Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
o basically, you didn't have a point.

I certainly did. I'm starting to wonder if the same can be said about you, though.

You just tried to post a smarmy comment that you saw someone else post, and got called on it.

Got called on it? I'm not sure what you mean. You made an asinine statement that seems to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of how rights work in this country.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up, or they decide to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it.

I don't want even the possibility of it happening. And if they do decide at some point to take our guns I certainly don't want them to have any help finding them.

Is it unlikely, yeah. But its still a possibility.

So basically, you're concerned for an eventuality that won't happen without huge flashing warning signs and a breakdown in the way the United States as a whole is organized?

That's not paranoia taken to an unhealthy extreme at all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So basically, you didn't have a point.

I certainly did. I'm starting to wonder if the same can be said about you, though.

You just tried to post a smarmy comment that you saw someone else post, and got called on it.

Got called on it? I'm not sure what you mean. You made an asinine statement that seems to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of how rights work in this country.

If you want to discuss "how rights work in this country", I'd suggest not mentioning a "suspension of rights".

When someone is considered a felon, they do not have "their rights suspended". They have their rights restricted.
There is a big difference between the two terms. "Suspension" implies a chance to regain what was lost while "restriction" does not necessarily imply that chance to regain what was lost.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to discuss "how rights work in this country", I'd suggest not mentioning a "suspension of rights".

When someone is considered a felon, they do not have "their rights suspended". They have their rights restricted.
There is a big difference between the two terms. "Suspension" implies a chance to regain what was lost while "restriction" does not necessarily imply that chance to regain what was lost.

Ah! A bs semantic argument. I wasn't sure what you were going for when you started this hare, but very well. You seem to be confusing 'restriction' with 'elimination' or other similar words. Restriction, after all, if we're using the English definition, implies keeping within limits, not complete removal.

 Valion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you want to discuss "how rights work in this country", I'd suggest not mentioning a "suspension of rights".

When someone is considered a felon, they do not have "their rights suspended". They have their rights restricted.
There is a big difference between the two terms. "Suspension" implies a chance to regain what was lost while "restriction" does not necessarily imply that chance to regain what was lost.

Ah! A bs semantic argument.

Well, when dealing with legal matters, in which the consequences of a law can hinge on its wording, semantics is far from "bs." In fact, people who use the term semantics pejoratively are usually ignorant of the irony of such use, as matters of semantics, in the correct sense of the word, are actually pretty important when it comes to putting together a decent argument.

But then again, you could say that I'm simply arguing semantics.

Grey Templar wrote:Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.

I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.

Grey Templar wrote:I don't want even the possibility of it happening.

Then wouldn't it follow that you'd feel safer without any government at all?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.

Is it still a fallacy when that very slippery slope is a large part of the reason the amendment was written in the first place?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.

I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.

I don't know where you're getting fallacy from.

It's been proven that gun registration can lead to confiscation down the road. It doesn't take Nazi Germany either, Canada has done it, as well as England.

I get arguing other stuff like the 2nd Amendment's purpose being to protect against a tyrannical government, but this specific situation (registration leading to confiscation) has been documented multiple times. Heck, it even happens in America with certain NFA items if the original owner gets sick or dies. It's not a fallacy. This isn't like saying "the government is going to enslave us by tricking protesters into shooting at police at the march on D.C." This is something that has been shown to happen time after time.

Normally you make good arguments Azazel, but I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Unless I'm completely missing part of this conversation. You are arguing that the idea of gun registration leading to confiscation down the road is a fallacy, correct?

How about I look at this as a purely selfish response.

It bothers me that those who demonstrate what "I" think is risky and thoughtless behavior have guns and are engaging in what I perceive as intimidation.

I feel "I" should have a gun as well to "neutralize" their intimidation.

Being a person who likes to be thorough I would ensure I spend a good amount of time on the range to ensure I am quite skilled with the firearm. It has a side benefit of keeping me from being tempted to discharge the gun in less safe venues.

It just feels to me as a "have / have-not" escalation. I actually feel angry with these demonstrating groups that I feel I need a gun in order to feel safe from them: an equalization of power.

If they feel they need to "demonstrate their rights" to a powerful government, they seem perfectly capable of trying to steamroller over mine.

That will not do.

They have already demonstrated an insensitivity to my wishes so increasing my personal power is important because "good fences make good neighbors".

To buy into using threat or the status symbol of an object rather than communication skills and respectful behavior feels like you lost a little of your soul in the bargain.

I do not like bullies.

