Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

I said this wasn't the place for that logic. Stop straw-manning. I never said that.

Then don't use the "all lives are meaningful, therefore saving one life is justification for anything" argument. And next time, don't ignore the fact that the word "meaningless" referred to the statistic, not to the lives. Saying otherwise is a straw-man at worst, disingenuous at best.

A gun ban "punishes" nobody. If there was a cellphone ban put in place it'd irk the ever-living shit out of me but it wouldn't be a punishment. It's a ban.

How the hell are bans not a punishment? If a ban is put in place in response to some criminal activity, then the non-criminals are being punished along with the criminals for the criminal activity. It's as simple as that. It's especially heinous given the relative percentage of said firearms used in crime (statistically approaching 0%) and the similarly lethal capability of other, non-banned firearms. The whole thing is nonsensical.

I wouldn't be against a banning of military-style knives.

I'd just love to hear you describe the "evil features" of a military-style "assault" knife. But still... what percentage of knife kills do you think happen with a military-style knife and not some random weapon of opportunity/convenience, like a kitchen knife? I'm not sure there's a meaningful statistic out there, but I'd guess the number of military-style knife kills is actually fairly low.

Slander laws are a ban on a type of free speech.

Uh, no.

Slander is a law that punishes the criminal act of slander. Homicide laws are laws that punish the criminal act of homicide. Gun bans are a law that seeks to prevent homicides by restricting access to the tool of the criminal.

Slander laws don't seek to prevent slander by restricting access to the tools used to commit slander. Hence my more appropriate analogy of banning TV (and radio, I guess) news reporting, since that's the most public venue for potential slander (as opposed to libel, of course).

Indirectly aiding and abetting in a crime is already a crime?

Aiding and abetting require either a willing participation or at least a passive allowance of the crime. A person who lets someone drive their car drunk can be aiding and abetting. A person whose car is stolen by a person who then drives drunk is not aiding and abetting.

If someone has their gun under a bed and a guy breaks in, steals it, and then commits murder... that's not aiding and abetting. If a guy places his gun on the doorstep of his house, stands back, and points at it to a criminal, who then uses it to commit murder, then sure, that'd be aiding and abetting.

Let the courts try to decide negligence after the fact. Don't try to argue for a predetermination of negligence simply based on whether or not a thief takes the gun.

I say he's innocent if:
A) He secured the gun and ammo separately.
B) He reported the crime the moment it was discovered. A broken into secure case should be obvious.

Otherwise I consider him or her indirectly complicit in the crime. Owning a gun should be a strict responsibility with negligence a serious crime. People wouldn't take them so easily then.

The first is a no-go. That's the whole reason DC v. Heller came out the way it did. A gun for home defense is useless if you mandate it to be unready to use.

I'd be totally fine with the second. I'm all for punishing people who don't report a stolen firearm in a timely fashion.

I wouldn't try the gun owner for murder, if that's what you're saying.

Like you said, there are already provisions for aiding and abetting. I'd much rather let the courts decide it in a case-by-case basis rather than have some blanket criminal punishment in all cases, even if it's not as onerous as manslaughter or murder.

An assault weapon can do a hell of a lot more than a handgun.

No, not really. It's been covered ad nauseam, but assault weapons fire just like any other semi-automatic, have the same magazine capacity potential, and handgun calibers are far more damaging at the kinds of ranges almost exclusively seen in firearm homicides. If you disagree, feel free to say why.

But nonetheless true. While we shouldn't break down the parts of guns in your analogy, and we can't help some other parts without, you know, genocide, why don't we make efforts to stop criminals committing crimes and remove or strictly limit their weapons of choice? It certainly does cut down on homicides.

God, there's so much wrong with this quote here.

1) We do make efforts to stop criminals from committing crimes and getting guns. A ban is not the only way this is done. A ban is an act of desperation, saying that it cannot be done any other way.

2) The weapon of choice is a handgun, and handguns aren't what's being targeted by the ban. Hell, support for a handgun ban is at an all-time low, with only 24% of people in support. So it's not going to happen, regardless of your preference for a UK/Australian-style system.

3) Banning assault weapons will not significantly cut down on homicides, simply because there are so very few assault weapon homicides and those criminals universally have access to handguns, too.

And, hey, that brings up a good point. Anti-gun arguers tend to state that localized bans are ineffective because the states around the area still have no ban. Many of the same arguers will also scoff at the idea that an assault weapon ban will be ineffective because people will just switch to other, non-banned firearms like handguns. Is there a logical disconnect here? Criminals are willing to drive out-of-state to a gun show in order to buy an assault weapon, but there's no way they could be bothered to pick up a handgun or two locally?

