.

We don't elect the president directly either. Electoral College elects the president.

In Europe Angela Merkel elects the President in a fair and democratic one person vote.

The European Union has several "presidents," none of them too important. As redhouse1938's post implies, there's a reason you see Angela Merkel on TV all the time during discussions about the Eurocrisis and not that weird little Belgian who most people are talking about when they're referring to a President of Europe.

@the czech - we (Europeans) don't even have the-presidential candidates on a ballot paper. The insignificance of our president underlines how different the US and EU are.

I don't get what this is supposed to demonstrate, except the fallacy that if guns were taken away knives would be just as efficient. The poor woman was stabbed multiple times and survived. Do you think she would have survived had her husband shot her three times? And naturally, the fact that statistics show conclusively that guns are more often used to shoot family members accidentally than use in self-defense is irrelevant, because they're inconvenient for your position.

"The Constitution doesn't stop anything with majority suppprt being.implemented."

Which is why numerous laws with majority support have been either vetoed by presidents or struck down by the courts.

Facts and statistics show farm equipment causes more deaths AND all of those are accidental. Should we ban farm equipment?

Show me the stats. In 2010, there were 476 deaths due to work related injuries on farms. That same year, there were 11,493 firearm *homicides* alone.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/

So in other words, you gun nutters lie through your teeth.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Over 200,000 firearm related injuries in 2010 - 31,513 firearm related deaths.

Apparently you people care so much about the security and life of zygotes that you want to control women's reproductive organs, but 31,000+ firearm deaths and 200,000 injuries per year is a-ok, let's just have unregulated gun ownership!

And you people care about healthcare costs too, sure you do.

I said "much like" not "exactly like". And eaxh state has a "president" as well. We call them governors and they are much more than mouthpieces for the feds at the local.level. My primary point was the level of independence of the state level is far greater than at most nations divisions belpw the national level therefore our national level government has some pretty signifocant restrictions when it isn't committing treason and usurping the states' aithority

You can probably count on your fingers & toes the number of times electors have voted for someone other than the candidate for whom they were pledged. The electoral college is meaningless. Half the states punish by law any elector who dares go rogue.

Fucking phone posted before I could fix typos. I hate smart phones.

German lander have more autonomy than our states, and even chose the members of their upperhouse of parliament, the Bundesrat. The Belgian system of federalism is so great that most of the time they don't have a functioning central government but yet everything continues to run. America doesn't have a monopoly on federalism, not even close.

"So, with the Constitution having the Right to bear amrs so enshrined, the people must amend the Constitution, not just ignore it, or the separation of powers and the three branches providing that balance no longer exists."

Tell me, where are the 'militias' that the 2nd amendment mentions? Don't give me the crap about well-regulated militias = unrestricted personal right to own firearms.

From your link Putin.
26.1 per 100,000 due to farms
3.7 due to firearms and that includes police killing perps and suicide.

26.1 deaths per 100,000 *workers* vs 3.7 per 100,000 *people*.

Way to be completely dishonest.

Thanks for ignoring the 31,513 vs 476 deaths in 2010 disparity, and continuing to claim there are more farm related deaths than gun related deaths.

Keep lying.

You'd think the fact that guns kill 60 times + more people than one of the most dangerous occupations in America would give gun nutters pause, but there is a reason their party is called GOP - Guns Over People.

Now mosques in Tennessee? They're dangerous and need to be banned. But everybody owning guns and being able to carry them in public? Great idea.

Way to avoid natural cause there all together. I mean, er , that's #1. Given the # of guns vs the # of tractors, I'll take my chances packing heat vs the lib who doesn't.

BTW I worked on a farm too and didn't lose a even a fingernail.

Now you're appealing to natural causes after your bs argument about farm work killing more people than guns was debunked for the lie that it is. Yes, let's legalize every dangerous item known to man, and allow unfettered access to them, and then claim doing so will increase our public safety, to hell with reality. Because after all, 'natural causes' kill more people, so tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year are a worthwhile price to pay.

Why not save ourselves the time and carpet bomb a random small city on a map once per year. It makes just as much sense as legalized unrestricted gun ownership and is just as immoral.

"BTW I worked on a farm too and didn't lose a even a fingernail."

Good for you. Any more irrelevant personal details you want to reveal?

Oct, Unless you are using a friends gun, you usualy own what you are using.

I have used a friends gun to burn a few rounds off before, but never 'borrowed' it, however, I would say 99% of the time I am using something I own myself.