Especially that to assert and protect MY rights I have to mimic some of their less than great behavior to get them to back the hell off.

Bit of a circular logic but that is where emotional responses take you.

Valion wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.

Is it still a fallacy when that very slippery slope is a large part of the reason the amendment was written in the first place?

Yes. Long-ago established faulty reasoning does not make it any less faulty.

MrMoustaffa wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Except if the government does know what guns you have and where, they could come take them. Some time down the line if a Dictatorship pops up here, or an insanely liberal government decides to make a gun I own Illegal they can come and take it if they pass a law allowing them to do so.

I hope you recognize this as being a perfect representation of a slippery slope fallacy; though I calculate that you do not.

I don't know where you're getting fallacy from.

It's been proven that gun registration can lead to confiscation down the road. It doesn't take Nazi Germany either, Canada has done it, as well as England.

I get arguing other stuff like the 2nd Amendment's purpose being to protect against a tyrannical government, but this specific situation (registration leading to confiscation) has been documented multiple times. Heck, it even happens in America with certain NFA items if the original owner gets sick or dies. It's not a fallacy. This isn't like saying "the government is going to enslave us by tricking protesters into shooting at police at the march on D.C." This is something that has been shown to happen time after time.

Normally you make good arguments Azazel, but I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Unless I'm completely missing part of this conversation. You are arguing that the idea of gun registration leading to confiscation down the road is a fallacy, correct?

First, thank you.

Second, it's a fallacy because the potential for an event is being portrayed as the certain outcome. Hence, my statement.

Third, while evidently (I forget who now, argh!) demonstrated that Canada has in one instance confiscated a single model of firearm, the registry was not responsible for this confiscation. The laws permitting that firearm changed (the reasoning for such is stupid, but not relevant here) and it became illegal to possess. The registration merely prevented the owner from being able to easily hide the firearm illegally. However, in order for the government to take away all of the guns, it would first require a near-complete and total breakdown of your entire legislative process (being rooted in an amalgamation of direct and representative democracy) involving many, many very stark steps before that calamity; on par with saying that eating an apple -seeds and all- is the first step towards dying of arsenic poisoning.

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Fire extinguishers didn't kill 30,000 people in a year.

What exactly does that have to do with whether or not it's paranoid to have them around in the event of a very rare occurrence? Your claim was that being prepared for a remote possibility is paranoid.

What the inherent risks involved in fire extinguishers have to do with is the inherent risks involved in guns. I say that guns are dangerous and kill people. You say that you need a gun in case of a fascist coup or something. To which I reply that such a thing has a very tiny chance of ever happening. So you say that fires are unlikely and we have fire extinguishers. But you see fires happen every day, and fascist coups do not, plus guns are causing deaths while fire extinguishers are not. You have an insurance policy against the highly unlikely which costs far more than the insurance policy for the very likely. So yes, having a social policy which is damaging to society that only exists because of fear of an event which will probably never happen is paranoid. Do you think Britain is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state?

No the crux of the issue is there are 30,000 grieving families in a single year. It doesn't matter what went before, that's not to say a downward trend isn't a good thing, it is, but it's hardly a number to take comfort in.

I agree, but you once again missed the point. We had more gun control regulations during the peak of gun violence. We have been steadily relaxing gun laws, and we have seen a steady decline in gun violence.

All crime is in decline, how much further has gun crime fallen than say assault or theft?

No, the data indicates that tens of thousands of people are dying, some will be easily preventable with just small reforms which would have little impact on peoples lives.

As the only one who's brought any sort of statistics into this conversation, I'm afraid I'm going to need you to provide something aside from unverifiable assertions to back

You want proof that SOME gun related deaths out of the 30,000 are easily preventable?

What have background checks got to do with storage? Please answer the question asked.

That was part of the answer to the question asked. Do you think that someone who legally purchased their gun would not be able to open their own storage device or something? I'm not sure what you're arguing.

What. I'll ask the question again then. If most high school shooters are using somebody else's gun, would mandatory storage of weapons when not in use have an effect of the number of school shootings?

 dæl wrote:
What the inherent risks involved in fire extinguishers have to do with is the inherent risks involved in guns. I say that guns are dangerous and kill people. You say that you need a gun in case of a fascist coup or something.

On the contrary. I don't believe I've ever said I need a gun in case of a fascist coup. I have several for the purposes of self defense.

To which I reply that such a thing has a very tiny chance of ever happening. So you say that fires are unlikely and we have fire extinguishers. But you see fires happen every day, and fascist coups do not, plus guns are causing deaths while fire extinguishers are not.

