[ghshephard]

There are lots of things to worry about in this world. Cars are dangerous. Gasoline is dangerous. Shotguns are dangerous. Swimming pools are inordinately dangerous.

Very, very far down on my list of things to worry about are $17,000 ultra-long range computer aided bolt-action trigger initiated rifles.

[edit - after thinking a bit, I believe I could come up with a list of 500 things that we should be more worried about than this weapon. Just the cost alone means that there will be very few of them in general circulation. In the next 20 years, I wager there will be less than 10 homicides in the United States resulting from this weapon. If you want to get up in arms about something - start with the likely 500,000+ automobile deaths that will occur in the same time period (I'm presuming automobile safety will bring the numbers down to those levels)]

[bmelton]

As I just learned, the .50BMG has never been used in the commission of a homicide in the United States. Extrapolating from that, I would happily place a 'long bet' and take the over on your 20 year claim and spread the odds to zero homicides.

In short, if there is even one intentional homicide in 20 years resulting from this gun (or related technology) I would be extremely shocked.

[abraininavat]

Pretty lame strawman.

"X is more dangerous than Y" does not imply "X should be illegal if Y is illegal", due to any number of other factors.

[ghshephard]

My argument is more along the lines of, "There is a list of things we should worry about. Somewhere, on that list is Y. Ahead of Y, there are 250 other things, that, if we really wanted to change the world for the better, make it safer for ourselves, and our children, we would focus on.

If we wish to act rationally, and make the world a better place, there will be far greater return on our effort, lobbying, and resources, to worry about items higher up on that list, as opposed to some incredibly unlikely events that will occur because of Y.

For some reason, Y grabs our attention though - and I was just trying to pull us all back to realizing, that, in the grand scheme of things, Y is irrelevant to the safety of ourselves, our children, and our community. As such, little to no effort should be put towards worrying about, or legislating Y."

[abraininavat]

I'm saying "I should worry about X" does not mean "X should be illegal." Clearly everyone should worry more about cars than this firearm. But the usefulness of X has to be weighed against its potential misuse.

[bmelton]

Without trying to sound condescending, a car is a far less useful tool for preventing invasion by an enemy nation-state or for defending against tyranny by our own government.

Just because you don't see the practical need for that utility does not negate that such utility exists and (in my opinion) is the express reason for the second amendment.