What's your opinion of gun control?

[Spendulus]

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.

When I was in college I was applying for random part-time jobs.  I applied once to Blockbuster and got red-flagged as high risk for hire lol.  If what you're talking about was anything like the Blockbuster survey, we're in trouble.  Among the questions asked were: Have you ever been in trouble?  Have you ever lied?  Have you ever been late?  What the hell am I supposed to do with those?

For gun control questions please add...

Have you ever thought your government was bad?
Have you ever thought some laws didn't matter?
Have you ever wanted to barbecue penquins or polar bears?

And for the proguncontrol freaks, here is the question you would like to ask-

Have you ever owned or handled a gun?

(If yes, clearly they should not be allowed to have a gun....)

(If no, they are inexperienced and would be dangerous if allowed to have one....)

[1713473226]

1713473226

[1713473226]

1713473226

[1713473226]

1713473226

[the joint]

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.

When I was in college I was applying for random part-time jobs.  I applied once to Blockbuster and got red-flagged as high risk for hire lol.  If what you're talking about was anything like the Blockbuster survey, we're in trouble.  Among the questions asked were: Have you ever been in trouble?  Have you ever lied?  Have you ever been late?  What the hell am I supposed to do with those?

For gun control questions please add...

Have you ever thought your government was bad?
Have you ever thought some laws didn't matter?
Have you ever wanted to barbecue penquins or polar bears?

And for the proguncontrol freaks, here is the question you would like to ask-

Have you ever owned or handled a gun?

(If yes, clearly they should not be allowed to have a gun....)

(If no, they are inexperienced and would be dangerous if allowed to have one....)

Haha nailed it.  The ironic part is that now I work a clinical mental health position for a government agency.  You know what they don't administer to mental health clinicians where I work?  Psych evals and tox screens.

[RodeoX]

My opinion of gun control is that it is best to relax your muscles, look past the sights at your target, and fire on the exhale with a steady trigger pull. 

 

[Spendulus]

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.

When I was in college I was applying for random part-time jobs.  I applied once to Blockbuster and got red-flagged as high risk for hire lol.  If what you're talking about was anything like the Blockbuster survey, we're in trouble.  Among the questions asked were: Have you ever been in trouble?  Have you ever lied?  Have you ever been late?  What the hell am I supposed to do with those?

For gun control questions please add...

Have you ever thought your government was bad?
Have you ever thought some laws didn't matter?
Have you ever wanted to barbecue penquins or polar bears?

And for the proguncontrol freaks, here is the question you would like to ask-

Have you ever owned or handled a gun?

(If yes, clearly they should not be allowed to have a gun....)

(If no, they are inexperienced and would be dangerous if allowed to have one....)

Haha nailed it.  The ironic part is that now I work a clinical mental health position for a government agency.  You know what they don't administer to mental health clinicians where I work?  Psych evals and tox screens.

Right, now look at the list of plausible exclusions from the procedures WERE THE GUNCONTROLFREEKS ever to get control of guns -

List of negatives for gun ownership -

1. 
2.
3.....1091 blalbhalblah
1092 too many right answers to questions
1093 between ages of 18-45, prime time for Muslim terrorism but we can't discriminate on religion, just ban them all
1-17 too young and immature
45+  Senile (also possibility of ex military here, those guys are dangerous)

[Spendulus]

My opinion of gun control is that it is best to relax your muscles, look past the sights at your target, and fire on the exhale with a steady trigger pull. 

 

What?

No load fire aim?

[brianddk]

In America, the right to arms is a constitutional right but it is also a country with a lot of crime and murders.

Fact Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

USA != Americas.

The lean on the Americas figure is not due to the USA but rather Mexico, Brazil and Greenland.  All of which have substantially higher murder rates than the USA....

[TECSHARE]

People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.

I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them:

• Background check for violent crime
• Mental health evaluation
• Training course complete with range practice
• 7-10 day waiting period

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

Mental health is the real issue, and addressing it in an effective way should be the primary concern.  I don't find anything wrong with a gun in the hand of a morally sound, mentally stable person that is able to manage anger.

As for limiting less affluent folks from being able to take a course and own a firearm, that can be said about any expense in general.  A gun is not a basic need so it doesn't need to be subsidized.

