so let me see if i understand the overall position of the various folk with whom i do not agree in this thread.
A.. one problem is that the discussion happens across frames of reference. most of the anti-gun control folk talk from variants of the nra manner of framing the questions. this seems to have several parts:
a. the only relevant territory is the united states. so when one thinks about small weapons, one does not think about the transnational arms trade, the proliferation of cheap small weapons in the southern hemisphere, the outrageous consequences of this proliferation--all that matters is the us of a. but not even in its totality--the united states that controls about a third of all small weapons transfers globally is not at issue, but only the us of a that americans live in.
b. within this narrow frame, the various legal questions are routed through the same basic set of moves every time:
1. the extreme rightwing interpretation of the 2nd amendment ends up being the necessary point of departure for any discussion.
2. if you are talking to someone who works from this position, buying into (1) lands you in a diversionary discussion about strict construction. this discussion is of a piece with the other interpretive pillar that the far right brings into play--because we are pretending that the only thing separating contemporary reality from its better 18th century duplicate is--well what? i recall somewhere being told that capitalism ended in the 1850s sometime...---anyway, since we are invoking a phantom 18th century that lay hidden beneath the degeneracy of the present, embodied in phenomena like "judicial activism", it kinda follows that what is being defended through strict construction procedures about the second amendment is the identity of militia movements as the new minutemen.
so the frame of reference the far right imposes on discussions of gun control is a direct reflection of the consequences of the drift to the extreme right of populist conservatism during the late 1990s, the assimilation of fringe movements like the militia into mainstream political discourse through this shift to the far right, and of its effects on the internal politics of the nra.
B. the other main trajectory is taken by folk who simply like guns. sadly, many of these folk mirror in their own way the far right drift of the nra, but the arguments are different---using prechewed and typically meaningless pseudo-data, the central claims are: gun control doesn't work (here the move above is to follow arbitrary statistical pseudo-data with anecdotal youtube clips as if there is a case made by way of the first that is clinched by the second).
here a digression:
presumably, the solution to data like you find in this:
go here:
Regional data library - NISAT
and click on the "protect children not guns" link under the category "crime and mortality"
would be to arm preschoolers and other kids.
great idea.
the other recurrent register of "argument" that underpins the above is offhand comments about the evil "media" which generates "hysteria" that is not based on anything.
so what this sets up is a rigid frame of argumentation that folk are entirely unwilling to suspend and a self-confirming set of moves that circle around non-data that function to make it appear to the writer as though a logical conclusion is being drawn.
this is typically of a piece with an all-or-nothing position on the part of anti-gun control advocates, such that ANY controls are total control. the meanings of these controls are routed through whichever of the two main frameworks i outline above a particular comrade happens to be working with. as almost always happens, the frame determines the outcome.
then we come to the matter of projection as a technique of pretending to deal with those who do not agree: if you do not accept the position that gun controls are bad, then you are made over into a cartoon. that way, you do not have to actually pay attention to what is being said because you already know what your cartoon is going to say.
if you argue against that, sooner or later you end up being cast as some kind of Persecuting Other.
it's truly bizarre, the way these "discussions" go, the way this one has gone. i assume that we are all reasonable people, but when this particular area comes up for discussion, much of that goes out the window---not because the individual points that are made within any given post are wrong, but rather because the way this issue has been framed makes other outcomes really difficult to get to.
it is possible to have a different kind of discussion. this is unnecessary.