The Big Gun Control Thread

A buddy of mine who likes guns almost as much as Paleo mentioned to me once that there was a reason why guns remain the sole instrument of advanced societies that remains an utterly mechanical instrument; the risk of failure related to the implementation any type of computers into guns is just too high.

ruhk wrote:

I think you are missing my point entirely... You are speaking from current technological limitations, I am speaking of theoretical future tech based on modern trends in the industry, and can't really be assumed to suffer the same physical or monetary limitations (as there will be entirely NEW limitations).

Like whether or not the Second Amendment applies to a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

I generally use a bipod or a few sandbags. Make sure you pull the stock firmly into your shoulder to avoid a dislocation. If you're shooting long range, check wind-age as well. You don't want your shot going wide of the target and...

Oh. How embarrassing.

I'm all for cracking down on a place like Realco. They give the anti-gun lobby something to point at and say "See? If you were serious about responsible gun ownership you wouldn't let this happen! Hypocrite!" etc. I do believe in gun ownership for private citizens, and I also believe that some control over the distribution of said weapons is in order. These things do not have to be mutually exclusive.

OG_slinger wrote:
ruhk wrote:

I think you are missing my point entirely... You are speaking from current technological limitations, I am speaking of theoretical future tech based on modern trends in the industry, and can't really be assumed to suffer the same physical or monetary limitations (as there will be entirely NEW limitations).

Like whether or not the Second Amendment applies to a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

We want to remove the 3 day waiting period for Mad scientists.

bighoppa wrote:

I'm all for cracking down on a place like Realco. They give the anti-gun lobby something to point at and say "See? If you were serious about responsible gun ownership you wouldn't let this happen! Hypocrite!" etc. I do believe in gun ownership for private citizens, and I also believe that some control over the distribution of said weapons is in order. These things do not have to be mutually exclusive.

This.

I get frustrated that the issue of gun control somehow morphs into 'wanting to take my guns away'. I only want to take your guns away if you're incapable of handling them in a safe way.

Exactly the same as I, and I suspect most of the rest of the country, gun lobby included, feel about your car.

Jonman wrote:
bighoppa wrote:

I'm all for cracking down on a place like Realco. They give the anti-gun lobby something to point at and say "See? If you were serious about responsible gun ownership you wouldn't let this happen! Hypocrite!" etc. I do believe in gun ownership for private citizens, and I also believe that some control over the distribution of said weapons is in order. These things do not have to be mutually exclusive.

This.

I get frustrated that the issue of gun control somehow morphs into 'wanting to take my guns away'. I only want to take your guns away if you're incapable of handling them in a safe way.

Exactly the same as I, and I suspect most of the rest of the country, gun lobby included, feel about your car.

When cars are outlawed, only outlaws will get to jump over police cars...
IMAGE(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii107/bighoppa67/charger-jump.jpg)

And Jonman, that is where I come down. I want people who murder locked away, I want negligent parents stripped of their kids. Extending liability to gun shop owners will no more take down the second amendment or kill the shooting industry than extending liability to bar owners ruined the liquor industry.

What irks me more than anything is the false dichotomy in this and so many other issues-universal healthcare, sex ed, helmet laws. Everything seems to lead to a police state and camps or total anarchy. If tomorrow, all gun shop owners would be liable for a 500,000 dollar fine for selling a gun to a felon, Football will still be played on Sunday(The Lions will still lose). And if tomorrow every state enacts concealed weapon laws as liberal as Vermont, same thing(Except the Lions cover the spread).

Jonman wrote:
bighoppa wrote:

I'm all for cracking down on a place like Realco. They give the anti-gun lobby something to point at and say "See? If you were serious about responsible gun ownership you wouldn't let this happen! Hypocrite!" etc. I do believe in gun ownership for private citizens, and I also believe that some control over the distribution of said weapons is in order. These things do not have to be mutually exclusive.

This.

I get frustrated that the issue of gun control somehow morphs into 'wanting to take my guns away'. I only want to take your guns away if you're incapable of handling them in a safe way.

Exactly the same as I, and I suspect most of the rest of the country, gun lobby included, feel about your car.

As a regular at the local shooting range, I'd agree with this as well.