Again, I bring you back to the issue of effective enforcement and prevention of "mission creep" and abuse of these newly issued powers, which has still not been addressed. Also who makes the rules and draws the lines? Just like gun control in general, this is a really good idea that sounds great, but is missing the parts that show how it would implemented effectively and respectfully regarding people's rights. Additionally, even if they did do it correctly, why would crazy people care about following the law when murder is already illegal? Do you really believe they would not be able to find an illegal weapon if they so desired? It is safer to err on the side of caution and make sure the maximal number of law abiding citizens are armed so as to be able to respond most effectively when crazies do get a hold of firearms. Gun control is treating the symptom of gun violence, not the source. The source is not guns themselves, but the increasingly poor mental health of the American populace. Gun control is like giving cough medicine to some one with lung cancer. It may provide temporary and superficial relief, but the source of the destructive element still remains unhindered, allowed to fester untreated.

As far as your suggestion of subsidizing firearms training, that was not my suggestion at all, but your own idea. I am opposed to the idea in whole because as I stated, it provides yet another barrier of entry for the most at risk elements of society, those that live in poverty and crime stricken areas. If I had to design a system of mandatory firearms training, I would model it after the Swiss system of a short period of mandatory civil service under which every citizen is trained with firearms and prepared as a civil defense force, along with mandatory firearm ownership in every household. Every indication shows this is the most effective model relating to gun ownership, and this would be the only circumstances under which I would support mandatory firearms training for general ownership. Again, I think training is a very good idea, but the question is not if it is a good idea, but how do you do so without putting those at most risk in harms way even more so?

You are likely far too trusting of your Overlords on the bolded above.  You presume they have good intent - I presume that they don't, often times.

Further, mental illness is far less precise than these words imply.  And it wasn't too long ago that actual, certified Mental Illnesses included -

Homosexuality
Nymphomania

Certainly you don't want THOSE PEOPLE to have guns.  Do you?  Wait, are we more enlightened today?  Smarter?  Better informed?  More scientific?

Might want to think those things over a bit, lol....

It's not a matter of any mental illness, it's whether said mental illness reasonably poses a danger to any other people.  Same standard we use for involuntary hospitalization, but maybe take out the 'to yourself' part.

Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

[cooldgamer]

Yeah, I'm starting to see the issues with mandatory evaluations, mostly that it would cost a fortune and not really be practical.  Seems like the best option is to use a law similar to NC is using, where you can't have one if you've been involuntarily hospitalized previously for being a danger to yourself/others

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, I'm starting to see the issues with mandatory evaluations, mostly that it would cost a fortune and not really be practical.  Seems like the best option is to use a law similar to NC is using, where you can't have one if you've been involuntarily hospitalized previously for being a danger to yourself/others

I would agree with you on this standard, except for the fact in some states, all it takes is the word of one family member or one police officer to have you committed involuntarily, and on their word alone. Even by this considerably more reasonable standard, we still come to the point where an individual is making decisions removing the rights of others.

An example of police using involuntary commitment as a weapon of coercion and harassment: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/03/cop-threatens-to-have-man-involuntarily-committed-to-a-mental-hospital-for-recording-the-police/

[bitcollins85]

I do think that there are some who should not have the right to weapons and should be filtered from the licensing process. I don't believe that the right to own weapons should be a afforded to people who have been guilty of a violent crime and I don't think that the mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed

[TECSHARE]

I do think that there are some who should not have the right to weapons and should be filtered from the licensing process. I don't believe that the right to own weapons should be a afforded to people who have been guilty of a violent crime and I don't think that the mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

Again, I bring you back to the issue of effective enforcement and prevention of "mission creep" and abuse of these newly issued powers, which has still not been addressed. Also who makes the rules and draws the lines? Just like gun control in general, this is a really good idea that sounds great, but is missing the parts that show how it would implemented effectively and respectfully regarding people's rights. Additionally, even if they did do it correctly, why would crazy people care about following the law when murder is already illegal? Do you really believe they would not be able to find an illegal weapon if they so desired? It is safer to err on the side of caution and make sure the maximal number of law abiding citizens are armed so as to be able to respond most effectively when crazies do get a hold of firearms. Gun control is treating the symptom of gun violence, not the source. The source is not guns themselves, but the increasingly poor mental health of the American populace. Gun control is like giving cough medicine to some one with lung cancer. It may provide temporary and superficial relief, but the source of the destructive element still remains unhindered, allowed to fester untreated.

