OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it? Really? if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change.
This blows my mind.
The idea that people need to be protected from themselves, because the government knows better, is what blows my mind. That removes the power from the individual and leads down a road to tyranny and totalitarianism and it's sad to see that becoming more and more acceptable in America.
I'm not sure if you're outraged about the number bring too high at 700 or that the number exists at all. If you're outraged that the number is too high, how many deaths per year would you find acceptable to exercise your 2nd Amendment constitutionally-protected rights? If you think the number should be zero, explain how you can provide a workable solution to achieve that, which it isn't, but maybe you have the Holy Grail of public policy recommendations that might work where so many others have failed.
Honestly, I don't think gun control has ever been about saving lives, despite the rhetoric. That's the cynic in me. Gun control is about what the Democrat party is, preaching to you about how if you vote for them they'll make your lives better, safer and then failing to deliver. Obama said this best at Dallas police funeral speech discussing racial violence and the police "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work; it’s about forging consensus, and fighting cynicism, and finding the will to make change." Or here in California when Gov. Jerry Brown was passing the minimum wage increase "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."
I know where you stand from previous posts.
However I am not talking gun control in any way shape or form. Have 1000 of them yourself if you wish. I am just saying that I think it would be beneficial to have a training course that goes with buying them. Well your first one, after you have the course you would not need it again. Hell use the taxes that are collected to pay for it. God know enough tax money is wasted in far more useless endeavors.
Yaeger, I know that it is impossible to reduce the number to zero. Some people will be idiots no matter what you do, but any reduction is worth it.
I don't see how this can be true, when the "IT" in "worth it" is an unknown variable. Worth what? Is reducing the number in half from 700 to 350 worth IT? That depends on what IT is. Is IT $100 Billion? Is IT 10's of thousands of man-hours lost? Is IT some (even small) loss of freedom?
Preventing Muslims from getting pilots licenses would have prevented 9/11. Worth it? Preventing Muslims from living in France would have prevented the Paris and Nice attacks. Worth it? Suppressing the BLM movement and anti-police speech would have prevented the attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Worth it? Banning homophobic speech would have prevented hundreds or thousands of hate crimes against gays over the years. Worth it?
To address your first point. What is a life worth? How much would you spend to save the life of someone important to you. I think the amount of people that file bankruptcy because of medical bills in the US speaks to any, it doesn't matter.
The second point you made has a ton of bias's in it which itself id problematic.
1. Muslims did not attack the World trade Center, AlQueda(sorry about the spelling) did. They were a terror group that also attacked Muslim people.
2. Muslims did not attack either place in Paris, ISIS did. Again ISIS has attacked Baghdad, about 2 weeks ago, killing 200 Muslim people because they did not believe the same.
3. BLM did not kill any one, they were involved in a peaceful process. A black man did.
4. Homophobic speech. You are telling me that we should not ban homophobic speech? I should be banned. People of any gender or sexuality deserve to be treated with the same respect as the next person. Hate speech should be banned.
We cannot go around and hate many on the actions of few.
This basically played out how I expected it to. (I do recognize you are not American, but I am and it seems we are primarily talking about US firearms laws.)
The First Amendment of the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is commonly understood to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble, associate and protest etc.
#1 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and you are correct to oppose it, as do I.
#2 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and you are correct to oppose it, as do I.
#3 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and you are correct to oppose it, as do I.
#4 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and yet you support the idea. We should not ban homophobic speech. In fact, it would be ILLEGAL to ban such speech in the US. What is the point of protecting free speech, if we only protect the speech that society deems acceptable?
From what I can tell, you only support upholding the rights of people and groups you sympathize with. You sympathize with Muslims, BLM, etc so you support protecting the rights those groups. You do not sympathize with homophobes so you do not support protecting the rights of that group.
I would infer that you don't sympathize with gun owners, so you are not very interested in protecting their rights. The US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms to the same extent it protects the right to protest, the right to practice whatever religion, the right to say mean things about people who may not deserve it.