JHZR2 - I have always respected your opinion. It's clear from all your posts that you're an educated, thoughtful person, but on this point we don't share the same opinion. Not even close...
Gun restrictions may reduce gun deaths (in other countries, though it's not at all clear to me that they would in this country), but if the restrictions don't reduce violent crime or increase public safety, then we have gained nothing...despite your certainty that gun restrictions reduce deaths, deaths in the US have declined since the Assault Weapons ban was repealed in 2004. So, we have a huge increase in gun sales, gun ownership, over the past 10 years and yet homicides have been declining...it's still not clear to me that restrictions would even work here.
Except to give up a Constitutional right, and deprive the law-abiding American citizen of his/her ability (and therefor right) to defend themselves against that very violence was not affected by the restrictions.
What's interesting in all this discussion is the emotionalism - the sensationally inaccurate description of firearms, the poor understanding of how they work, or the outcomes/tactics involved in shootings.
One American sniper, with a bolt action hunting rifle in .308, can kill over a hundred bad guys. We've shown that in combat over and over (ask the Somali Pirates, the Taliban, and others about that) It's the person, not the particular weapon, that presents a threat or a danger to another person.
The firearm remains the only means by which a person can stop a determined criminal attack. Most people don't have martial arts training, or the street experience necessary to resist an unarmed criminal, particularly if the person being attacked is older, smaller (particularly female) or weaker. Against an attack by an armed criminal, only an armed individual can resist.
And in this country, it's their right to be able to defend against that attack.
Perhaps that's why I find this debate so important. We're talking about the rights of law-abiding Americans. Other countries don't enumerate this right. We DO. Plain and clear. All deaths are a tragedy, but not all deaths are bad deaths.
My rhetorical question above was never answered: how many of those deaths were bad guys? Who was doing the shooting in the guns deaths we have? Was it a person or cop defending the innocent? Was it a bad guy getting killed? That is a critical point - in that case, I'll argue that the death, while tragic, was reasonable and represented support to the basic human right to life. The assailant gave up his right to life the moment he threatened the life of the innocent.
So, if we deny the citizen the right to defense in order to try and reduce gun deaths, we have lost one of our most important rights...and with no certain increase in public safety, that is not a reasonable trade. Some gun restrictions are reasonable - I am OK with the 1934 restrictions on fully automatic weapons. I don't need a machine gun to defend myself, but some gun restrictions make little sense - like the Lautenberg Amendment. A misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence means the person can't have a gun...even if they're in the military (forgot to exempt them in that piece of legislation) so now, I have sailors who can man a .50 caliber M2 (a genuine machine gun) but can't have an M4 or M9 while on the .50, even in combat...
I've spent my life defending others' rights, including the right to free speech, though I find much of that speech ignorant, ill-informed, offensive or just plain stupid...Yet the other rights enumerated in the Constitution don't get the respect that the First does...the right to drive a car like an idiot (not enumerated, but like all rights, inalienable, unless we allow the government to restrict it) seems to be one of our most cherished rights, given the moronic behavior I see on the roads and the death toll from that activity.
