(January 16, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's not an issue of matrydom, it's an issue of attrition. The goal of assymetric warfare (as all rebellions are) is to get the enemy to commit more than he can afford to a target that is not worth what he expends upon it.
I don't -make- arguments about defending myself either form criminals or from the government, or even for hunting. There's no need. You have absolutely no reason to restrict or remove my access to guns. Nada. It's that simple. Take guns away from felons, already part of our laws. Take guns away from crazy people, already part of our laws. I've offered a view of the stats at play. People who want to commit suicide are 60% of our "gun problem", and the remaing 40% are cops or robbers. I am neither. My guns are involved in neither. I agree that both the suicide problem..and the cops and robbers problem..ought to be addressed.
Gun control will address neither, and so the stated goal will not be achieved. If you want to address that problem, if the problem is in fact avoidable deaths...and not that people own guns, something else has to be done. If the problem we want to address is that people own guns, and not avoidable death...then sure...gun control (or gun bans) can solve that "problem".
When you say "our" do you mean "federal"? Because that's not true. The only federal law concerned with background checks that stop felons and committed mentally ill from purchasing firearms is the Brady Bill from 1993, but thanks to the 10th Amendment states are free to either substitute the NCIS (federal) background checks with their own version or not have one at all. And many conservative states do just that.
How do you define the term "gun control"? What would you suppose be done that doesn't affect your ability to purchase a firearm?