Anyway, back to the point at hand, banning handguns might cut down on homicides, since handguns are far more concealable, more plentiful, typically cheaper than assault weapons, and are used in 80-90% of firearm homicides. But like I said a moment ago, handguns are not going to be banned.

I agree and understand. I just don't get what that has to do with the 11k who die from entirely preventable means.

Gah. "Entirely preventable"? Now you're back into wishful thinking territory.

Look. If I could believe that banning assault weapons would prevent even half that number of deaths, I might argue for it. Even a handgun ban would have a fairly limited effect in the US with as many firearms are already out there.

Despite their gun ban in 1996, Australia's homicide rate hasn't dropped as much as ours has in a similar time frame. And their knife killings are on the rise, in at least partial compensation, as well as violent crimes.

Who's going to take care of them, though?

I'm not sure what you mean. I think we should definitely address the help that mentally ill people get in this country, if that's what you mean. But simply speaking, not all of the potential mass murderers are going to be identified before they do something tragic, no matter what we do.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 12:01 PM ----------

The 0.00085% who died have zero rights now - so your "rights" ended up indirectly infringing upon theirs.(

And here's where that slippery slope reasoning comes into play. Someone's right to freedom allows them to strangle someone else with their bare hands. Therefore, it indirectly infringed upon someone else's right to live. So we should lock everybody up for their entire life and allow no freedoms.

As a line of reasoning, it doesn't make much logical sense.

Stick to restricting people who specifically infringe someone else's rights, not indirectly, through a criminal somewhere else.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 12:16 PM ----------

My point is it's irrational to assume everyone can and/or should handle them.

I don't think there are all that many people who argue that everyone should be forced to carry a firearm against their will. All the talk about arming school teachers has, as far as I know, talked about doing so only for the teachers who wanted to and had some training.

[ugotownd]

No idea if this has been posted yet, but heres some more fuel for this fiery debate......

http://rt.com/usa/shooting-mohawk-herkimer-york-211/

Four people have been shot dead after a gunman in Upstate New York went on a shooting spree Wednesday morning EST.

Police believe 64-year-old Kurt Myers of Mohawk, NY opened fire Wednesday near a car wash in Herkimer County, New York, halfway between Syracuse and Albany. Two people were shot dead on the scene, and two others were fatally wounded nearby on South Washington Street in Mohawk, State Police press liaison Jack Keller tells the Little Falls Times.

According to the authorities, six people were shot in all, with four succumbing to their wounds as of 11:18 a.m. Wednesday morning. Police were still searching for their suspect into the afternoon, but the latest reports courtesy of a local newspaper suggest the authorities may have narrowed in on a possible culprit. They warn that he should be considered “armed and extremely dangerous.”

The Utica Observer-Dispatch reports that Swat teams and a police helicopter have surrounded a jewelry store in downtown Herkimer, NY, but it is still not yet clear if the suspect is inside. The paper adds that Mohawk officials believe the suspect may be on foot, and other reports cite the possibility that he was picked up by a taxi.

How did this happen. The NY safe act was going to stop this they promised.

[Zhangfei]

Then don't use the "all lives are meaningful, therefore saving one life is justification for anything" argument. And next time, don't ignore the fact that the word "meaningless" referred to the statistic, not to the lives. Saying otherwise is a straw-man at worst, disingenuous at best.

I can use it wherever I want and it was justified. You threw in the logical fallacies.

How the hell are bans not a punishment? If a ban is put in place in response to some criminal activity, then the non-criminals are being punished along with the criminals for the criminal activity. It's as simple as that. It's especially heinous given the relative percentage of said firearms used in crime (statistically approaching 0%) and the similarly lethal capability of other, non-banned firearms. The whole thing is nonsensical.

Because it's not a punishment. You simply perceive it as such. If a child has the cookie jar placed out of his reach so he can't take them at will, he's not being "punished." A criminal who uses a gun is "punished," a ban is prevention.

I'd just love to hear you describe the "evil features" of a military-style "assault" knife. But still... what percentage of knife kills do you think happen with a military-style knife and not some random weapon of opportunity/convenience, like a kitchen knife? I'm not sure there's a meaningful statistic out there, but I'd guess the number of military-style knife kills is actually fairly low.

