It’s about reducing the total number of people that get killed. Not about taking anything away from anyone, or putting anybody down, or wanting to force people to behave a certain way. It’s about making the world a slightly less hurtful place.

Because there is no way to own/operate/produce them without causing indiscriminate and horrific harm to innocent people. You can’t fire nuclear weapons for 20 years without causing harm. You can’t use biological weapons for 20 years without causing harm.

no one of any consequence whatsoever is advocating for civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, plague spores, or child pornography, especially not me

Either way, I don’t give a fuck.

You’re OK with letting a government employee give you a mental health screening once a year? I agree that something like that would really help. But I think a lot of people would completely flip their shit over it.

The problem is, it’s really hard to establish a causal link between more people having guns and crime going down (or up, for that matter). Even if crime went down and gun ownership went up—and I believe you when you say they did—lots of other things happen in Detroit each year! The health of the economy, for instance,…

Aaaaaaand there goes any sympathy I might have just had.

You’re really comparing weed and guns? Are you saying it’s impossible or unwise to ban anything? Nuclear weapons? Plague spores? Child pornography?

I understand the concept of gun safety. I also understand human nature well enough to know that accidents happen. Peoples’ emotions get the best of them. Something terrible happens to someone, and for just a second, an easy way out seems appealing. (This is how the vast majority of gun deaths occur in the US. Studies…

So how does the self-defense scenario even work? Someone breaks into your house at 2am, and let’s assume you’re even awake enough to notice. You manage to retrieve your gun without drawing attention to yourself (it was responsibly locked away where it couldn’t cause any accidents, right?), you manage to shoot the…

Are you suggesting that the popularity of something should be the primary measure of its permissibility? Lots of stupid, unjust or dangerous things throughout history have enjoyed widespread public support.

That’s totally not what I was saying. The people I was calling “sociopaths” are the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobby. Unfortunately, their voices are by far the loudest in the current political climate. I do think the majority of gun owners could do a lot more to distance themselves from said lunatic fringe, and…

OK, maybe I misspoke there. We were talking about rifles. That’s what I meant.

Treatment of PTSD? How is it a good idea to give guns to people experiencing emotional trauma? How’d that work out for Chris Kyle?

Makes sense. I guess it would have to be some kind of interconnect.

It doesn’t? Even a lot of the other pro-gun folks in this discussion have been saying it’s silly to think you can use a long gun for home defense. But if the standard is, “I want it and I think it’s useful, and that’s all that matters,” how would that not also apply to any other crazy shit I might think is useful? I…

Good thing it’s so easy for people like this to buy assault weapons!

Judging by the sticker on the car, my money is on them just being particularly stupid open carry activists. Basically walking exhibits of the complete and utter insanity of American gun policy.

And even they were smart enough to ban guns by now.

Why the fuck should anyone even have the means to do something like this? What societal purpose does it serve that outweighs the 30,000 gun deaths we see every year? Why do the rights of a few people to own cool toys trump the rights of the rest of us to not get shot?