KingGorilla wrote:

And Jonman, that is where I come down. I want people who murder locked away, I want negligent parents stripped of their kids. Extending liability to gun shop owners will no more take down the second amendment or kill the shooting industry than extending liability to bar owners ruined the liquor industry.

What irks me more than anything is the false dichotomy in this and so many other issues-universal healthcare, sex ed, helmet laws. Everything seems to lead to a police state and camps or total anarchy. If tomorrow, all gun shop owners would be liable for a 500,000 dollar fine for selling a gun to a felon, Football will still be played on Sunday(The Lions will still lose except when they play the Redskins). And if tomorrow every state enacts concealed weapon laws as liberal as Vermont, same thing(Except the Lions cover the spread).

FTFY

I think part of the issue is one of shifting personal responsibility to someone other than the person who is truly the irresponsible party. Why should a bartender be punished when a patron drinks to much? On one hand, preventing drunk driving in any form is seen as a good thing. Making bartenders responsible for their patrons might reduce some incidents of drunk driving. On the other hand, why are we shifting the responsibility to act responsible and law abiding away from the criminal/drunk driver himself and on to the people around him?

Some people feel personal responsibility is being stripped away from society. It's no longer your fault you do bad things, but the fault of everyone around you for not stopping you, or the fault of whoever is the easiest target to go after, because going after the person actually responsible is seen as too difficult.

There are laws against strawman sales. Obviously this place knows they're violating the laws, and should be punished. However, from a personal responsibility perspective, they are also not the party responsible for gun crimes committed by the people buying the guns. And that is the hard part for someone who believe in personal responsibility to accept.

So, for any person who supports personal responsibility (like myself) I find it harder and harder to support more and more restrictions that don't address the problem, that criminals should be punished. The addition of restrictions that seem to focus on punishing the majority, law abiding group strays from the ideal of personal responsibility and punishing the criminal.

I blame the Army. When one guy would f*ck up, everyone was punished. Sometimes they would even implement a policy that removed a privilege or a right for the whole group after one knuckle head did something stupid. That made me very resentful of punishing the group for the actions of the individual, and a strong supporter of personal responsibility.

Shoal07 wrote:

I think part of the issue is one of shifting personal responsibility to someone other than the person who is truly the irresponsible party. Why should a bartender be punished when a patron drinks to much? On one hand, preventing drunk driving in any form is seen as a good thing. Making bartenders responsible for their patrons might reduce some incidents of drunk driving. On the other hand, why are we shifting the responsibility to act responsible and law abiding away from the criminal/drunk driver himself and on to the people around him?

Some people feel personal responsibility is being stripped away from society. It's no longer your fault you do bad things, but the fault of everyone around you for not stopping you, or the fault of whoever is the easiest target to go after, because going after the person actually responsible is seen as too difficult.

There are laws against strawman sales. Obviously this place knows they're violating the laws, and should be punished. However, from a personal responsibility perspective, they are also not the party responsible for gun crimes committed by the people buying the guns. And that is the hard part for someone who believe in personal responsibility to accept.

So, for any person who supports personal responsibility (like myself) I find it harder and harder to support more and more restrictions that don't address the problem, that criminals should be punished. The addition of restrictions that seem to focus on punishing the majority, law abiding group strays from the ideal of personal responsibility and punishing the criminal.

I blame the Army. When one guy would f*ck up, everyone was punished. Sometimes they would even implement a policy that removed a privilege or a right for the whole group after one knuckle head did something stupid. That made me very resentful of punishing the group for the actions of the individual, and a strong supporter of personal responsibility.

I understand though, that in the army, when that knucklehead was responsible for a plural number of collective punishment incidents, other members of the unit took it upon themselves to deal with the issue in a manner appropriate to both the unit and military culture. This often involved blankets, socks, and bars of soap. This is what we often call "self policing".

I would like to see a bit more self policing in the gun vendor industry.

Paleocon wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I think part of the issue is one of shifting personal responsibility to someone other than the person who is truly the irresponsible party. Why should a bartender be punished when a patron drinks to much? On one hand, preventing drunk driving in any form is seen as a good thing. Making bartenders responsible for their patrons might reduce some incidents of drunk driving. On the other hand, why are we shifting the responsibility to act responsible and law abiding away from the criminal/drunk driver himself and on to the people around him?