That would be a valid point if the only argument for owning guns was protection against fascist coups. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Do you think Britain is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state?

I think any state runs that risk. And hey, given your increasing limitations on speech, you never know.

All crime is in decline, how much further has gun crime fallen than say assault or theft?

Gun crime has fallen between 12% and 25% more than assault, and 17% to 30% more than theft, according to statistics presented here.

You want proof that SOME gun related deaths out of the 30,000 are easily preventable?

Absolutely. I'd like proof that your suggestions would have a significant impact on lowering firearm death rates in this country. Given that the majority of firearm murders are committed in relation to inner city/gang violence, I'm curious how you can be so certain that further restrictions on already law-abiding firearm owners would affect that.

What. I'll ask the question again then. If most high school shooters are using somebody else's gun, would mandatory storage of weapons when not in use have an effect of the number of school shootings?

I very much doubt it.

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
What the inherent risks involved in fire extinguishers have to do with is the inherent risks involved in guns. I say that guns are dangerous and kill people. You say that you need a gun in case of a fascist coup or something.

On the contrary. I don't believe I've ever said I need a gun in case of a fascist coup. I have several for the purposes of self defense.

Sorry, but what?

Interesting. Do you think Syrians felt the same way ten years ago?

So you think the US will become like Syria?

I think anything's possible, which is one of the many reasons the Second Amendment was written and ratified.

So what point were you arguing here then?

Do you think Britain is at risk of becoming a totalitarian state?

I think any state runs that risk. And hey, given your increasing limitations on speech, you never know.

What limitations on speech? Our rights are far safer than yours as long as we are members of Europe, as that means we must abide by the ECHR and we as citizens have access to a court of appeal which sits above our government.

All crime is in decline, how much further has gun crime fallen than say assault or theft?

Gun crime has fallen between 12% and 25% more than assault, and 17% to 30% more than theft, according to statistics presented here.

See now that is interesting, what reasons have been offered for this trend?

You want proof that SOME gun related deaths out of the 30,000 are easily preventable?

Absolutely. I'd like proof that your suggestions would have a significant impact on lowering firearm death rates in this country. Given that the majority of firearm murders are committed in relation to inner city/gang violence, I'm curious how you can be so certain that further restrictions on already law-abiding firearm owners would affect that.

When did I say significant impact? When did I say I was dealing with majority cases? I said that some of the deaths would be easily avoidable, which means that with a slight adjustment of behaviour some families will not have to go through the grief of losing loved ones. Even if it is only a single family then it should still be done, as human life is far more important than having to wait a few days for a background check, or locking up guns when not in use, or not being able to buy military grade weaponry. Yes the controls effect more people, but that's a prevention paradox and public health is always a prevention paradox. To refuse change which will save lives is to have blood on your hands, certainly when the only reason given for refusing change is a slippery slope argument.

What. I'll ask the question again then. If most high school shooters are using somebody else's gun, would mandatory storage of weapons when not in use have an effect of the number of school shootings?

I very much doubt it.

So where are they getting the weaponry from if it is under lock and key?

 dæl wrote:
Sorry, but what?

What don't you understand about what I said? I find the chances of a fascist coup pretty remote, and my guns were not purchased with that in mind.

So what point were you arguing here then?

That claiming to live in a political environment in which you will never need the means to defend yourself or your preferred way of life is a losing bet in the long term. Powers rise, powers fall. The notion that liberal democracy will endure forever, especially without the safeguard of a populace committed to uprising if it's ever threatened, is insidiously naive.

What limitations on speech? Our rights are far safer than yours as long as we are members of Europe, as that means we must abide by the ECHR and we as citizens have access to a court of appeal which sits above our government.

That's true, Europe's never run into problems with totalitarianism.

See now that is interesting, what reasons have been offered for this trend?

Everything from less lead in paint to most of the criminals already being locked up. Nobody knows. We simply have a correlation between relaxed gun laws and lower gun crime rates.

When did I say significant impact? When did I say I was dealing with majority cases? I said that some of the deaths would be easily avoidable, which means that with a slight adjustment of behaviour some families will not have to go through the grief of losing loved ones. Even if it is only a single family then it should still be done, as human life is far more important than having to wait a few days for a background check, or locking up guns when not in use, or not being able to buy military grade weaponry. Yes the controls effect more people, but that's a prevention paradox and public health is always a prevention paradox. To refuse change which will save lives is to have blood on your hands, certainly when the only reason given for refusing change is a slippery slope argument.

