Originally Posted by roachboy

if you live in a city, your view of easy access to guns tends to be different than if you don't. it isn't rocket science. that's probably why the main argument in the thread that tends toward gun control is that it should be a local matter.

i have no problem with one type of controls in chicago and another in a more rural area. in a city, you see, when more people have guns, there can be more shooting because, well, there's more people and so its a statistical inevitability and because there's more people they're arranged in a dense way, so if there's more people with guns and so more possibilities that the aggregate will be populated, the possibility of bullets that do not hit their target increases and because of that density matter, bullets that do not hit their target are not good they don't just disappear somewhere necessarily.

so you can't blame people who live in cities for thinking that fewer rather than more guns available is intuitively a good thing. but not all environments result in that, so local control. why would you would object to that?