Larry Correia re-posted his previous gun control, and I responded to a liberal commenter with the below blockquote. I am mostly saving this here for my own reference for a few ideas I want to flesh out.
Edward Trimnell also took on Scalzi’s guilt by association post. I have nothing to add, there. So on to the comment.
1. Criminals actually don’t often use automatic weapons, that was one of the points. But there’s a big difference in laws banning possession of something ( so very hard to enforce; see the drug trade/war, which is a HUGE waste of resources), and banning an act *against another person*. If you can’t see and recognize that, go ahead and stop reading.
2. Gun deaths, counting murders, accidents, and suicides, are roughly equal with car deaths in the last year data is available (or was, when I had this argument a month ago). Cars aren’t even guaranteed in the constitution, so…
3. The Supreme Court disagreed — it is an individual right with many purposes. This point is settled, there is no point in discussing it.
4. No it isn’t, but even if it is, that’s not the sole purpose of 2A anymore than 1A is only about speech about the government.
5. A home gun collection is not solely for tyranny. Who are you to tell me how to spend my money?
6. Yes, in the hands of the law-abiding.
“imo, there’s a naivete for gun proponents… the notion that human beings are intrinsically good and responsible… or at least the ones that you hang around with.”
And the naivete on the other side is that the government is peopled with people who are intrinsically good and responsible. Hint: It seems that there’s a higher percentage of good and responsible people outside the government than in.
Human beings built civilization. I’d say we’re trending more toward good and responsible than away from it. Crime has been on a down swing.
“question becomes, just how deadly of a weapon you permit stupid, ill-tempered and malicious people to have.”
Seeing as how there are more guns than people, and there are very few crimes-of-passion involving guns…
“you dismiss the nuclear weapons thing as absurd but THAT would be the current level of deterrence needed to fight “against tyranny”… but we agree that nuclear weapons for every man woman and child is a stupid thing… because we recognize how stupid and irresponsible and malicious we tend to be.”
Nobody is going to hunt with a nuke. Nobody is going to defend themselves with a nuke. Nobody with any sense wants to nuke a country they plan to live in. A nuclear accident would be far worse than a gun accident. Also, nuclear fuel is expensive, and hard to work with.
Finally on this topic, there is a huge difference between ordinance and arms.
“sure, you can use that argument to ban kitchen knives. but we can be sensible.”
You guys banned guns that looked scary. We don’t trust you.
Also, based on your assessment of people and their anger reactions, I am very glad you are not likely a gun owner.