Hypothetical For Gun Rights Advocates

[Minimalist]

You've got to start somewhere.

[henryp]

If you have money, you can buy a house in an area far enough from poor people that violent crime isn't a concern.

Yeah, that's what OJ and Nicole did.

I'm not married to OJ Simpson or fucking his wife.  So I think I'm good on that front.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, and I;d start at the top with broad gun control, not the bottom..and handle the bottom as it;s own issue which could be..if any law could handle it, handled with existing laws.

No constitutional challenges required.  No political expense whatsoever to hammer down on gun owners breaking federal and state laws as well as municipal restrictions that lead to school shootings.

[rskovride]

---

Another moot point.  Joe gun owner is not a marine on a battlefield.  The most dangerous firearm to him (and all of his loved ones), is his own.  This is a fact and it is a fact that has to be reconciled by the owner if they want to call or consider themselves largos.  

Speaking of problem firearms...and I do this in every thread, but maybe it will help to give context to why the pulse of gun control at present is so ass backwards.  Here's how trace data from the atf ranks em...they rank state by state and there's minor divergence but this is trend;

1.  Handguns that aren't revolvers.
2.  Revolvers.
3.  Hunting rifles.
4.  Shotguns
5.  Deringers
5.  Receivers and frames (yes, as in, peices of guns people use to commit crimes with)
6.  Machine guns (and for the purposes of atfs trace data they actually include ar-15s..specifically modified ones, in this stat even though they are not officially classified as such)


Then you have "unknown types" "detsructive devices" and "any other weapon".  

So..can we see why a person advocating for gun control but saying we can keep our handguns and our hunting rifles and shotguns just -might- be on the wrong track?  Granted, I can understand why we would focus on an edge case like ar-15s and school shootings..and we restrict explosives heavily even though they're down there at the bottom of the list so I don;t see why we couldn't do the same with ar-15s if people just can't stop shooting up schools with them.  If, however, we focus on the least pressing types of firearms and we allow the most pressing types to squeeze through in negotiation..how will that even begin to approach our gun problem?

-and how long do you think a gun ban like that will last?

---

That makes sense.  I just took your previous as a blanket statement, and it was not. I hope.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's put it in another context.  How ludicrous would it seem if we set about to solve the child malnutrition problem in the us by sending food or money to gated communities?

@RSKO, it is a blanket statement about the risks of a gun and whether or not they provide safety. They don't, they only add risk. Even in your own rejoinder..the only reason that a soldiers life is at risk in the first place is the curiously large number of guns about on a battlefield. Having one himself doesn't make him any less likely to be shot or killed..it just makes it more likely that he'll shoot or kill someone.

[rskovride]

Yeah, that's what OJ and Nicole did.

I'm not married to OJ Simpson or fucking his wife.  So I think I'm good on that front.

Eaaasssy killer, just trying to point out that violent crime happens on both sides of the railroad tracks.

[Anomalocaris]

Statistically?  I don't understand that statement either.  Certainly our marines are safer with rifles than rubber chickens.

If our Marines had rubber chickens instead of guns, they wouldn't be sent to Afghanistan as often.

---

Never owned a gun.  There's safety in money.

Until segregation by wealth eventually lead to the guillotine. Then there is Darwin award in money.

[rskovride]

Let's put it in another context.  How ludicrous would it seem if we set about to solve the child malnutrition problem in the us by sending food or money to gated communities?

@RSKO, it is a blanket statement about the risks of a gun and whether or not they provide safety.  They don't, they only add risk.  Even in your own rejoinder..the only reason that a soldiers life is at risk in the first place is the curiously large number of guns about on a battlefield.  Having one himself doesn't make him any less likely to be shot or killed..it just makes it more likely that he'll shoot or kill someone.

I'll concede the blanket statement in that context, but would it not also be a moot point?  Unless we could get rid of them all, which is not plausible imo.

[henryp]

I'm not married to OJ Simpson or fucking his wife.  So I think I'm good on that front.

Eaaasssy killer, just trying to point out that violent crime happens on both sides of the railroad tracks.

Oh, was that the point?  I couldn't figure it out, so I responded like you were saying OJ was a threat to everyone.

[Whateverist]

The 2d Amendment is about well-regulated state militias.  It is not about every shithead having a private arsenal.  In 1789 the US was not to have a standing army but was to rely on calling up the militia in various states for the national defense.  It was probably one of the stupider ideas underlying the formation of the nation but at the time it was needed to get the various colonies to sign off on it.

Stevens is right.  The 2d Amendment as written is obsolete.  The militia system has been superseded by the National Guard.

The nutters think it is to give the common folk a chance if the standing army becomes oppressive.  They basically think it is one gun, one vote as to when the oppression has become onerous enough to begin shooting.  We live in the land of europe's idiots.  Australia got their criminals, we got the deranged - and they've bred true.