at the other end of the present spectrum, is the U.S. Military's Most Powerful Cannon - Electromagnetic Railgun - Shoots 100 miles - Mach 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i737rM6FxqE

What's the betting there isn't already something in-between?

Hi there LEOJ & STEELEREDUX...

Thank you for your encouragement Leo, and presenting your opposite viewpoint STEELEREDUX. I think the gun debate, irrespective of whatever side you're on, is one debate that's almost impossible to prosecute, despite how logical and academic one might be?

One thing I think we all need to remember, guns kill that is precisely what they're designed to do. That old chestnut, it's not the gun that kills but the man in control of that gun that does the damage. All true, irrespective of what side is in the ascendancy.

Another thing too; a gun in the hands of a meek person, makes that person courageous. And a weakling, inordinately strong. No matter how many times I strapped my gun on, it demanded respect, and it got it from me!

SteelRedux's foul comedian is misled as many public are, by irresponsible and of course unscientific claims that Howard's 'gun control' somehow prevents mass shootings.

In fact what is at work there is two things, the first being the usual lumps in numbers of random events and the second, the Regression Fallacy. I have explained both previously and given examples to the numbnuts who continue to spruik the lie of Howard's gun control. For any here who are interested,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

The question all here should be asking is what would it take for them to change their mind on the sham of that imported political scam of 'gun control', which is merely the banning and compulsory confiscation if necessary at the point of a gun, of the assets legally acquired, legally held and legally used by ordinary citizens. That is the totalitarianism that Australians fought against in wars and migrants moved here to get away from.

Further, 'gun control' does not lay a glove on offenders and is uninterested in detection and arrest of criminals. Gun control is targeted exclusively at bans and confiscations affecting the law-abiding, licensed citizen. That is why you never hear the Greens for example, supporting higher penalties for illegal possession and illegal firearms ie penalties that affect criminals.

On the other hand, all citizens (except the authoritarian leftists) expect and accept regulation that is based on risk analysis and evidence and is fair.

Yank NRA rep: "the subject under discussion is murders"

No, the Yank NRA may claim this, but the subject under discussion is guns.

"Only" 11 thousand Yanks are deliberately shot dead by other Yanks each year (neither here nor there, the gun freaks would dismissively assert) but 30 thousand plus Yanks are shot dead each year as a result of the slave owners' and Injun hunters'constitution.

A plebiscite in THIS country would almost certainly opt for a gun-free Australia, especially if voters are clearly warned in the run up to the poll that there are multiple stashes of hundreds of guns in Australia awaiting use by gun freaks.

Not sure how such a plebiscite would go in America - depends on how many Yanks are stupid enough to believe guns would defend them from government tyranny.

Eleven thousand gun murders every year is 300 gun murders EVERY DAY.
30 thousand Americans shot dead every year is 80 family tragedies every day. Terrorising slaves and killing native Americans is sure having its blowback.

on the other hand US munitions industry is helping improve the 'merican economy and making more room for immigration into the 'land of the free' .....so it's not all bad news