It's not a "slippery slope" argument, though, is it? The right, as said, exists for more than the theoretical need to overthrow a dictatorial government or defend against foreign aggression. It exists for the ability to defend oneself, to hunt, to shoot for fun...a whole host of things.

So where are they getting the weaponry from if it is under lock and key?

We'd have to go case-by-case through high school shootings. The Columbine kids, if memory serves, got theirs through a straw buying friend. In the case of the Red Lake massacre, the shooter had had the gun, through unknown means, for over a year before committing the crime; his friends recall it, but don't know how he got it. It wasn't owned by a family member.

 dæl wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The right to bear arms and the right to equal protection under the law are both constitutional rights with equal weight.

Protesting jim crow laws and protesting gun control laws is a valid legal parallel.

I think that's where a lot of the hang up is. They are equal, but many don't see them as such.

The right to not be discriminated against is not the same as the right to bear arms, one is an inalienable human right which cannot be taken away, the other is already restricted (no nukes, alas) and for some is restricted even more (felons). They aren't equal as one is covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 7), and is part of international law.

Nope. Both are amendments in the bill of rights. Both have the exact same time place and manner baggage as any other amendment.

I love the fact that the rise of the Nazi's is used as an example of why Americans need their guns. Apparently this would stop a dictatorship... Have you ever taken the time to look at pictures from Germany in the 1930's? You will see that there are plenty of weapons being wielded by all sides. Hitler came to power due to the support of the people, there were plenty of people who had guns and could of stopped him. It's only with hindsight that people he was a monster, and that's only because he lost.

What about the Spanish Revolution, plenty of weapons there. What a mess that was.

Given how insidious the growth of a dictatorship is, what would it take for you to say enough is enough and fight back? Lets use guns as a sliding scale. Lets say everything else in the country is going smoothly and the economy is strong, the Federal Government manages to pass a bill restricting the amount of ammo you can have. Would that cause you to go out and fight "the man"? What about a ban on any gun that could be converted to an assault rifle, would that be enough? I know, what about a restriction on how many you could own, lets be generous here. One handgun per adult and one shotgun per household, would that bring you out onto the streets?

I honestly believe that what you think is tyranny is nothing like what the rest of the world knows what tyranny really is. The concept of a national health service being imposed causes you to yell tyranny, having your taxes raised causes you to scream tyranny, being told that you can't smoke in certain places... tyranny. The rest of the world just looks at you and thinks, WTF !?!

Do you really think that the Soviet Union or in fact any other Superpower would actually hesitate in invading you because a load of "bubbas" have an arsenal of guns? Do you not think that any invading country would have the same ideas on warfare as you...carpet bomb the place before moving in !?!

I suspect the Soviet Union would hesitate in invading us largely because it ceased to exist quite some time ago.

Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, Guns are a constitutional right that should only be suspended in the event of a proven felony or mental disease.

Other rights can be suspended in situations where the safety of the public is at risk, why not gun rights?

Your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall is suspended because of a risk to the public. Your right to carry guns is likewise regulated because guns are DANGEROUS TOOLS OF DEATH, designed to kill things as quickly and efficiently as possible-- ergo, they are an inherent danger to the public.

A group of armed idiots-- IE the march in the opening post, whom are all armed and also all idiots-- marching down the streets with fully loaded assault rifles is an inherent danger to the public, and the police, in acting to either turn them back or force them to disarm before continuing their march, are well within the law.

 Wolfstan wrote:

Do you really think that the Soviet Union or in fact any other Superpower would actually hesitate in invading you because a load of "bubbas" have an arsenal of guns? Do you not think that any invading country would have the same ideas on warfare as you...carpet bomb the place before moving in !?!

Actually Japan's generals in WWII were saying to take over the rest of the world first then go for america dew to the fact of most Americans had at that time had lots ow guns and some military grade rifles and such.

 Melissia wrote:
Other rights can be suspended in situations where the safety of the public is at risk, why not gun rights?

Your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall is suspended because of a risk to the public. Your right to carry guns is likewise regulated because guns are DANGEROUS TOOLS OF DEATH, designed to kill things as quickly and efficiently as possible-- ergo, they are an inherent danger to the public.

You are quite correct that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded mall because there is a risk to the public. But that risk is immediate and obvious because the right to free speech has been exercised in a careless or malicious way. That is not the same as the simple fact of gun ownership, unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur.