[Wilikon]

Activists Are Trying To Remove the Gun Emoji

Does the right to bear arms apply to emoji arms? It’s actually a somewhat serious question; activist nonprofit New Yorkers Against Gun Violence aims (excuse the pun) to disarm the iPhone by pressuring Apple’s CEO to remove the gun icon from its emoji catalog.

“The iPhone is ubiquitous. [Guns are] on the iPhone as an option,” the executive director of NYAGV, Leah Barrett, told Fast Company. “We thought this was a way to bring attention to the issue [of gun violence].”

The activists encourage people to tweet at Apple’s CEO and ask for the gun emoji to be removed, using the hashtag #DisarmTheiPhone. However, Fast Company cautions, “If a company like Apple removes words from that language, even if they’re technically pictures, isn’t it censorship? How far does this linguistic adjustment go? If we type the letters G-U-N should they be autocorrected to S-U-N, P-U-N, or F-U-N?” Well?


http://theweek.com/speedreads/569544/activists-are-trying-disarm-iphone-gun-emoji

[Spendulus]

Yeah, I'm starting to see the issues with mandatory evaluations, mostly that it would cost a fortune and not really be practical.  Seems like the best option is to use a law similar to NC is using, where you can't have one if you've been involuntarily hospitalized previously for being a danger to yourself/others

IIRC that's already been part of the federal check for 20 years...

[RodeoX]

Activists Are Trying To Remove the Gun Emoji

Classic. 
If i ever decide to let others do my thinking for me I'll get an iPhone.

[TECSHARE]

THERE ARE SO MANY CRAZY PEOPLE - WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!

No we all need to carry guns so we can defend ourselves against nutcases who can always find a way to get a gun.

Guns are banned in South America (very difficult licensing process), yet the criminals always have the guns. This has turned SA into a freak show where the citizens are powerless.

You fucking idiots! When you will ever learn to use your brain stem (if you even have one) 

• Gun suicides significantly outnumber all other gun-related deaths.
• Over-availability of easy means to top oneself has (repeatedly) been shown to be a significant factor in the overall death rate.
• Decreased availability causes decreased mortality.
• Suicide-prevention fences on one bridge do not cause people to travel to another bridge, they simply cool off and get on with life. The exact same argument applies with guns.
• Historical reasons for guns as laid out in the US' constitution, such as defending yourself against government tyranny, lost Conquistadores, or POHMs setting out to bring the US back under British rule, are laughable today.
  
• The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories.

Besides, South America has been a freak-show for decades with proxy wars and Communist fanatics, which Russia pretends to know nothing about. Let me know if they have Kalashnikovs or some US brand.

Educate yourself:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html

I am taking my response to this thread, as the poster is off topic where originally posted because he knows better than to post it in a related thread where his arguments will be decimated.

-Gun suicides:

So is this a gun problem, or a mental health problem? Do you really think if some one wants to die they need a gun to do it? Say we disarm everyone but the police and military... ever heard of suicide by cop? There are still plenty of buildings to jump off of, buses to jump in front of, and drugs to OD on without guns in the picture.

-Over-availability:

Do you really think making laws restricting the legal ownership of guns will make criminals stop using them? Illegal weapons are available all over the planet, ESPECIALLY in countries where guns are banned. Banning drugs worked so well, I am sure it will work just as well for guns! Illegal drugs certainly aren't available everywhere are they?

-Decreased availability causes decreased mortality:

Decreased mortality for whom? Criminals and crazy people? Even if your little utopian idea of banning guns some how magically making them less available worked, literally the only people you have disarmed are those that obey the law. Then you can watch the crime rate go up again along with the mortality and the over all violent crime rates.

-Historical reasons for guns as laid out in the US' constitution, such as defending yourself against government tyranny, lost Conquistadores, or POHMs setting out to bring the US back under British rule, are laughable today:

I don't know what country you are from, but I am fairly confident it is not the USA. I am not sure where you get off making those choices for a country you do not even live in, and pretending you understand our culture intimately from the outside.
Defending ourselves from government tyranny is the NUMBER ONE REASON people are buying guns over the past 10 years. Just watch any time Obama makes some comment about gun control everyone buys a shitload of guns in preparation for the tyranny which is very clearly rooted in the US government. This is the furthest thing from a joke as it has been since the civil war. Of course if you are safely within the borders of another nation, it is still a joke to you.