Indeed. But I'm confused; are knives now guns? And are kitchen knives, designed for kitchen use, comparable as a weapon to a gun? I think not. I compared knives designed as a weapon to guns designed as a weapon.

Uh, no.

Uh, yes. Slander is a form of speech. It's banned. Therefore it's a restriction on the First Amendment.

Aiding and abetting require either a willing participation or at least a passive allowance of the crime. A person who lets someone drive their car drunk can be aiding and abetting. A person whose car is stolen by a person who then drives drunk is not aiding and abetting.

If someone has their gun under a bed and a guy breaks in, steals it, and then commits murder... that's not aiding and abetting. If a guy places his gun on the doorstep of his house, stands back, and points at it to a criminal, who then uses it to commit murder, then sure, that'd be aiding and abetting.

See, I'm saying it should be. Because if you own a weapon and don't secure it and then it's used, you should be aware of those ramifications. A gun is designed to kill or maim; it's the sole purpose of a gun. A gun is not a toy. A gun should come with supreme responsibility. Once again and I shall reiterate; Americans have a too laid back attitude about guns and that is troublesome.

Let the courts try to decide negligence after the fact. Don't try to argue for a predetermination of negligence simply based on whether or not a thief takes the gun.

I know. I was suggesting a change and what I consider an absolutely clear moral statement.

The first is a no-go. That's the whole reason DC v. Heller came out the way it did. A gun for home defense is useless if you mandate it to be unready to use.

And the SC was deeply, deeply wrong about this. Their job is to interpret the constitution and sadly it has some absolute shitberries of old thought stuck in it, such as the 2nd amendment.

I'd be totally fine with the second. I'm all for punishing people who don't report a stolen firearm in a timely fashion.

I laugh because I thought we wouldn't agree on something but that's a good step. You at least acknowledge guns are bloody dangerous and shouldn't just be "out there" in anyone's hands.

Like you said, there are already provisions for aiding and abetting. I'd much rather let the courts decide it in a case-by-case basis rather than have some blanket criminal punishment in all cases, even if it's not as onerous as manslaughter or murder.

I disagree. It'd maintain the 2nd while preventing tons of those bloody stupid deaths from accidental fire.

No, not really. It's been covered ad nauseam, but assault weapons fire just like any other semi-automatic, have the same magazine capacity potential, and handgun calibers are far more damaging at the kinds of ranges almost exclusively seen in firearm homicides. If you disagree, feel free to say why.

You just moved the goalposts to "ranges almost exclusively seen in firearm homicides." That wasn't my understanding.

1) We do make efforts to stop criminals from committing crimes and getting guns. A ban is not the only way this is done. A ban is an act of desperation, saying that it cannot be done any other way.

Pitiful, minimal efforts constantly roadblocked by the NRA. It needs to be deeply strengthened, to somewhere like Switzerland's level of gun ownership.

The weapon of choice is a handgun, and handguns aren't what's being targeted by the ban. Hell, support for a handgun ban is at an all-time low, with only 24% of people in support. So it's not going to happen, regardless of your preference for a UK/Australian-style system.

I agree with the first part and the second part shows how brainwashed the American public is by NRA-style advertising, far right-wing punditry and the deepening sense of paranoia and worry that is forever conveyed. The only reason people have to say that self-defence requires a gun, for example, is criminals have them. Criminals have them because they steal them from people who get those guns and don't secure them, or they're covered by that simplistic ideology and eventually use them anyways. Allowing all people to own guns and encouraging them/believing in a philosophy that supports their right to own guns is how criminals get guns. I put the blame on the ease of accessibility squarely on the shoulders of people like you; where in my "ideal" state would people have guns? Nowhere. None to steal, none to use, none to buy.

But in the real world outside of Zhangfei's fetish for safety and ensuring the rights of people, I acknowledge some guns serve a practical purpose, especially in a country like America which has large tracts of land with dangerous animals. That's why I would strictly enforce gun safety and training laws; you want a gun, fine, but expect to spend a weekend twice a year revising and being reminded of how serious they are.

Most gun advocates generally already know this, but that's not the majority of gun owners nor the people causing significant issues in America. I just want some goddamn responsibility to be paired up with the right.

3) Banning assault weapons will not significantly cut down on homicides, simply because there are so very few assault weapon homicides and those criminals universally have access to handguns, too.

Completely agree. I'm totally against the assault weapons ban for those reasons.

