That’s the beauty of it: it would be entirely in line with the Founding Father’s vision of an armed populace, and technically there would be no list of people with guns- just a list of people without. 
I’ve always said that if you fear the irresponsible use of firearms, then maybe the answer is more responsibility, not fewer guns.
I’m all in favor of responsible gun ownership. If a child gets ahold of someone’s gun and hurts themselves or others, the gun owner is held responsible. If someone’s gun is stolen and used in a crime, the gun owner is held responsible. Yes, responsible gun ownership is the way to go, don’t you think?
I am all for improving safety and proficiency but only as long as it isn’t a back door way of restricting access. The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone.
We should try to prevent accidental shooting fatalities but I am more concerned with the deliberate shooting fatalities.
If you’re concerned with deliberate shooting fatalities, as you claim, doesn’t it necessarily follow that there are people who should not have guns? :dubious:
The simple fact of the matter is that you don’t like the fact that CHL holders are more law abiding than the general population and you what that implies because so much of your position on this topic revolves around legal gun owners being villains.
If the CHL pudgy white subrbanites are actually more dangerous than their nonCHL counterparts then why haven’t we seen increases in gun murders as states started issuing CHL? You put up supposition as fact while pretending that correlation=causation when it suits your purposes.
Its true I am not a statistician but I am sure I can understand anything that is competently explained. If you are a statistician then you have no respect for your own profession.
Frequently they are. In gun loving states no less. If the child is old enough to defeat a lock then not so much.
If someone steals your car and drives into a crowd of widowed orphans then that’s your responsibility too?
We almost never hold Person A liable for the crimes of Person B unless Person A was committing a crime as well. I could see holding a gun runner liable for any murders committed by the guns sold to fellow criminals.
Yes, they are called Prohibited Persons:
That’s akin to saying that if you have a pulse, you can own a firearm. Do you really want your next door neighbors, and the people across the street, if they are people who have little regard for other people, are inconsiderate and sloppy and not careful with how they operate their weedwhacker (so, okay, they might injure themselves with that), do you really want such morons all owning firearms?
Evading the question. How is it that you refuse to restrict ownership in any way, if you do indeed want to limit gun murders? :dubious:
I thought he answered the question; there are indeed laws forbidding obviously untrustworthy people from having guns. Now are you saying that there are too many shootings so obviously the prohibited category needs to be expanded? If so, by what standard? The one you keep proposing- “nobody except police and soldiers should have guns”- has been repeatedly rejected by the voting public. Short of a Minority Report standard of infallibility, how do you guess who might misuse a gun?
Perhaps people that have been diagnosed by a doctor with PTSD, but are on a long waiting list to receive help.
Like my nephew Christopher, who couldn’t get the help he needed after the military diagnosed him them discharged him, but who had no trouble getting a gun. He self-treated his PTSD on June 3oth.
I was asking how that is consistent with his claim that “The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone.”
I’m asking YOU what YOUR standards are. It seems to depend on who’s asking.
It doesn’t work that way. You have to follow the causal chain back to the beginning. If someone robs a bank and uses the money to purchase a gun from one of his gang buddies it’s the fault of the bank.
Or the federal government for having printed the money in the first place. If the government hadn’t printed the money, it couldn’t have been stolen from the bank.
And that’s the sort of post that leads readers to think you don’t even know what responsibility even is.
Its not a matter of what I want. What I want is for me to own all the weapons and for no one else to have any. What I think the constitution demands (at a minimum) is that everyone have reasonable access to guns unless there is some particular reason to disqualify them. I think reasonable access can include a written and practical safety test.
WTF? You asked if I was willing to restrict ownership and I show you a list of people that cannot own firearms and that I agree should not be able to own firearms. Wasn’t it clear that I agree that prohibited persons should be prohibited from owning firearms?
What is clear is that you asserted “The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone.” With no exceptions.
I agree that we should have more categories of temporarily prohibited persons (like people who are subject to restraining orders) and people who are undergoing evaluation or waiting to undergo evaluation should be in this category.
I wonder if there are enough gun owners who feel that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right?
The NRA hard core members and 2nd amendment activists (extremists?) would never go for that.
I’m asking you if you refuse to own a gun because you fear you would kill someone. I’ve asked you that many times without you answering. So, as I figure things, anybody you ask a question would be entirely within hir rights to just tell you to go fuck yourself. You don’t seem to get how the whole quid pro quo thing works, along with the mind boggling tonnage of other things you don’t get.