-The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories:

Hmm, I dunno about that. They seem to be doing a pretty good job holding off our modern military with small arms in Afghanistan. This argument is just a fallacy. Modern technology doesn't make you bullet proof. Additionally it is extremely difficult to occupy an armed nation for an extended period of time regardless of how many nukes, jets, tanks, drones, or bomb robots you have. Additionally the guns aren't just for the government, they are also to protect individuals from the insane mobs of hungry people that result from any economic collapse.

[Spendulus]

Yeah, I'm starting to see the issues with mandatory evaluations, mostly that it would cost a fortune and not really be practical.  Seems like the best option is to use a law similar to NC is using, where you can't have one if you've been involuntarily hospitalized previously for being a danger to yourself/others

Generally the way these laws work is that there are federal statutes that are then set into state law (same with illegal drugs, more about this later) but the states can have more restrictive laws or in some cases, more lenient ones.

For example, in Texas it is NOT illegal for felons to own guns.  This is a curious historical thing, dates back to where there were legitimate needs for guns to protect against Indians. 

Then when the state makes more restrictive law, they can be fought as against the second amendment.

Different than drug laws - Federal government is selectively taking a back seat to state decisions in the direction of more lenient.

Basically, looks pretty lawless to me.  Now who exactly was saying we were going to fix a problem with more laws?

ROFL...

[blablahblah]

THERE ARE SO MANY CRAZY PEOPLE - WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!

No we all need to carry guns so we can defend ourselves against nutcases who can always find a way to get a gun.

Guns are banned in South America (very difficult licensing process), yet the criminals always have the guns. This has turned SA into a freak show where the citizens are powerless.

You fucking idiots! When you will ever learn to use your brain stem (if you even have one) 

• Gun suicides significantly outnumber all other gun-related deaths.
• Over-availability of easy means to top oneself has (repeatedly) been shown to be a significant factor in the overall death rate.
• Decreased availability causes decreased mortality.
• Suicide-prevention fences on one bridge do not cause people to travel to another bridge, they simply cool off and get on with life. The exact same argument applies with guns.
• Historical reasons for guns as laid out in the US' constitution, such as defending yourself against government tyranny, lost Conquistadores, or POHMs setting out to bring the US back under British rule, are laughable today.
  
• The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories.

Besides, South America has been a freak-show for decades with proxy wars and Communist fanatics, which Russia pretends to know nothing about. Let me know if they have Kalashnikovs or some US brand.

Educate yourself:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html

I am taking my response to this thread, as the poster is off topic where originally posted because he knows better than to post it in a related thread where his arguments will be decimated.

-Gun suicides:

So is this a gun problem, or a mental health problem? Do you really think if some one wants to die they need a gun to do it? Say we disarm everyone but the police and military... ever heard of suicide by cop? There are still plenty of buildings to jump off of, buses to jump in front of, and drugs to OD on without guns in the picture.

"Mental health" is a modern phenomenon, possibly a huge fad, and there's no solid proof that it even exists outside of a society's need to self-correct by correcting individual people's behaviour. There's a lot of good material that could be discussed on mental health: the failure to change minds with involuntary therapy, "you versus the outside world" philosophical issues, commercial incentives leading to iatrogenics, over-prescribing, profiteering from hypochondria and the creation of entirely new mental illnesses that didn't exist before. And, controversially, whether or not suicide constitutes a mental health problem at all -- is enlightened euthanasia a legitimate thing? Is the question even answerable, given that death is an unknown unknown? At least for the living.

Rephrasing: "so is this a gun problem, or a people problem?
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" has been covered.

-Over-availability:

Do you really think making laws restricting the legal ownership of guns will make criminals stop using them? Illegal weapons are available all over the planet, ESPECIALLY in countries where guns are banned. Banning drugs worked so well, I am sure it will work just as well for guns! Illegal drugs certainly aren't available everywhere are they?

2 completely different issues.
The US is the world's biggest manufacturer and exporter of guns. There's only so much (little) onlookers can do if the US chooses to keep flooding the market. I can see how guns have become a Libertarian 'darling' because without scratching the surface it looks like regulation fails to work. And it's so convenient that criminals don't respond well to being shouted at. But who's shouting at the likes of Lockheed Martin to reduce production? No-one! When it comes to petty consumer-level criminals, the availability is completely unregulated.

