Reply #168: No I am not in any way obfuscating or quibbling. [View All]

[We_Have_A_Problem]

I have no desire to turn this into some kind of "My statistics are better than your statistics" argument. We both know that for every death caused by a human being who used a firearm, there is at least one time where the life of an innocent was saved by the use of a gun. What is the point?

Criminal misuse of a firearm is no different than criminal misuse of any other product. We dont ban alcohol or cars just because some people might drink and drive. We rely upon people to exercise good judgement before doing either of those things, and caution them not to do them together, and then punish only the ones who exercise poor judgement. Somehow though, you seem to think that because some 10K people a year are killed by criminals, everyone should be forbidden from using the tool a criminal chose to use. That is childish and stupid at best.

Further, there is still the issue that once we remove suicides and criminal actions from your 30K number, we're down to <1000 accidental deaths per year. In a nation of 310 million people, that isn't a societal cost at ALL. Statistically it barely registers. Hardly enough to justify getting rid of private ownership of a tool which has many beneficial uses.

Your clear link between gun availability and deaths is non-existent Dan. Without even having to dig too far we can both rapidly discover that gun ownership is at an all time high in the US while gun-related crime is at an all time low. Seems to me to be an inverse relationship if anything.

I really couldnt give a shit less about your plutonium/anthrax analogy. Seriously. Don't care. Nope. Not one bit. When either of those even become anything like an issue to worry about, let me know. Until then, they simply go in the "wildly fantastical bullshit" pile. You're trying to say that since on the extreme end of indiscriminate substances we control access, why not control access on the more pedestrian end. It is a garbage argument and you know it. One does not extend edge solutions to the middle. A more commonplace example of this would be suggesting we jail people for exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles an hour - after all, we would jail someone who drove 200mph on public roads....same thing right? Just a matter of degree? That degree is what makes the difference.

It is OK to admit that there is no harm caused by typical ownership and carry, but that your concern is focused on the overall potential for misuse. Really. Its perfectly OK to say that. You have to simply accept that others may not feel the same way. That's how things are in a free country. However, saying that because roughly 30K out of 300+ million firearms are misused is not demonstrating any real harm.

I submit to you that there is zero harm caused by a normal responsible adult owning or carrying firearms. I freely admit that irresponsible people will do irresponsible things, but that is true with everything in life. If you can tell me what harm is caused by John Q. Public having a .45ACP in his belt while he's out doing his weekend errands, I'll happily listen. So far, all I've seen though is fantastical claims that John may go apeshit and start shooting up a Wal-Mart or that someone may rob John's house and take his other guns and then use them in crimes.