Gaucho wrote:That analogy seems awfully flawed.
It wasn't any more flawed than hammer's argument against gun ownership.
Please explain? I'll also point out that your kid has a better chance of drowning in your backyard swimming pool than he does of using your gun, so the the gun-control argument cuts both ways, but statistically, the argument that "I need a gun to protect myself" is just utterly flawed, IMO.
I am not getting into the legal argument, because it's impossible to figure out the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and when a gun owner tries to proclaim that the Second Amendment definitely
protects that right, I just roll my eyes. The Supreme Court of the United States can't figure out what the Second Amendment means, and Joe Hunter tells me it's "his right!" -- that's just a realist argument based on a policy preference and it is completely divorced from whether the right extends to personal handgun ownership. Although, the Supreme Court has spoken so as of about 18 months go, I guess it is "right"; hurray Supreme Court.
(Face related to the Supreme Court's recent tendency to rule based on policy and not law; it does not express an opinion of whether it was the right decision).
Regardless, you can buy a gun in the United States, as far as I'm concerned. But that's an argument for legal autonomy--not one based on the increased protection a gun provides. I believe that was the original rationale stated--I want to protect myself. So if the reason that you protect yourself with a gun is to avoid bodily harm, then you shouldn't buy a gun---the chances that you injure yourself are higher when owning a gun. That seems pretty sound, unless you think getting shot by an intruder is somehow worse than getting shot by yourself, which, believe me, I think some people honestly believe.