I think the point is more encompassing than that, as in, 'it didn't work' as well. Otherwise, it's strange to use an example where no bystanders were hit as supportive of the point you're restricting the argument to.

Since your posts typically make zero sense, I have carte blanche to interpret them as I please. You're just going to reinterpret them anyway.

That's it! You found the magic line. You're confusing everything in two posts.

None of the research (that I could see) addresses that gun owners are a heterogeneous population. What the pro gun people need to say is "it is unfortunate that many gun owners are not responsible with their guns, but we need to protect the rights of the responsible gun owners." This can be followed by education and training for gun owners. Giving manufacturers and sellers some liability for the misuse of guns would give them the correct market incentives to see that this training occurs, even if it drives up the cost of guns.

It isn't going to happen, but would anti-gun people be willing to make a deal where they clarify the right to own some guns in exchange for a ban of some other guns? I am guessing the reason many people are opposed to sensible gun control is they see it as a first step towards coming for more guns. It seems like a deal could be made if the anti-gun people were able to credibly commit to not coming for more guns after they get some guns off the street.

as it shouldn't, because the USA is a nation based on the rule of law. So explain again why it is so necessary to hold weapons, to ensure the nation follows the rule of law. Every 2 years ALL the people get to change or approve the legal status of the nation.

as usual you have a position that has no foundation, and are pontificating from somewhere about something, that no one can figure out.

No CC, your argument is crap and leads to conclusions you don't like, so you just ignore them. It's OK, wanting to ban something you don't like makes you like just about everyone else.

What if, for example, you actually aren't allowed to vote because you're technically not a person or you can't afford an absurd poll tax? What if, for example, the majority actually votes for people who want you dead? Are you then bound by the tyranny of government simply because it was voted on?

The answer hopefully is **** no, and that's really all there is to it.

You don't have to use a phone, you don't have to use a library, you don't have to use a gun. But it is more difficult to commit a homicide with a phone or a library.

so you think there is a >0 chance of fascism taking over the USA. And if those fascists do take power, a few warriors will be able to restore the republic.

if those are plausible scenarios to you, then enjoy the 1930's.

Huh? You're not even following our conversation.

What does heterogeneous populations have to do with this?

Cres this was the freaking 60s, and the idea our government will be super awesome forevermore ignores history and is hopelessly idealistic.

Any gun-nuts still championing arming the faculty, non-security staff, and adult students at our schools and colleges? Or alternately, a policy of allowing them to arm? Cause that's just an obviously ******ed idea, plain and simple.

I've tried to make this point three times before... but so far the gun-nuts have either gotten themselves temp-banned responding to other posts (ex: RedBean), or weren't intellectually capable of having any discussion ( see: Festivus thread).

Now, to get there I'm gonna wanna establish a few points along the way. The first of which is this whole meme about "ZOMG, GUN-FREE, TARGET RICH, KILLING ZONES, ZOMG" is just a total buncha crap, flat out.

Since I'm 0-3 here ITT, I'll skip my usual walls-o-text. I'll just baldly assert that the whole meme of 'Gun Free Kill Zones' is garbage... and any gun-nut who uses it in an argument has a garbage argument... it's a simple case of garbage in / garbage out.

the 60's was about the commie threat, ya know the ruskies and chinese. oh and little Fidel making a deal with the russians. Those threats were not in the scope of man with gun to stop the evil hoards.

Once again you manage to miss the point by a large margin. I'm attacking the notion that the 2A is as special as gun rights proponents claim it is. A few instances where small groups of people were able to fight off bigoted mobs does not somehow prove the 2A is essential to having a safe, prosperous society or to preventing government infringement of individual liberties.

Your response to me clearly indicates you don't get this. You are essentially agreeing with me. You're right, no one is mobbing the whitehouse over Obama's election, but the gun hoarders are way closer to igniting the fires of revolution over THAT than they were over the Patriot Act, which is arguably the biggest infringement of government on individual liberties in our lifetime. The second amendment didnt prevent this or most of the other major infringements chronicled by Fly, therefore the 2A isn't THAT effective, therefore objections to further restrictions put on gun ownership based on the effectiveness of the 2A at protecting individual liberties from govt encroachment are hillarious and sad. Especially considering the people that don't believe this believe that the solution to tens of thousands of gun deaths a year is to put more guns out there in the hands of more people. They think THAT is proof of the necessity/ effectiveness of the 2A in and of itself. LOL.

Nothing in the 60s wrt to civil rights in your history then. Thanks cres.

You still haven't read the article I posted, since you still can't accurately describe it. Defense from the government isn't the only reason for the second amendment either, and you know this. You keep making the same stupid argument that since one bad thing happened, the 2A is useless.

It's pretty clear at this point you aren't even trying to make an honest argument.

Showing that many gun owners are ******ed does not address whether a responsible gun owner has a right to protect himself. Showing that a gun is more likely to be used to escalate an argument than to protect someone does address whether or not someone has the right to protect themselves.

I'm not sure what argument you are responding to.

The editorial suggests that armed citizens would not be more effective than trained police, and would bring all sorts of new problems. Getting rid of the guns would be better. I don't think assigning a percentage would be very satisfying, if you get my drift.

course it does. rights are in fact the result of cost/benefit analysis.

it's why you can carry pepper spray but not anthrax spray.

Wow.

Ikes, what post number is your article? I remember u posting it, but at the time I didn't have time to read it.

Wow, this really happened.

ike,

the fact that 'natural rights' are different in every society should tell you something

I think data talking about all gun owners is important. Gun owners who make mistakes are not ******ed. All people make mistakes, no matter who intelligent they are.

The right to protect oneself is not really the issue here. Gun control does not take away the right to defend yourself. Get a taser or mace.

Why did you use the word heterogeneous in one post then in explanation use the word ******ed?

Agreed, that was almost as bad as most of your posts.