I can see how someone who misconstrues my position might think that.
If you're responsible, of sound mind, I see no reason why you should be prevented from having a firearm for hunting or a pistol for personal protection. Along with this, you should be able to show - year after year - that you continue to be a responsible gun owner. I even think that people who have served their time should be able to protect themselves (if that's really what the 2nd Amendment is about, as per Heller) just like I can.
The only intrusion arises when someone who isn't really up to the task of keeping and using firearms responsibly wants to get one. This is where society should step in and say "hold on a minute, you need some training and supervision before you can be trusted". We do this all the time, for things far less dangerous than firearms.
Is any of this unreasonable? I'd love to hear an anti-gun-restrictions advocate's opinion here....
Just because we do it all the time doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't really agree with driver's licensing laws or other licensing regulation either. In most cases, I think mandatory occupational licensing actually punishes the poor and expands the already-existing problem of poverty, which creates an artificial need for welfare that wouldn't be as prevalent otherwise. I reject any law which allows the use of violence for any purpose other than in defense or retaliation against someone who initiates violence first. I understand you, and most people, don't agree with that, but that's my philosophical basis for supporting any form of government or any use of violence. The whole "Benefits outweigh the costs" or "So and so amount of people agree with it" is really irrelevant to me. I can't morally justify telling someone what to do just because of some kind of utilitarian benefits-costs analysis or because a majority says so. I don't believe that fits with the golden rule, and it definitely doesn't fit with my philosophical outlook on life.
One of the arguments for stringent licensing requirements is that they massively reduce the odds of having to stand competitively with somebody in a life or death situation, since fewer people, and significantly fewer of the people who intiate such situations, will have access to guns. This doesn't totally remove them, of course, but you could probably do the maths on it.
I think you underestimate the number of criminals that really don't give a darn about the law. I seriously don't think anyone who is willing to risk life in prison for murder is going to balk at the comparatively lesser penalty for owning a weapon illegally. Heck, other than the threat of punishment, I don't care about the anti-weapon "Laws" at all, I believe they are invalid constitutionally and that they have no moral basis. Some people take this one step further and actually DO buy weapons illegally, even knowing the legal force that will be used against them. I, and at least some of the people who buy weapons illegally, have no intention of ever killing anyone. And I wouldn't murder anyone even if it was legal.
No, it does matter. Policy affects peoples' lives. Both positively as well as negatively. Sometimes at the same time.
It matters.
It's fine to hold the position that no policy is better than bad policy - but that implies a certain callousness. I'd rather see some people not have some guns if the alternative is too many people have too many guns.
The current regulation assume that nobody will EVER be an irresponsible gun owner - I'd prefer to see some sort of screening like we already do with explosives and automobiles.
But I guess that makes me a police-statist
I'm not going to call you a police statist. I do think you're a decent person, but our ideological outlook on life is just so different. I am an Evangelical Christian, you are an atheist. I believe the state is primarily a force for evil, you believe that its primarily a force for good. You seem to think that, left to themselves, everybody would go to war with everybody, I think that, in spite of human sinful nature, people would find a way to survive, and can do so without the crushing weight of a Leviathan state over them. I believe in, at least as much as I can, a deonotological ethical system, you're an ends justifies the means utilitarian. You're very scentifically minded, while faith is more directly important to me. And there's probably more to it. My theology doesn't allow me to call anyone "Good", but I think as far as it goes, you mean well. I may hate the politicians, but I don't hate you, or other regular people who think as you will. I also will say, out of respect for you, that I do believe you are in general more reasonable than a lot of the people I clash with here. I feel like a lot of people here, I'm not naming names, but I do think that a lot of the people on here, even if they are smart people, are very, very partisan for the Democratic Party, and while you are clearly a progressive, I don't put you in the "Partisan" category.
Now, as to the issue at hand, I don't believe in the automobile "Screening" thing either, as I mentioned. While I certainly don't think everyone is responsible enough to drive, I don't think its reasonable to just assume people aren't unless they prove otherwise. The current system makes driving, which is essentially necessary for current suburban or rural life, a privledge which the state can grant or revoke at will. Can you imagine the implications? No need to arrest a political dissident, they can just make life horrible for them by taking away their driving license. Now, you assume the State will never do such a thing, because you assume its benevolence. I do not, and I've seen enough evidence even in my short life to know that, regardless of whether the President is GOP or Democrat, the State is not a benevolent institution.
Regarding guns, we all know there is such thing as an irresponsible owner, yes. The thing is, you want to assume people are irrespnsible, unless proven otherwise. The currrent system, although flawed, assumes you are a responsible gun owner unless proven otherwise. I feel that the current system is much more in line with the whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing. Do you really want to take away people's rights without due process? Generally, you don't seem to be the kind of person who would be in favor of that, but here, you seem OK with it.
I disagree with you that gun control will reduce crime, but even if it would, I'd still disagree with you.
Certainly - personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of allowing ordinary people in high-stress situations to decide whether or not lethal force is appropriate. You've given a good example; another one would be if an elderly lady, living alone, saw somebody climb over her fence at night - in her anxiety, she might shoot or shoot at somebody she was sure was a burglar, to find that it was actually a boy trying to retrieve a football. The boy doesn't get a say in this, and there's no court of appeal for it. As such, I don't believe that people should be trusted with that decision.
While I don't condone shooting anyone for trying to get a football, in the dead of night it may well be a reasonable mistake. Regardless, your whole assumption that self-defense is a privlege, one that people have the right to grant or revoke at any time, is absolutely insane IMO.
I don't support shooting on sight for just any reason, but I'd sooner trust individuals with the decision than I would trust government.
insulting even at it's best). Especially if that person is of the persuasion that they are trusting of you and you are not returning that trust.