And, hey, that brings up a good point. Anti-gun arguers tend to state that localized bans are ineffective because the states around the area still have no ban. Many of the same arguers will also scoff at the idea that an assault weapon ban will be ineffective because people will just switch to other, non-banned firearms like handguns. Is there a logical disconnect here? Criminals are willing to drive out-of-state to a gun show in order to buy an assault weapon, but there's no way they could be bothered to pick up a handgun or two locally?

I am not the person you're talking to because I strongly believe the assault weapon ban will be ineffective. I consider it typical social liberal wishy-washy horsecrap designed to assuage the fears of few with no real benefit because you just stated the exact issue; handguns are just as effective if Person A wants to go on a rampage. In this sense I agree there's a major disconnect for certain people.

Anyway, back to the point at hand, banning handguns might cut down on homicides, since handguns are far more concealable, more plentiful, typically cheaper than assault weapons, and are used in 80-90% of firearm homicides. But like I said a moment ago, handguns are not going to be banned.

I think I should clarify where what I would do in a perfect world and what I would do in America in 2012. Ideally there'd be a ban eventually but I wouldn't support one in America today.

Gah. "Entirely preventable"? Now you're back into wishful thinking territory.

Four times the homicide rate. Crimes of passion are the issue, and guns provide the easiest and most lethal outlet for it. It's quite hard to get into a bar fight and go back to your truck to drive home, pick up a knife and then drive back and kill a guy. But it's quite easy to go to your truck to your unsecured handgun and fire a few rounds into him. Guns make it so easy.

Look. If I could believe that banning assault weapons would prevent even half that number of deaths, I might argue for it. Even a handgun ban would have a fairly limited effect in the US with as many firearms are already out there.

We completely agree.

Despite their gun ban in 1996, Australia's homicide rate hasn't dropped as much as ours has in a similar time frame. And their knife killings are on the rise, in at least partial compensation, as well as violent crimes.

Yes, and I've heard that said about England. The point is how low were they to start with. Violent crimes are reported differently (and I still distrust your source quite deeply) and the murder rate will always vary due to other sources, as we both know. However, England has been banning certain types of gun for centuries and it's stayed low. Australia banned her guns and it's stayed low. I read that as "banning guns will not make the amount of murders rise" but you'll read that as "the rates were always low and banning guns did nothing to change that."

I have to wonder what difference it'd make in a gun-friendly country like America. I don't think there's anywhere with similar gun laws in the First World.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think we should definitely address the help that mentally ill people get in this country, if that's what you mean. But simply speaking, not all of the potential mass murderers are going to be identified before they do something tragic, no matter what we do.

Right; I think that supports my point. If we can never identify every person who will snap and break, banning certain weapons means we shouldn't have to worry they'll do so much damage when they do.

[Nadev]

How did this happen. The NY safe act was going to stop this they promised.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg and soda.

[PhaelixWW]

No, it doesn't effect US gun laws directly. It has a bigger effect.

Blah, blah, blah... *snip*

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.

According to an ATF report on firearms commerce:

5,459,240 firearms were manufactured in the US in 2010; only 241,977 (4.4% of the total) were exported.
3,252,404 firearms were imported into the US in 2011.

So, uh, we import far more than we export. If anything, that'll only increase the revenue stream towards US manufacturers, since people will look to local manufacturers if they can't get what they want imported.

And a huge chunk of our exports are to Canada, the UK, and Australia, primarily to law enforcement agencies. I can't see the treaty changing that. And small arms are the source of only a quarter of the revenue generated by the firearm industry in the US.

That's like trying to drain a swamp a bucket at a time.

[Tinykong]

If we can never identify every person who will snap and break, banning certain weapons means we shouldn't have to worry they'll do so much damage when they do.

So, we're going to ban something that 99.9% of never get used illegally, because someone might use one to kill at some point?

Definitely arbitrary.

[Zhangfei]

So, we're going to ban something that 99.9% of never get used illegally, because someone might use one to kill at some point?

Definitely arbitrary.

No, they definitely do kill. It absolutely happens. It's a 100% certainty in America, history gives us multiple examples.

[Tinykong]

No, they definitely do kill. It absolutely happens. It's a 100% certainty in America, history gives us multiple examples.

A gun doesn't automatically kill people, it has to be used. The vast, overwhelming majority never are used to kill.

Drunk drivers kill. Hammers kill. Stairs kill. It is a 100% certainty that people will die both accidentally, and intentionally from all those things.

Arbitrary.

