Devil505 wrote:The counter argument is that, since we live in a crowded society, it is really not debatable that we have a collective right to defend ourselves against danger.
That's the twist - "crowded" is a relative term. Metro NYC, yes, crowded, difficult to get possession permit. My friends in Iowa (town pop. 3200, one stoplight) have no problem getting ownership permit if they pass background check. Concealed carry requires extra paperwork but it's not flat *out of the question*.
What makes a legally owned gun (or owner) more dangerous in NYC than in Iowa?
Devil505 wrote:So what we do as a society is weigh the usefulness of the "potentially dangerous" thing against it's usefulness to us as a society. The car obviously has a much greater usefulness than danger to us & so does the baseball bat as a sporting device. What is the societal usefulness of a flame thrower, armor piercing ammo or the like??
That's the same as the "needs" argument. The usefulness of guns has nothing to do with owning one; the person holding a gun determines its use, lawful or unlawful. It looks like this is where we disagree.
Legally owned, properly secured, firearms in the hands of a properly trained individual pose no threat to a free society. You can argue the "owner goes nuts" case but that may be a price of living in a free society. If a gun was involved in the "goes nuts" case it only made it _easier_ not avoidable.
Devil505 wrote:When you argue that a flame thrower would be fine in Times Square, you are entitled to your opinion, but WE citizens are entitled to disagree with you & band together & make it illegal to do so.
Conceptual question, conceptual answer. Flame throwers and nukes had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
This thread has diverged, but it started with "the anti gun lobby is trying to pass a revamped Assault weapons ban". Which is simply not true. No one has citied a specific bill in either house that is doing such.