Some people feel personal responsibility is being stripped away from society. It's no longer your fault you do bad things, but the fault of everyone around you for not stopping you, or the fault of whoever is the easiest target to go after, because going after the person actually responsible is seen as too difficult.

There are laws against strawman sales. Obviously this place knows they're violating the laws, and should be punished. However, from a personal responsibility perspective, they are also not the party responsible for gun crimes committed by the people buying the guns. And that is the hard part for someone who believe in personal responsibility to accept.

So, for any person who supports personal responsibility (like myself) I find it harder and harder to support more and more restrictions that don't address the problem, that criminals should be punished. The addition of restrictions that seem to focus on punishing the majority, law abiding group strays from the ideal of personal responsibility and punishing the criminal.

I blame the Army. When one guy would f*ck up, everyone was punished. Sometimes they would even implement a policy that removed a privilege or a right for the whole group after one knuckle head did something stupid. That made me very resentful of punishing the group for the actions of the individual, and a strong supporter of personal responsibility.

I understand though, that in the army, when that knucklehead was responsible for a plural number of collective punishment incidents, other members of the unit took it upon themselves to deal with the issue in a manner appropriate to both the unit and military culture. This often involved blankets, socks, and bars of soap. This is what we often call "self policing".

I would like to see a bit more self policing in society.

FTFY. And I somewhat agree, but we also don't need the extreme which is a nation filled with vigilantes. On the other hand, I don't want to see a world coated in nerf so that nobody gets hurt. Extremes are bad.

Shoal07 wrote:

FTFY. And I somewhat agree, but we also don't need the extreme which is a nation filled with vigilantes. On the other hand, I don't want to see a world coated in nerf so that nobody gets hurt. Extremes are bad.

I agree on all counts. I guess where I disagree is that I think there is room within the extremes where we can actually do something about a problem like Realco other than throwing up our hands and saying that it is the cost of individual liberty.

Paleocon wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

FTFY. And I somewhat agree, but we also don't need the extreme which is a nation filled with vigilantes. On the other hand, I don't want to see a world coated in nerf so that nobody gets hurt. Extremes are bad.

I agree on all counts. I guess where I disagree is that I think there is room within the extremes where we can actually do something about a problem like Realco other than throwing up our hands and saying that it is the cost of individual liberty.

The question is: Why isn't something being done if they are already violating existing law? Is the enforcement of the law broke somehow?

I think I found the answer to my own question - dealers are not culpable under strawman laws, it's the purchaser and the intended recipient who are both committing felonies.

Seth wrote:

A buddy of mine who likes guns almost as much as Paleo mentioned to me once that there was a reason why guns remain the sole instrument of advanced societies that remains an utterly mechanical instrument; the risk of failure related to the implementation any type of computers into guns is just too high.

A soldier buddy of mine took another angle on it. He said that computers have weight, as do their battery packs. Once those batteries go dead, the fancy computer system does nothing but weigh the soldier down and it's too expensive to throw away.

Shoal07 wrote:

I think I found the answer to my own question - dealers are not culpable under strawman laws, it's the purchaser and the intended recipient who are both committing felonies.

Though I agree that the buyers in the strawman purchase own the majority of the culpability in the individual transaction, the seller shares in that culpability especially when warning signs are so visible. When you consider that the number of straw purchases they have executed is massively statistically significant, the clear indication is that there is something they are doing or not doing that is contributing to the availability of firearms to people who threaten public safety.

To be sure, I think that there should be absolutely zero tolerance for the buyers. That girlfriend in the story should have seen prison time irrespective of whether it was a first offense. As it was, she wasn't even indicted. You don't help a felon get a gun. Period. And nothing the gun shop did diminishes the severity of that offense.

That said, Realco doesn't get off without blame either. They are selling guns to criminals. They know they are selling guns to criminals. The fig leaf of a nervous girlfriend buying the gun for the criminal doesn't absolve them of culpability. If the pair walked into Atlantic Guns and tried that crap, my buddy the Korean War vet would look them in the eyes and say "You two got to leave".

Paleocon wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I think I found the answer to my own question - dealers are not culpable under strawman laws, it's the purchaser and the intended recipient who are both committing felonies.