As long as gun manufacturers keep making record profits with zero regulation, it's all just pissing in the wind.

-Decreased availability causes decreased mortality:

Decreased mortality for whom? Criminals and crazy people? Even if your little utopian idea of banning guns some how magically making them less available worked, literally the only people you have disarmed are those that obey the law. Then you can watch the crime rate go up again along with the mortality and the over all violent crime rates.

Where did I say banning?
Did you read the link? It's the law-abiding citizens that cause the most gun deaths. The criminal side is just a red herring. Change regulations at the consumer level, and suddenly there's less criminals, or more criminals. So what? Did it force Lockheed to supply less guns onto the market?

"Regulations don't work" is complete fallacy. You're not even trying to reduce supply. The main similarity with that and the drug war is that regulators have achieved the same ends by different means. They've castrated themselves by making drugs outright illegal, and therefore also unregulated.

-Historical reasons for guns as laid out in the US' constitution, such as defending yourself against government tyranny, lost Conquistadores, or POHMs setting out to bring the US back under British rule, are laughable today:

I don't know what country you are from, but I am fairly confident it is not the USA. I am not sure where you get off making those choices for a country you do not even live in, and pretending you understand our culture intimately from the outside.
Defending ourselves from government tyranny is the NUMBER ONE REASON people are buying guns over the past 10 years. Just watch any time Obama makes some comment about gun control everyone buys a shitload of guns in preparation for the tyranny which is very clearly rooted in the US government. This is the furthest thing from a joke as it has been since the civil war. Of course if you are safely within the borders of another nation, it is still a joke to you.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that... Who am I to say that your culture is paranoiac and delusional? You guys are smoking the "gun dope", but only you have the power to tell yourself to cut down. I can't fix your denial.

-The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories:

Hmm, I dunno about that. They seem to be doing a pretty good job holding off our modern military with small arms in Afghanistan. This argument is just a fallacy. Modern technology doesn't make you bullet proof.

Because your troops don't want to get killed just because civilians back home are too lazy to make real changes like regulating the weapons manufacturers. It's all US versus Russia proxy fighting, and dragging it out for years is probably the best they can do to avoid massacring the civilians caught in between. But yeah, it's totally those anti-tank pistols that are defeating the troops.

[Spendulus]

The 2nd Amendment, like it or not, does not say that ownership of firearms may be permitted in such a manner as to yield the lowest possible number of gun deaths. 

Any reasonable person understands the reality that protection against everyday crime as well as the more dramatic mass killings that each get 1 minute of news coverage requires a percentage of the population to be armed.

Some people keep projecting their utopian fantasies of the perfect society onto the real world, and believe that restricting guns will lean things in that direction.

That's the "gun control issue" in a nutshell.

[blablahblah]

The 2nd Amendment, like it or not, does not say that ownership of firearms may be permitted in such a manner as to yield the lowest possible number of gun deaths. 

Any reasonable person understands the reality that protection against everyday crime as well as the more dramatic mass killings that each get 1 minute of news coverage requires a percentage of the population to be armed.

Some people keep projecting their utopian fantasies of the perfect society onto the real world, and believe that restricting guns will lean things in that direction.

That's the "gun control issue" in a nutshell.

Some people keep projecting their utopian fantasies of the perfect society onto the real world, and believe that freeing and promoting guns will lean things in that direction.

"Death? Destruction? Mayhem? Who gives a fuck. My emotional attachment to my man-dolls is more important than any real-world issues that anyone could ever bring up. What denial? Lalalalalalalala!"

[RodeoX]

The 2nd Amendment, like it or not, does not say that ownership of firearms may be permitted in such a manner as to yield the lowest possible number of gun deaths. 

Any reasonable person understands the reality that protection against everyday crime as well as the more dramatic mass killings that each get 1 minute of news coverage requires a percentage of the population to be armed.

Some people keep projecting their utopian fantasies of the perfect society onto the real world, and believe that restricting guns will lean things in that direction.

That's the "gun control issue" in a nutshell.

+1
By that standard we should not have free speech rights. Free speech and protesting is dangerous and should not be allowed. Look at what happened with the Arab spring. It would be a far safer place if we were placed in cages and monitored. It would also eliminate the much, much greater problem of auto accidents. Which kill way more people than guns. Everyone please return to the safety of your cages!