[Zhangfei]

A gun doesn't automatically kill people, it has to be used. The vast, overwhelming majority never are used to kill.

Drunk drivers kill. Hammers kill. Stairs kill. It is a 100% certainty that people will die both accidentally, and intentionally from all those things.

Arbitrary.

No, specific. It's a gun control thread, not a hammer control thread. Keep committing your red herring fallacy if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

And I don't care about the vast that don't. My worry is about the number that does and what effects that has on society.

[Tinykong]

No, specific. It's a gun control thread, not a hammer control thread. Keep committing your red herring fallacy if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

And I don't care about the vast that don't. My worry is about the number that does and what effects that has on society.

It's not a red herring, because those things are used to kill just like guns are used to kill. Keep dismissing it since you can't counter the argument all you want, you and others have been doing it for thousands of replies.

More people will be saved by installing interlock devices on all cars than will be saved by a rifle ban, why aren't you working towards that end just as fervently?

[Zhangfei]

It's not a red herring, because those things are used to kill just like guns are used to kill.

It's a red herring because my logic applies only to weapons. Not "things used to kill." None of those things were designed as a weapon. Compare guns to other weapons and it won't be a red herring.

More people will be saved by installing interlock devices on all cars than will be saved by a rifle ban, why aren't you working towards that end just as fervently?

Red herring. Please focus on the topic at hand.

[Tinykong]

So, you only want to control certain things that can be used to kill and not other things that are also used to kill?

Arbitrary. Moving along...

[Zhangfei]

So, you only want to control certain things that can be used to kill and not other things that are also used to kill?

Arbitrary. Moving along...

I want to control things designed to kill, i.e. what us humans call weapons.

It's quite simple. You'll surely get it if you want to and not resort to logical fallacies.

[Eroginous]

And I don't care about the vast that don't. My worry is about the number that does and what effects that has on society.

That's the entire problem. You simply do not care about anyone except the few people who are victims of gun violence. That's why your argument is both intellectually defunct and morally reprehensible.

More people will be saved by installing interlock devices on all cars than will be saved by a rifle ban, why aren't you working towards that end just as fervently?

More people will be saved by having background checks on hammer sales. Where's the hammer sales background checks?

It's a red herring because my logic applies only to weapons. Not "things used to kill." None of those things were designed as a weapon. Compare guns to other weapons and it won't be a red herring.

A gun is a tool that is designed to fire projectiles. Whether that tool is used as a weapon is completely dependent on the person wielding it. Again, you're failing to understand the fact that ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, just like ANYTHING can be used not as a weapon. Keep arguing stupid points that have nothing to do with anything.

It's entertaining.

[Tinykong]

I want to control things designed to kill, i.e. what us humans call weapons.

It's quite simple. You'll surely get it if you want to and not resort to logical fallacies.

Let's be clear, you want to ban guns.. Your argument has nothing to do with weapons.

Which is why its arbitrary. At least be honest.

[Zhangfei]

Let's be clear, you want to ban guns.. Your argument has nothing to do with weapons.

I already said to Phaelix that I feel the same way about military-grade knives. Please read my posts before saying this stuff And like I've said, this is a gun control thread. Assuming my beliefs about non-guns is rather... silly, is it not? Did I specifically state anywhere that rocket launchers "don't count"?

Which is why its arbitrary. At least be honest.

Hoisted on your own petard!

[Svifnymr]

LaPierre opposes background checks. That's extreme. The NRA makes it easier for people who committed crimes to get guns.

They oppose expanding the background check process before the current system receives the attention that has previously been promised in upgrades and streamlining to prevent mis-identification so as to reduce the infringements on legal gun buyers.

So let me get this straight. Opposing giving gun dealers and makers protections no other industry has means he's against guns?

When antigun organizations declare that they are going to bankrupt the gun industry through frivolous lawsuits, sometimes it is needed to protect an industry thusly.

Oh, and I got around to the thread long after it had run it's course, but you can own a gun AND a dog. When the dog wakes you up, you get your gun, then you don't need to worry about risking your dogs life.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 05:08 PM ----------

How were they fearmongering? Obama said in 2011 to Sarah Brady regarding gun control: "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

It's simple, they were fear-mongering because they were telling people before the election that Obama was going to do exactly what he is trying to do now.

---------- Post added 2013-03-13 at 05:09 PM ----------

Let's be clear, you want to ban guns.. Your argument has nothing to do with weapons.

Which is why its arbitrary. At least be honest.