Though I agree that the buyers in the strawman purchase own the majority of the culpability in the individual transaction, the seller shares in that culpability especially when warning signs are so visible. When you consider that the number of straw purchases they have executed is massively statistically significant, the clear indication is that there is something they are doing or not doing that is contributing to the availability of firearms to people who threaten public safety.

To be sure, I think that there should be absolutely zero tolerance for the buyers. That girlfriend in the story should have seen prison time irrespective of whether it was a first offense. As it was, she wasn't even indicted. You don't help a felon get a gun. Period. And nothing the gun shop did diminishes the severity of that offense.

That said, Realco doesn't get off without blame either. They are selling guns to criminals. They know they are selling guns to criminals. The fig leaf of a nervous girlfriend buying the gun for the criminal doesn't absolve them of culpability. If the pair walked into Atlantic Guns and tried that crap, my buddy the Korean War vet would look them in the eyes and say "You two got to leave".

When I say culpable, I mean under the law, and under the law, sellers are not culpable. I don't agree (especially in this case), but the law is written and provides reasoning why sellers are not culpable.

Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I think I found the answer to my own question - dealers are not culpable under strawman laws, it's the purchaser and the intended recipient who are both committing felonies.

Though I agree that the buyers in the strawman purchase own the majority of the culpability in the individual transaction, the seller shares in that culpability especially when warning signs are so visible. When you consider that the number of straw purchases they have executed is massively statistically significant, the clear indication is that there is something they are doing or not doing that is contributing to the availability of firearms to people who threaten public safety.

To be sure, I think that there should be absolutely zero tolerance for the buyers. That girlfriend in the story should have seen prison time irrespective of whether it was a first offense. As it was, she wasn't even indicted. You don't help a felon get a gun. Period. And nothing the gun shop did diminishes the severity of that offense.

That said, Realco doesn't get off without blame either. They are selling guns to criminals. They know they are selling guns to criminals. The fig leaf of a nervous girlfriend buying the gun for the criminal doesn't absolve them of culpability. If the pair walked into Atlantic Guns and tried that crap, my buddy the Korean War vet would look them in the eyes and say "You two got to leave".

When I say culpable, I mean under the law, and under the law, sellers are not culpable. I don't agree (especially in this case), but the law is written and provides reasoning why sellers are not culpable.

Shoal07 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I think I found the answer to my own question - dealers are not culpable under strawman laws, it's the purchaser and the intended recipient who are both committing felonies.

Though I agree that the buyers in the strawman purchase own the majority of the culpability in the individual transaction, the seller shares in that culpability especially when warning signs are so visible. When you consider that the number of straw purchases they have executed is massively statistically significant, the clear indication is that there is something they are doing or not doing that is contributing to the availability of firearms to people who threaten public safety.

To be sure, I think that there should be absolutely zero tolerance for the buyers. That girlfriend in the story should have seen prison time irrespective of whether it was a first offense. As it was, she wasn't even indicted. You don't help a felon get a gun. Period. And nothing the gun shop did diminishes the severity of that offense.

That said, Realco doesn't get off without blame either. They are selling guns to criminals. They know they are selling guns to criminals. The fig leaf of a nervous girlfriend buying the gun for the criminal doesn't absolve them of culpability. If the pair walked into Atlantic Guns and tried that crap, my buddy the Korean War vet would look them in the eyes and say "You two got to leave".

When I say culpable, I mean under the law, and under the law, sellers are not culpable. I don't agree (especially in this case), but the law is written and provides reasoning why sellers are not culpable.

And I think it is fair to say that the nra has had a hand in that.

Jonman wrote:

I get frustrated that the issue of gun control somehow morphs into 'wanting to take my guns away'. I only want to take your guns away if you're incapable of handling them in a safe way.

How do you determine whether someone is handling a gun in a safe way or not?

We would live in an interesting world if some of these diehards replaced prioritizing teaching their offspring guns and shooting with textbooks and reading. I'd like to see them at least teach both with the same veracity.

Dirt wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I get frustrated that the issue of gun control somehow morphs into 'wanting to take my guns away'. I only want to take your guns away if you're incapable of handling them in a safe way.

How do you determine whether someone is handling a gun in a safe way or not?

Same way you determine whether someone is handling a car in a safe way or not. You punish them when they don't, and educate them prior to letting them get their grubby mitts on it in the first place.

