[angersock]

So, the two groups actually pointed out by the parent post were "gun owners" and "people who don't understand guns"--we can infer the existence of "gun non-owners" and "people who understand guns". So, don't go putting words in their mouth.

That said, yeah, many gun owners don't really understand guns in the technical sense, and have very silly biases (consumer preferences, really) about what is a valid arm to possess. A lot of older hunters I've met, for example, get grumpy if they see you with any rifle that isn't a bolt-action.

I tentatively disagree with the problem of personal safety being solved in those other countries: you've stuck with the metric of "murdered", whereas there are additional ones still of note to the average citizen such as "assaulted" and "robbed". Also, we can trot out the tired refrains about diversity and whatnot and argue that those populations don't map onto ours, but let's save space.

I might agree that the firearms are not a good solution to the problem of personal safety, but they are a solution and one that has worked. I think that the problem that they help prevent is creating an irreversible monopoly in force and ensuing tyranny, which is what happens once you disarm your populace. As a veteran, surely you appreciate that.

EDIT: Changed qualifier on "one that has worked well" to "one that has worked"...don't want to blow my reply quota picking nits on the difference between "well" and "good".

Also, forgot to mention: parent's point about letting people who don't understand something regulate it is correct--if you can't even articulate the different sorts of firearms and differences thereof, why should you be allowed to restrict anyone's access to them? It's just as annoying as legislation about computer stuff.

[hga]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy#Gun_control last paragraph: "When [Tucker] Carlson pressed [Congresswomen Carolyn McCarthy] twice more on the question about barrel shrouds, she admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and incorrectly stated, 'I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.' Carlson replied with, "No, No it's not.'"

In case you don't know the meaning of the word shroud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud

[dreamweapon]

And your point is?

[ctdonath]

It is an anecdote representing the incredibly vast number of gaffes by those who strive to ban something they truly are grossly ignorant of.

Imagine some legislator wanting to regulate Internet usage (say, to prohibit pseudonym use) but when asked "what's a 'user ID'?" replied "it's a finger thing that goes South" - you'd say the person had absolutely no business being near a computer, much less recommending incarceration for people who chose their own unique login name. Insofar as there are a great many people who likewise have absolutely no competency regarding network usage, it would be safe to say such people should in no way be allowed to enact legislation regarding computer networks enforceable by substantial fines & imprisonment.

[hga]

The start of this sub-thread is rgrieselhuber saying "This is why gun owners get nervous when people who don't understand firearms try to legislate their ownership."

[dreamweapon]

Citing a single anecdote doesn't do much to support the insinuation that those who support firearm regulation (in general) lack a basic understanding of the issues. It doesn't make any kind of a point at all, really.

[dllthomas]

Citing a single example of a legislator talking incoherently about firearms while trying to regulate firearms seems a fairly reasonable example of "gun owners get nervous when people who don't understand firearms try to [regulate] their ownership". That makes no claim that only people who don't understand firearms try to regulate them - such a claim may or may not have been intended.