"Getting drunk and driving 100 miles an hour is also fun, but it’s still illegal. Same with crystal meth. The point is there is a social cost to allowing recreational gun ownership, and gun owners need to acknowledge we are all paying a certain price for their entertainment. For those of us who never have and never will own a gun, it is most definitely not worth it."
This argument pisses me off. Equating a gun owner with someone that drives drunk or does crystal meth is ignorant and demeaning.
It’s like saying “Sick of car accidents that result from texting? Place the blame on everyone that owns a cell phone.”
To me there is a huge difference between owning a handgun or a hunting gun and owning a semi automatic weapon. How is it that they are legal? The only reason to own a semi automatic weapon is to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. You don’t need to aim well, you just need to shoot it.
Great, but that’s not the message of the original post. The sentiment attacks “recreational gun ownership”. It implies, by extension, that my guns kill other people, and it’s a shallow, un-nuanced view of an issue that requires nuance, not blanket statements.
I’m not sure i agree with the original argument, but I think the notion isn’t that your guns kill other people but that your constitutionally enshrined right to amass them virtually unfettered kills other people. And further, since a vast number of people will never choose to exercise that right, it’s on those that do to assess the opportunity cost of their decision. Again, I need to think more about this, but it’s definitely something worthy of seriously considering. (via hugeinjapan)
I understand your point, but I’m uncomfortable with basing the regulation of anything on a small percentage of outliers.
Look, I understand this is a terribly sensitive issue, and ignoring emotion is nearly impossible, no matter which side you’re on. I just think it’s important to separate the responsible from the reckless, as we try to do with anything we decide to regulate.