Every time you think you're out, they pull you back in? :-p

[Skroe]

Love this kind of absurdity. The argument that "infringing" on a right only means completely removing any possibility of exercising that right is downright nutty. The end goal of pushing the cost of firearms and their necessary components into the stratosphere IS to limit ownership, thereby infringing on that right.

Is it an absurdity?

I have the right to own a demilitarized F-16 Fighter jet.
The fact that I am not Michael Dorn and don't have $6 million in cash to drop on it, in no way infringes on that right.

I have a right to row down the Charles river. It's a public commons.
The fact I don't own a $10,000 Italian made fiberglass boat doesn't infringe on that right.

I'm all for keeping gun ownership legal so long as self defense aspect of it is emphasized and the hobby part of it is stamped out. I have no tolerence for gun ownership as a hobby. Every thousand bucks spend on gun ownership as a hobby is a thousand bucks not put in a college fund. It being for the purpose of defense means guns should be fantastically expensive, and so should its ammo, since you need only one gun, and very little in the way of ammunition since it'll be fired maybe only once in a life time.

But beyond that, guns enter hobby territory. It's a luxury good. And you should have to pay a societal premium. I honestly think for anything more substantial than a self-defense side arm, you should have to chose: college education, for you or your children, or your dangerous hobby.

That's why I love this treaty. It's going to hit gun owners where it really hurts: their wallets. The way I see it, if you collect guns, you should live in a smaller house, go on trips less frequently, and have less money for the future. The opportunity cost of doing it should be astronomical.

[Zoranon]

Is it an absurdity?

I have the right to own a demilitarized F-16 Fighter jet.
The fact that I am not Michael Dorn and don't have $6 million in cash to drop on it, in no way infringes on that right.

I have a right to row down the Charles river. It's a public commons.
The fact I don't own a $10,000 Italian made fiberglass boat doesn't infringe on that right.

I'm all for keeping gun ownership legal so long as self defense aspect of it is emphasized and the hobby part of it is stamped out. I have no tolerence for gun ownership as a hobby. Every thousand bucks spend on gun ownership as a hobby is a thousand bucks not put in a college fund. It being for the purpose of defense means guns should be fantastically expensive, and so should its ammo, since you need only one gun, and very little in the way of ammunition since it'll be fired maybe only once in a life time.

But beyond that, guns enter hobby territory. It's a luxury good. And you should have to pay a societal premium. I honestly think for anything more substantial than a self-defense side arm, you should have to chose: college education, for you or your children, or your dangerous hobby.

That's why I love this treaty. It's going to hit gun owners where it really hurts: their wallets. The way I see it, if you collect guns, you should live in a smaller house, go on trips less frequently, and have less money for the future. The opportunity cost of doing it should be astronomical.

You dont legislate against something because you don't like it, unless you are an aspiring dictator. Stop trying to control other people. Stop forcing your views on others. What others do as their hobbies is NOT your business.

And as for your numbers, well Phaelix debunked your claim.

[Extrazero8]

Is it an absurdity?

I have the right to own a demilitarized F-16 Fighter jet.
The fact that I am not Michael Dorn and don't have $6 million in cash to drop on it, in no way infringes on that right.

Are there laws in place made directly to drive up the price?

I have a right to row down the Charles river. It's a public commons.
The fact I don't own a $10,000 Italian made fiberglass boat doesn't infringe on that right.

There are laws against Italian made fiberglass boats where you are?

I'm all for keeping gun ownership legal so long as self defense aspect of it is emphasized and the hobby part of it is stamped out. I have no tolerance for gun ownership as a hobby.

That seems silly.

Every thousand bucks spend on gun ownership as a hobby is a thousand bucks not put in a college fund.

What the hell business is that of yours?

It being for the purpose of defense means guns should be fantastically expensive, and so should its ammo, since you need only one gun, and very little in the way of ammunition since it'll be fired maybe only once in a life time.

So poor people shouldn't be able to defend themselves?

But beyond that, guns enter hobby territory. It's a luxury good. And you should have to pay a societal premium. I honestly think for anything more substantial than a self-defense side arm, you should have to chose: college education, for you or your children, or your dangerous hobby.

This is a very silly argument to make.

That's why I love this treaty. It's going to hit gun owners where it really hurts: their wallets. The way I see it, if you collect guns, you should live in a smaller house, go on trips less frequently, and have less money for the future. The opportunity cost of doing it should be astronomical.

I doubt a treaty has the power to do that.