What people forget is it was a different world  when the constitution was framed and  you had people making laws based on the fact that they rebeled against the english  so arming the population had a different meaning then , and during the civil war you had many Militia companies raised and led by volunteers , today you have a democracy  and you hear it's virtues touted all over the world , but time and time again you also hear the the government can't be trusted we need to be able to protect ourselves from it from an outsiders perspective  so you really strange dichotomy of  love for the ballot box /love for the right to be armed against it.

5.56 is a really shitty, underpowered round. The only way I'll own an Armalite style rifle is if it is given to me as a gift.

Exactly: unless you belive that the US military, comprised of US citizens, would turn on the US citizenry, there is no reason to have the right to bear arms to defend yourself against a tyrannical state. On the other hand, if you believe that soldiers would willingly oblidge such orders, there is every reason to believe that the right to bear arms would afford you no chance of resistance against a tyrannical state.

True, and mixing alchohol and guns is very, very dangerous. But those aren't the same thing. A car, when not mixed with alchohol, is a pretty pedestrian thing. With roughly 1 fatality for every 90 million miles driven, even including drunk driving related deaths. Guns, are dangerous even when not mixed with alchohol.

The other reason they don't really make for a 1:1 comparison, is that cars have a lot of upsides. It would be pretty much impossible for me to get to school or work without a car, and that's true for a lot of people.

Guns, on the other hand...Not so much. Many of the percevied benefits of gun ownership don't actually hold water when put under scrutiny. Especially when talking about self defense. A study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that as gun prevelance goes up, so does crime. On top of that, an annalysis of 15 studies done by the Annals of Internal Medicine found that men with acess to guns are 4 times as likely to commit suicide, or be murdered, than men who don't have acess to guns. Women, were 3 times as likely.

"today you have a democracy"

true and there is a reason why america was not formed as a democracy but as a republic with constitutional rights granted to its citizens

it was to ensure that the masses would not be able to vote away their rights to the state in return for protection and security 

to guard against an era where citizens could be detained indefinitely without trial or due process so that the government can keep the people safe in its search for "terrorists"

the rights of the citizens were supposed to be immutable so that little by little they could not be voted away until eventually a tyranny was formed

"democracy" has always spiralled into tyranny because the masses always vote for more and more security granting the ruling class more and more power

the reason why the concept of democracy and socialism are being pushed so hard now is for that very purpose... it is not for the best interests of the masses but its to grant the ruling class more power with the consent of the masses

think about it yourself why would the one's in charge push a system where supposedly everyone is at an even level? would that not elimate their power? why would they do that? well they wouldn't... yes most people will be confined to one level but they will still be at the top controlling everything with even more power than they had initially

how did they interview the dead guys who killed themselves to get that data?

I'm happy know you didn't have to go out and shoot a bunch of socialists to get there. I hope you're not too disappointed.

Are you serious? Like...really? I can think of very, very few scenarios where you would need to interview the victim first hand to determine if they had acess to firearms...

Edit: This is the problem with the gun discussion in America as a whole, one side has a set belief about guns and won't let anything tell them otherwise. A gut feeling takes the place of actual data. And don't think I'm just saying that because I don't like guns. I actually do like guns, I've fired several in my life and if you had asked me when I was 17 or 18 if I planned on buying any guns, I would have said yes. But now that I've gotten a bit older and done my research, the benefits of owning firearms is greatly outweighted by the risks.

Nukes are and (almost) always have been a deterrent, not a defense. And, well, Russia has nukes. So if there was any conceivable reason to have nuclear weapons, that would be it. I don't like them but I certainly don't think I would feel safer if the US gov't decided we don't need any of these things and decommissioned all of them.

You honestly don't think the United States needs an organized and sophisticated military? You think everyone in the world would just be really cool with us if we hypothetically had no military at all? Certainly the country has made its own enemies in the past and will continue to do so, but I don't see why that would stop being the case if we had no means to defend ourselves. With battleships I was speaking somewhat figuratively, but we do have a large active navy and not for no reason.

There's no objective way to measure a weapon's "lethality." I think we have to rely on common sense to the greatest extent we can. In other words, we start with the most 'common sense' agreement possible and work backwards from there: American citizens should be allowed to arm themselves; however, they should not be allowed to possess nuclear warheads. So, why not? What makes a nuclear bomb a "special" kind of weapon that exempts it from protection under the second amendment? What other weapons, if any, should be similarly exempted?

I think we can start by categorizing a weapon's defensive merits versus its aggressive merits. Again, this cannot be objectively measured. We have to rely on our better judgement. Obviously a nuclear bomb is an 'aggressive' weapon: it puts tremendous destructive and deadly power in the hands of a single person. Most importantly, it cannot be quickly deployed. Speed is of critical importance to a defensive weapon, because the aggressor will always have time on their side. A handgun also gives deadly force to an individual, but it also gives a very fast defense to a victim. It is a strong defensive weapon. Regular household implements such as knives and baseball bats are also defensive, being available at a moment's notice within the home.

If the aggressor is armed with a handgun, a nuclear warhead will not help you. You need a weapon that you can use as quickly as the aggressor can use their weapon despite not expecting to have to use it at that moment. Now we have some terms and can start to narrow things down in a realistic way without talking about absurd things like defending your family with a bunker-buster. A sniper rifle is an aggressive weapon. It isn't something you can pull out of your pocket or use effectively at close ranger. A rocket-propelled grenade is an aggressive weapon. Shotguns and rifles are defensive weapons. They are big and intimidating, and can be pulled out of a hall closet or from under a counter as easily as a baseball bat. They are highly effective at close range and are better at hurting a few people very badly than they are at hurting dozens of people indiscriminately.

Sound reasonable so far?

something about the way that is worded is confusing me

like, for example, how can it be determined that the man in question would not have killed himself via another method had he not posssessed a gun?

well we can't ask him because he's dead, therefore, its open to interpretation

so if for instance we want to paint gun owenership as being deviant we can use the interpretation that the gun influenced his decision when he might have been dead set on killing himself anyway