I'm sorry, but that's an authoritarian mindset. It's also fatally flawed in that criminals will not obey laws the law abiding will, and thus the law-abiding are left vulnerable to brutalization. If the "kid" is properly trained and educated, he won't play with a gun, and people who commit suicide kill themselves all the time without using guns. Our suicide rate, overall, is no worse than average, and better than most. Accidents are statistically incredibly rare either way, so these two arguments are pretty spurious IMHO.
You have your stats and the gun control people have theirs. It is no more 'authoritarian' to prohibit or regulate the use of a gun than it is heroin or any prescription drug, or strychnine, or a sample of uranium. Your 'education' line has not proven itself consistently effective. The classes are available in all fifty states. Either parents don't send their kids, or the lessons do not take, or a combination of both. Kids are notorious for not using the knowledge which is not convenient around their peers. We still have kids who dive off cliffs despite swimming lessons, and kids who use drugs despite 'just say no' lectures. In any case ideally, state legislatures can listen to these arguments of yours, read the studies and decide if gun regulation should play a role in their state.
First, suicides are not acts of impulse. The concept of spontaneous suicides is nothing more than a myth created by mental health workers who are too inept at their chosen profession to be able to recognize when a patient was displaying questionable signs, in an effort to avoid becoming a scapegoat to the outrage of not doing anything. One does not simply, randomly, spontaneously, decided that they are going to end their existence for no reason whatsoever. Secondly, how would fewer legally owned firearms do anything to prevent minors from finding unattended firearms that belong to criminals, and are hidden in publicly accessible locations such as playgrounds where they are going to be picked up and used for an illegal operation? It is a concept known as community/communal firearms, and it is a very real problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/nyregion/hidden-communal-guns-are-more-common.html The obsessive focus on firearms that are legally owned ignores the real, more serious problems.
1. I trust mental health workers over you. If the mental health folks believe less access to firearms is a good thing, that is good enough to me. 2. When guns get confiscated and destroyed without having to worry about who owns them, that makes life simpler for local governments anyway. Anything that gets rid of single gun whether in a home or sitting hidden under a board in a field is one less gun for youth to pick up. I don't care if it is Dad's or not.
And mental health workers can never become compromised by political affiliation, correct? They are wholly neutral on the matter? Beyond such, the diagnoses of mental health workers is hardly unbiased. They have a financial incentive for prescribing medications, even when the prescription is unwarranted. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-your-doc-have-ties-to-big-pharma-how-youll-be-able-to-find-out/ Removal of a single firearm does no good in a matter such as the situation in the united states. It is no more beneficial than trying to remove sand from a beach one grain at a time. The current estimate of firearms in private circulation is somewhere between three hundred million, and five hundred million. The figures released by the FBI pertaining to background checks performed prior to the sale of new firearms by federally licensed dealers suggest that, at a minimum, another forty one thousand firearms are being added to that overall amount on a daily basis, across the entire united states. This is all assuming that only one firearm is purchased for each successful background check, rather than two or a half dozen. That amounts to approximately fifteen million new firearms being bought every single year, almost none of which have ever been registered. The number of firearms in the society of the united states has reached the saturation point where any effort at removing them, no matter how large, is ultimately useless. Even removing three million firearms from those who legally own them, would at the very best amount to no more than a mere one percent, while at the same time being too cost prohibitive to carry out. There are not nearly enough law enforcement officers to orchestrate such an operation to any significant degree. It is no exaggeration to state that what you are proposing, is a futile and hopeless effort. For all the good that is done by the proposal presented by yourself for consideration, you may as well be suggesting the development of time travel technology for the purpose of going back in time in an effort to prevent the creation and development of firearms in the first place.
That wasn't what what was said - the point t was reducing "easy access", which doesn't mean that previous lawful gun owners suddenly ownillegal guns, but that access becomes more difficult. That just means additional steps to own legally. We will still have lawful gun owners owning guns, but according to the claim that means fewer suicides and accidents. Why would be the case, unless the goal isn't merely keeping more bad guys from getting guns but making the task onerous enough as to reduce the number of lawful citizens from owning guns. That means crating laws to reduce the number of lawful citizens from exercising a right, kind of like voter suppression. Ah, so you take the point that the stated goal is to prevent lawful ownership, not to reduce criminal access. Do you support laws that would be aimed solely at suppressing lawful ownership?[/QUOTE]
...And upper level gun control advocates have openly admitted their willingness to lie and manipulate statistics to "take advantage of the ignorance" of most people regarding the issue to push their agenda. Excuse me if I refuse to take their stats without a tanker truck of salt. I know your opinions on the subject are deeply and honestly felt, but you should ask yourself why the gun control movement - if its position on the issue is so strong and inarguable - should be so willing to resort to lies and obfuscation to push its agenda? There's where you're wrong. Yes, I know you don't believe in the idea of gun ownership as a "right" but it's right there in the Constitution, and clearly elaborated upon in the speeches and writings of those who founded this country. Gun ownership is part of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination. When the government starts putting arbitrary and capricious restrictions upon someone's enumerated Constitutional rights then that is the very definition of "authoritarian". ...And yet the number of firearms accidents resulting in death is so incredibly low as to become statistically irrelevant. I grew up around firearms and was lectured and trained from the very beginning in the responsibility inherent in being around them safely. Every person I've ever known who grew up in a similar environment was equally conscientious - and safe - around firearms, and passed that knowledge on to their own children. And I don't buy the argument that "kids are inherently irresponsible". Yes, we have a culture of irresponsibility that has sprung up that rejects personal accountability, but that's a failure of the culture. Yeah, some kids do stupid stuff; but the level of stupid is directly concurrent with how much self-responsibility they've been taught. I freely admit I did some bone-headed stuff as a kid and as a teenager, but I'd been taught enough about self-responsibility and the consideration of consequence that I never was in more than a little bit of trouble at any given moment. But, here is where we get into the heart of the philosophical differences between the main factions in this discussion. Your side thinks collectively, and wants to punish everyone for the actions of an extremely small fraction of the whole. The other side thinks individually, and believes that no individual should be punished for the actions of others, especially when an individual has fulfilled his obligation as a citizen to exercise his rights responsibly. That is your opinion. Mine is that, yes, local and state legislatures are best equipped to evaluate the needs of their citizens than any Federal entity; but only so long as the policies they consider don't place undue infringements upon the rights of those citizens.
In essence this particular disagreement is about whether gun ownership OUGHT to be a right vested in the state or in the individual, because I have already conceded 1. that SCOTUS holds it to rest with the individual and that such an interpretation is reasonable and justifiable, which is more than you will get from many who feel as I do. I just adamantly believe that this call is best seen as a policy decision each state should make based on how their citizens see this issue and how they impact their legislators or city council or county commission. I do not like that amendment because it can be seen as resting this with individuals, but we have had a respectful discussion, and that makes a difference. That is not often true on a social issue like this.
gun control only prevents honest people easy access to firearms that is why most violent criminals support gun control
Well spoken. Funny thing is how qualified Law Enforcement personell quietly achieved National carry, not limited to their State of service. As long as they carry their badge and credentials, a police officer from any State can carry in any State.
Agreed, and I in no way want to minimize that. I do, in fact, deeply appreciate the respectful way you've comported yourself and your being willing to show far more consideration than I tend to see in a discussion of this type. I sincerely thank you for that.
