On 10/15/2017 5:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:


What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"?

It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using.

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain
limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests
(anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to
use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds.
Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for
killing people.


An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a
handgun.Â* On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for
the job.Â* I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job.

When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire
can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic,
because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be
very useful.

You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular
tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool
if they find it useful?Â* Should we go back to hand saws and files
because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to
the ER?

I'd say the legality of your hypothetical tool should depend on the
balance of benefits vs. detriments.

In the case of rapid fire guns and handguns, we have "tools" that may
make it slightly easier to kill, oh, maybe a hundred horses per year. At
the same time, in the U.S. anyway, they make it much easier to kill
thousands of people.

And somehow, somehow many other civilized countries get by without them
- or at least, with a relatively tiny number of them. They achieve the
benefits in other ways, and don't suffer nearly as many of the horrific
detriments as the U.S. does.

--
- Frank Krygowski