Reply to post: Those aristoracts (wannabe royalty) in the U.S. who support anti-gun laws

Those aristoracts (wannabe royalty) in the U.S. who support anti-gun laws

"why is this debate happening in the US? the most rootin tootin gun toting country in the world?

why they give a shit about whats effectively a toy gun , when they all have real ones?"

-----

Well, there are a lot of ninnies in the U.S. who think that gun control laws (which generally violate our Second Amendment rights) actually serve some wide-ranging, long-term, useful-quality-of-life-improving purpose. They do not, any more than Prohibition did.

The most ardent proponents of outright gun bans sometimes start with laws that would make the cost of owning a firearm in the U.S. so onerous that very few people could manage to jump through all the necessary legal hoops much less afford to (legally) purchase the firearm(s), ammunition, and time to practice their shooting skills at a (legal) place to shoot. In decaying cities such as NYC, the very few people who can legally own firearms would often run afoul of laws regulating the transport of those firearms to shooting ranges where they could practice.

Even hunters need places to shoot even if just for practice much of the time. Any attempt to ban hunting would almost certainly spell the end of the many gun control laws which are the political and social minoritys' crazed attempts to prevent ordinary people from having privately owned weapons, most especially firearms ("guns"). It is interesting to note that some of the most strident backers of gun-control laws are essentially aristocrats who would never expect those laws to apply to themselves or their bodyguards, private police forces, etc.

Most people who own firearms may hunt on occasion, but are very likely to have them in order to able to protect themselves effectively (read: with firearms or other "equalizers"). Firearms of the sort that allow the intended victims of criminal assailants to put up a serious defense of themselves or other innocent people in the U.S. are far more common than firearms designed particularly for hunting game animals or disposing of the kind of pests that like to eat things that farmers, ranchers, and many homeowners have on their land which said pests think of as tasty food.

There is a lot of overlap between what constitutes a good hunting, varmint control, or target rifle, pistol, or shotgun; and what constitutes a good military firearm in the same category. An AR-15 makes a wonderful deer rifle according to many people I know of who use their black rifles (now available in pink or camo! :) during deer hunting season. Firearms good for self or home defense purposes also tend to have many traits in common with those intended for police, military, hunting, and pest control purposes. Then there are the many kinds of firearms and other projectile weapons that are used in many very popular target shooting sports that people who have no interest in hunting participate in for about the same reasons many people play golf.

If I were to suddenly go crazy and take up golf again, it might be to see if I could manage to produce custom-designed golf clubs from parts created by 3-D printing technology. But golf clubs are...clubs! Maybe golf clubs should be banned because the number of people bludgeoned to death is greater than the number of people shot to death in many cities, the last time I checked.