Maybe there will be less school shootings and other rampages now. Won't a stun gun be suitable for those that cry self defense?

Well yeah because any black market for guns currently is pointless since they are legal (in most places)

In the scenario where guns are banned though the black market for guns would explode. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree though, it's clear we won't change each others mind on the subject. 

Hmm why cant I see the youtube video im posting..

ohh well heres the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

If you get offended by this you are probably one o the 10% he's mentioning in this clip

One can argue that arms includes ammunition. And in that circumstance, a strict interpretation of the second amendment would oppose restrictions on ammunition as well (infringe is a pretty concrete word.) Nevertheless, most people who become Supreme Court Justices are not constructionists. So you don't really need a strict definition. 

So you agree with me that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to be able to buy AR 15 rifles? Wonderful.

No, I think people should be able to own whatever weapons they want for self defense. What I find ideal for self defence may differ with what someone else thinks. 

false, there has not been one documented case of someone being killed from an AR-15 pistol using m855 ball ammunition

I really don't want to say anything insulting, but you must lack all capacity for logic if you somehow interpreted those statements that way.

First of all, I was quite obviously speaking about civilian use.

Second, when speaking about benefits and costs, I was saying that their increased technical capabilities do not produce any benefits in legal, civilian use.

Both of these things were explained in more detail in my other posts. Feel free to read them if you want to see my full explanation

Read: "someone in a position to", not "someone who has".

Crimes are often commited by people who were not a criminal before that point in time. I don't know about you, but if I was planning on commiting a crime, I would have no idea how to locate weapons on the black market.

Also of note, due to supply and demand curves, prices of illegal weapons would likely increase quite drastically over the black market, making it even more difficult to obtain illegal weapons.

In the UK, its probably close to impossible to smuggle guns into the country (surrounded by sea, guns are metal-detectable etc... In the U.S. It's probably a little easier because you have land borders.

If Guns were outlawed across the U.S tomorrow, you still have maybe millions of guns in circulation that won't go away quickly or easily.

I am still confused on this line of thinking people have. If there is no legitimate reason to purchase these weapons, why do people purchase these weapons? Why not purchase two handguns or a really nice handgun instead? Obviously such people who spend $700-1200 on such a weapon want that weapon for a legitimate reason. Why is self-defense any more legitimate than recreational use (at a range?) Why is self-defense in the context of this environment any more legitimate than self-defense in some future context? Whether something is legitimate is solely the decision of the person buying, with the exception of when they affect the rights of others. Purchasing an AR-15 does not affect the rights of others, therefore any legitimacy comes from the purchasers idea of how they benefit.