Jonman wrote:
Dirt wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I get frustrated that the issue of gun control somehow morphs into 'wanting to take my guns away'. I only want to take your guns away if you're incapable of handling them in a safe way.

How do you determine whether someone is handling a gun in a safe way or not?

Same way you determine whether someone is handling a car in a safe way or not. You punish them when they don't, and educate them prior to letting them get their grubby mitts on it in the first place.

Is the car really a good example? Education is horrible, and punishment is weak. If people, in general, mishandled guns like they do cars, there would be no guns. The punishment for mishandling guns is already steep. The lightest charge dealing with a firearm is likely to be unlawful discharge, and here's an AZ law (a very pro gun State)

13-3107. Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions

A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.

B. Notwithstanding the fact that the offense involves the discharge of a deadly weapon, unless a dangerous offense is alleged and proven pursuant to section 13-704, subsection L, section 13-604 applies to this offense.

C. This section does not apply if the firearm is discharged:

1. As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.

2. On a properly supervised range.

3. In an area recommended as a hunting area by the Arizona game and fish department, approved and posted as required by the chief of police, but any such area may be closed when deemed unsafe by the chief of police or the director of the Arizona game and fish department.

4. For the control of nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United States fish and wildlife service.

5. By special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.

6. As required by an animal control officer in the performance of duties as specified in section 9-499.04.

7. Using blanks.

8. More than one mile from any occupied structure as defined in section 13-3101.

9. In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.

D. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Municipality" means any city or town and includes any property that is fully enclosed within the city or town.

2. "Properly supervised range" means a range that is any of the following:

(a) Operated by a club affiliated with the national rifle association of America, the amateur trapshooting association, the national skeet association or any other nationally recognized shooting organization, or by any public or private school.

(b) Approved by any agency of the federal government, this state or a county or city within which the range is located.

(c) Operated with adult supervision for shooting air or carbon dioxide gas operated guns, or for shooting in underground ranges on private or public property.

For Class 6 felonies, the jury or court may choose imprisonment for one to five years or jail for up to 12 months and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both.
Shoal07 wrote:

Is the car really a good example? Education is horrible, and punishment is weak. If people, in general, mishandled guns like they do cars, there would be no guns. The punishment for mishandling guns is already steep. The lightest charge dealing with a firearm is likely to be unlawful discharge, and here's an AZ law (a very pro gun State)

I take your point. But I think that a car is an excellent example. It's a tool that anyone (with reasonable exceptions for minors, the blind, and so on) can get licensed to operate and has lethal consequences for keeping and operating it poorly.

Education may be horrible, but it exists, and is a pass/fail gate for getting licensed to operate it. Insurance is legally mandated to protect the rest of society from your ineptitude in using it. There are usage laws (i.e. traffic laws) which are designed to encourage safe use of the vehicle.

We may not do a great job of managing the use of cars, but there are at least attempts at all stages, education, 3rd party protection, enforcement and punishment. I'm not saying it's a model to follow line-by-line, but there might be lessons that we can apply from it.

Interesting thought - does home insurance cover damages to others from firearms you own?

Jonman wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Is the car really a good example? Education is horrible, and punishment is weak. If people, in general, mishandled guns like they do cars, there would be no guns. The punishment for mishandling guns is already steep. The lightest charge dealing with a firearm is likely to be unlawful discharge, and here's an AZ law (a very pro gun State)

I take your point. But I think that a car is an excellent example. It's a tool that anyone (with reasonable exceptions for minors, the blind, and so on) can get licensed to operate and has lethal consequences for keeping and operating it poorly.

Education may be horrible, but it exists, and is a pass/fail gate for getting licensed to operate it. Insurance is legally mandated to protect the rest of society from your ineptitude in using it. There are usage laws (i.e. traffic laws) which are designed to encourage safe use of the vehicle.

We may not do a great job of managing the use of cars, but there are at least attempts at all stages, education, 3rd party protection, enforcement and punishment. I'm not saying it's a model to follow line-by-line, but there might be lessons that we can apply from it.

Interesting thought - does home insurance cover damages to others from firearms you own?

I think cars are far more integral to the function of a society than guns.

Dirt wrote:

I think cars are far more integral to the function of a society than guns.

Oh I agree, but show me where in the Constitution my right to own a car is enshrined.