Someone owning a rifle for hunting purposes and storing it responsibly in a gun safe cannot reasonably be accused of being "an inherent danger to the public"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But that risk is immediate and obvious

If you don't think a loaded gun is immediately and obviously a risk, you don't deserve the right to have a gun in the first place.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?

That's true. The rest of your post made so much sense, after all.

We have, it must be admitted, absolutely no recent examples of superpowers having an incredibly tough time militarily thanks to the presence of anachronistically-armed irregulars, forcing withdrawal from two separate conflicts when involvement became unsustainable.

And on the 'fighting domestic tyranny front,' it must be admitted that the Syrian rebels have been asking for nothing but love and strict, sensible gun control policy in order to defeat the Assad regime.

Beyond that, of course, you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head. The Second Amendment was written and ratified for only one reason, and does not exist to provide safeguards against a plethora of threats, some solely to the individual in the form of criminal injury, some to the democracy in the form of domestic tyranny, and some to the state in the form of external threats.

 Melissia wrote:
marching down the streets with fully loaded assault rifles is an inherent danger to the public, and the police, in acting to either turn them back or force them to disarm before continuing their march, are well within the law.

1. As mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this thread the firearms will not be loaded. I cannot stress this enough because this is a recurring factual error, not just from yourself but also numerous other. This removes your claim of "inherent danger".
2. Please define "assault rifle".
3. Please show me the evidence that those marching will be carrying said "assault rifles".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But that risk is immediate and obvious

If you don't think a loaded gun is immediately and obviously a risk, you don't deserve the right to have a gun in the first place.

That was not the point that I was making, so I would appreciate you not engaging in strawmen. Thank you.

I'm pretty sure they'll all be semiautomatic rifles. I'm not sure where assault rifles came into the picture, but I lack the imagination of progressive journalism.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That was not the point that I was making

It's the point you made.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That was not the point that I was making

It's the point you made.

I would respectfully ask that you go back and re-read my post in full. I don't think that you can reasonably come to the conclusion you have from what I posted;
"You are quite correct that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded mall because there is a risk to the public. But that risk is immediate and obvious because the right to free speech has been exercised in a careless or malicious way. That is not the same as the simple fact of gun ownership, unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur.

Someone owning a rifle for hunting purposes and storing it responsibly in a gun safe cannot reasonably be accused of being "an inherent danger to the public""

I cannot see anything in that passage that equates to the point that you are attempting to attribute to me. If there is something that you believe is unclear in this passage that is causing confusion I would be glad to clarify it.

Melissia is saying that people who do not recognise loaded weapons as an immediate and obvious risk do not deserve to own them. I imagine this is in part due to the respect for firearms ethos.

You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.

That's how I see it anyway.

 Valion wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?

That's true. The rest of your post made so much sense, after all.

We have, it must be admitted, absolutely no recent examples of superpowers having an incredibly tough time militarily thanks to the presence of anachronistically-armed irregulars, forcing withdrawal from two separate conflicts when involvement became unsustainable.

And on the 'fighting domestic tyranny front,' it must be admitted that the Syrian rebels have been asking for nothing but love and strict, sensible gun control policy in order to defeat the Assad regime.

Beyond that, of course, you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head. The Second Amendment was written and ratified for only one reason, and does not exist to provide safeguards against a plethora of threats, some solely to the individual in the form of criminal injury, some to the democracy in the form of domestic tyranny, and some to the state in the form of external threats.

Any example from before the 50's is pointless as nobody had the fire power to cause mass destruction, plus you still miss most of the points. Russia, China, North Korea or any other bogeyman you want to think of, would of been held at bay due to weapons of mass destruction. No the thought of citizens with guns. Especially as you could argue that not all of them would join force and fight back. You always have people who would be looking after themselves or making something out of it for themselves.

The middle east has always been a volatile area, so it's not a good example of why citizens should have guns.

As I've said before many times, your fore fathers could not of foreseen the way weapon technology would advance. The bill was written based on their understanding of guns at the time. Not of a time when there would be assault rifles, automatic pistols and machine guns.

If you want to reword yourself, go ahead. You said "But that risk is immediate and obvious", indicating that you believed that somehow shouting fire in a crowded theater was an immediate and obvious danger... unlike a gun.

 purplefood wrote:
You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.

That's how I see it anyway.

Is a loaded firearm still an immediate and obvious danger to the public if used on a closed range at paper tagets? Is it still an immediate and obvious danger to the public when being used to hunt deer?

My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me.