That's exactly how it worked out with alcohol vs drugs such as marjuana in many western countries, isnt't it? It's not my position, but it's what happened historically.

Please note that I'm not advocating anything: I'm stating that human law is born out of pragmatic choices a community makes about itself and its evolution, not just petitions of principles. Matter of fact.

And while on several issues I find myself in the minority most of the times, and I can think I see things better or clearer than the law, that's not the point I was making. We can disagree on how much regulation is needed for guns in a modern western society, but at least we'd be arguing about risks and statistics and licenses and corner cases, not about an abstract, naked right.

And I claimed that this is what law is about: the wooly layers of interpretation and muddling that come between aseptic abstract individual rights and their realization in a given situation with many people involved. Law is only necessary in a community; isn't it obvious that clashing of so-called individual rights is inevitable and its own reason d'etre?

Where I come from, pragmatism is supposed to be logical... additionally things are supposed to be put in the way to prevent tyranny of the majority.

The fact that we've had failings to prevent tyranny of the majority is just that.  Failings of the current system.

As for argueing about regulation in the modern society based on statistics and risks.

Good luck with that.

There are really only two major studies on the matter that are relevent.

One that shows owning guns increases acts of violence.  Only counting it as preventing an act of violence if you were shot or hit first.  As in, punched or hit with a bullet.

And one that shows owning a gun decreases acts of violence.  Counting everything including people feeling threatened.

Both are impercise.  Me, I tend to go with the second study... because it seems a lot less impercise and silly.  Which is more likely.  Stopping someone approaching who's pulling a knife on you... or someone pulling a gun on an innocnet stranger?

Outside that, correlations between gun ownership and violent crime is inconclusive...

While the increase in gun deaths in countries with more guns seems to be almost exclusivly due to suicide.  There doesn't appear to be any increase in "pro-active" violence.   Probably because the people robbing you know if you have a gun or not... and if you do... they don't rob you!  The vast majority of home invasions and robberies are conducting by people who know you... and most likely you won't even be home when it happens.  Unless someone is trying to kill or rape you.  In which case... you are screwed unless you have a gun anyway.

Which is like the one negative you can point to of gun ownership.  If you get depressed and try and kill yourself and use your gun, you are slightly more likely to succeed.

Within the US, stricter gun control laws and less legal gun ownership tend to have higher crimerates and higher violent crime rates.  Though those may just be the more irresponsible parts of the country. 

It's actually kinda funny.  A lot of states with less gun laws have, have higher gun deaths, but actually have lower deaths via actual shootings.

I'm pretty sure a psychiatrist can judge whether a person is capable or not to own a gun, without starting to shoot everybody.

And I doubt many people today hunt for food. The vast majority of hunters hunt "for sport", which is a despicable practice.

Where I live, that is certainly not the case. During hunting season, hundreds of thousands of deer are shot and tagged, and used for food. Many hunters in the state of Ohio donate their hunt to local food pantries and food banks.

They donated 104,000 pounds to the hungry last year in my state:

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/dec/15/2/ohio-deer-hunters-donate-venison-food-banks-ar-327767/

While that is true, today we no longer need to hunt poor animals for food. There are already several animals killed and their meat is sold at supermarkets. There's really no point in all this extra killing.

Yeah there is.

Because free-range animals that are shot are fed 100% natural ingredients, and are given a more humane death than most farm raised animals. I would rather eat a free-range animal that was given a natural habitat, instead of living in a pen and fed various feeds to fatten itself up.

Furthermore, they are not 'poor' animals. In the State of Ohio, deer populations are culled through legal hunting at pre-determined times each year. If it were not for these hunts, the deer would become overpopulated, which would require massive government intervention to ensure the populations were culled. If they were not culled, the deer would face starvation, disease and other such maladies. Farmers would also face damages from such animals, that feed on their grains which further tax the population.

Therefore, legal hunting is a win-win propostion: The government doesn't have to spend money on actively culling the popluations, hunters get millions of pounds of 'free' food, and the deer population continues to live in its natural habitat, away from being herded and castrated by the wildlife agencies.

I mean, I'm sure they have alternatives. I don't hunt, and I'm not starving. But I don't know any hunters who don't eat what they hunt.

And if there were no deer hunting where I live, the deer population would get out of hand in no time flat. I really don't think it's more humane to have animals starving to death and being hit by cars than it is to shoot them and eat them. I can't see how it's more humane to slaughter a cow than it is to shoot a deer, either.

I just wanted to add that living in Alberta I know a handful of hunters and while they enjoy hunting as sport most of them eat the animals they kill; or at least keep as much of the animal as they can make use of and give the rest away. I don't (exactly) know what the costs are, but even with all costs associated with hunting a deer gives you far more meat than you could buy in a store for a similar amount of money ...

The costs of hunting are a fraction of buying at a store.

Typical costs in my state (Ohio) are $24.00 per deer for the licensing tag. The $24.00 fee pays for ODNR (Ohio Deparment of Natural Resources) rangers to maintain our parks and wildlife preserves, as well as pay for processing of meat donated to the hungry.

In addition to the $24.00 tag, it is then up to how you process the animal. If you butcher it yourself, the cost is just the tag and bullet. Typical processing costs are about $50-75 per deer. So under $100 USD for a deer that will dress out at 150lbs or more - much cheaper than any other red meat on the market. Its great eating, too. Deer backstraps are better than any cut of beef. Its like a solid 10lb cut of meat better than filet migon.

That isn't to mention other animals that can dress out higher for similar tag prices. America is starting to have a feral hog problem - domestic pigs escaping and going wild. These pigs have the advantage of being far smarter than deer (don't get hit by cars), breed as fast as rabits (6-7 young per year), and eat more field crops than 3 deer combined per animal. They haven't got to Ohio yet, but many other states allow open hunting of the animals with no tags/permits year-round. Feral pigs dress out between 100-400lbs. So you could eat upto 400lbs of pork for a bullet and process.

Oh, and unlike deer, feral pigs cannot be culled. They are known to attack and kill any and all things when threatened.

As I said, you can derive self-defense from the militia part, and have it be unconnected.  What I am saying is by the militia part NOT being seen as part of it, you will get the ability to get weapons to defend against government takeover restricted.  What is derived from the original intent can get lengthy.