I hate, hate, hate the slippery slope absolutist mentality of the NRA. why does that mean you have to stop trying? Why would you give up on attempting to implement policy that might save people's lives? Don't ever give up. If you have a right like gun ownership, make sure you are doing the other part of what makes individual rights work, personal and social responsibility.
Let me address this point by point:I hate, hate, hate the slippery slope absolutist mentality of the NRA.
Usually "slippery slope" arguments are invalid. But in this case, it has a very solid foundation in both history and in the publicly stated intent of gun control advocates. Regardless of your own feelings about what types of changes would help the situation, you must recognize that this stance has been taken not out of preference, but out of necessity. When your opponents are publicly stating their intent to completely strip you of a particular right, and that any measure they take will be a step in that direction, absolutism is no longer irrational.Even if certain gun laws aren't working, why does that mean you have to stop trying?
There's an inherent problem with this question, because it assumes that guns are the root cause of the problem, and that there is some sort of gun-control law that will help, when in reality guns are simply a tool being used in the context of a larger problem. I think a better question would be "what is driving people to join gangs and commit violent crime?" since that represents the vast majority of gun crime;Why would you give up on attempting to implement policy that might save people's lives?
There are two problems with this: 1) there's an assumption that "gun-control laws = lives saved", and 2) passing laws because they might
solve a problem is a poor approach to government.make sure you are doing the other part of what makes individual rights work, personal and social responsibility
I'm not sure what the specific concern is here. Gun owners are already legally responsible for how they use their guns. Can you provide a bit more detail on what you're getting at here?
Has there been a large study proving that having concealed carry laws prevents or reduces gun violence? I would be interested in seeing that. My intuition tells me that it would make volatile situations more volatile, but I could be wrong and I am open to changing my mind on that one.
I have a real, real hard time with the idea of teachers carrying. Maybe it's because I have an autistic son, but I can envision situations where a few errors could result in his injury or death. Maybe you are not aware of the fact that a lot of special needs kids are integrated into the general school environment these days, but that put a lot of unpredictable behavior at play. I could totally see an inexperienced teacher reacting in a totally understandable way that gets kids killed.
To be honest, the effect of concealed carry laws on crime rates is this: it's murky. It *has* been studied extensively, and the results range from "it reduces murder significantly" to "there's little causal link between concealed carry and reduced murder rates." There's essentially zero research that claims to show that concealed carry is linked to increased gun violence. As you consider this, keep in mind again that 1) most murders are gang-related, and such people generally don't bother with whether concealed carry is allowed in their location, and 2) most studies look at the link between gun laws and murder
, and not at other violent crime, especially robbery, so it's not exactly apples-to-apples.
I understand the instinctive reaction against teachers carrying. I, too, have an autistic son, and we're intimately aware of the challenges that arise in a school setting with special needs students. It's easy to imagine scenarios where things could go wrong. But those scenarios are not insurmountable.