But seriously, that's my point. We already strictly regulate cars, which, as you point out, are integral to the functioning of American society. Which is why it baffles me that there's so much pushback against having the same degree of regulation against what is ultimately a luxury item for 99.9% of the population?

Jonman wrote:
Dirt wrote:

I think cars are far more integral to the function of a society than guns.

Oh I agree, but show me where in the Constitution my right to own a car is enshrined.

But seriously, that's my point. We already strictly regulate cars, which, as you point out, are integral to the functioning of American society. Which is why it baffles me that there's so much pushback against having the same degree of regulation against what is ultimately a luxury item for 99.9% of the population?

Hmm, you know, I never thought about it until now, and after reading the way you put it, it got me thinking: maybe the pushback is because it *is* a luxury item. If everyone needs an item we can be confident that the regulations won't be too crazy, but if only some people need it, it's easier to mistreat a minority than a majority.

Maybe gun enthusiasts feel the same way car enthusiast would if the world was full of bike messengers.

fangblackbone wrote:

We would live in an interesting world if some of these diehards replaced prioritizing teaching their offspring guns and shooting with textbooks and reading. I'd like to see them at least teach both with the same veracity.

Do I count?

Keep in mind I have a Chevy truck and a Harley.

Jonman wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Is the car really a good example? Education is horrible, and punishment is weak. If people, in general, mishandled guns like they do cars, there would be no guns. The punishment for mishandling guns is already steep. The lightest charge dealing with a firearm is likely to be unlawful discharge, and here's an AZ law (a very pro gun State)

I take your point. But I think that a car is an excellent example. It's a tool that anyone (with reasonable exceptions for minors, the blind, and so on) can get licensed to operate and has lethal consequences for keeping and operating it poorly.

Education may be horrible, but it exists, and is a pass/fail gate for getting licensed to operate it. Insurance is legally mandated to protect the rest of society from your ineptitude in using it. There are usage laws (i.e. traffic laws) which are designed to encourage safe use of the vehicle.

We may not do a great job of managing the use of cars, but there are at least attempts at all stages, education, 3rd party protection, enforcement and punishment. I'm not saying it's a model to follow line-by-line, but there might be lessons that we can apply from it.

Interesting thought - does home insurance cover damages to others from firearms you own?

I'm fairly certain homeowners insurance covers you injuring someone on your property through malice or neglect, irrelevant of the method (to include guns).

Also, you make it sound like there are no laws or regulations on the use and issuance of firearms. There are Federal Checks, State Checks (in some situations), and plenty of laws that say what you can and cannot do with a weapon. Plus, cars kill 5x the number of people in America per year than guns do. Also, demographics are a factor in firearm deaths, but not auto related deaths. Not only are you 5x more likely to die to a car, but you're also more likely if you're not in a high risk category for firearm death (a majority killed with a firearm have a criminal record, for example).

Also, the reason why car insurance exists is because their use cannot be as heavily regulated as a firearm. You can have auto accidents, even ones that kill, and not be legally culpable (hence, "accident"). There's a rare situation where you have a "firearm accident" and have not broken some kind of law already (unlawful discharge, brandishing, etc). Even the incident where the 8-year old shot himself with an Uzi back in 2008, 4 were indited with illegally providing a prohibited weapon to a minor and involuntary manslaughter (to a tune of 30 years, if they were convicted of both charges). A quick search didn't turn up anything past the indictment (I don't know if it was dropped or still awaiting trial, plea, etc).

Yes, it is relatively easy to purchase and posses a firearm, it's VERY hard to use one legally. The law only allows for limited, usually highly controlled situations where a firearm can be legally discharged. We can probably name them all here:

Sport Shooting
Ranges
Hunting
Self Defense (State dependent)

Anything else? Definitely not everyday activities.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Hmm, you know, I never thought about it until now, and after reading the way you put it, it got me thinking: maybe the pushback is because it *is* a luxury item. If everyone needs an item we can be confident that the regulations won't be too crazy, but if only some people need it, it's easier to mistreat a minority than a majority.

Maybe gun enthusiasts feel the same way car enthusiast would if the world was full of bike messengers.

It'd be interesting to see some info on what the reaction was to automobiles in the early 20th century, when they were still a rare luxury item. Another thought is to compare them to something like personal aircraft, which are also luxury items that are heavily regulated.