I don't know enough about guns to have a solid, detailed opinion on them. My closest experience to them is when one of my mother's friends was shot outside our back yard. I've never owned a gun, and never felt the need to own one. Frankly, if someone is so fearful that they think they need a gun for self-defense, I'm more worried about the owner than the intruder. I have seen no convincing arguments that gun owners are safer from crimes.
On the other hand, many people on this forum describe that they go to some length to keep their guns safe, to keep themselves properly trained, etc. They are quick to condemn owners who handle guns sloppily or store them carelessly. I find it hard to object to people who follow these procedures owning guns. I have no objection to hunting with guns, training with guns, etc.
My current line of thinking is that gun ownership should be more of a privilege that you earn than a right you have to lose, but it's not set in stone.
The author of the original post has some recommendations to reduce gun deaths:
1) No gun sales to people who have two or more convictions involving alcohol or other illegal drugs
2) Minimum age of 21
3) No gun sales to felons
These seem like reasonable restrictions to me.
I appreciate the response, OB.
I've had two paradigm shifts in my life. The first was "abandoning" my belief in a higher power and becoming an Atheist. I did this after 20 or so years of being brought up Roman Catholic. The second was changing my stance on gun rights and gun ownership. I never had any sort of interaction with guns when I was younger or even in my teenage years but what changed my mind or what helped change my mind was my deciding on where I was going to draw my morality from now that I was an Atheist. I still follow the teachings of Jesus -- how could you not? He's hard to argue against -- but I also looked to our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The concept of first principle and inalienable rights made me think long and hard about gun rights and how this affected the right to life and the right to freedom and liberty.
Anyway, reaching certain personal conclusions, I started reading whatever I could in regards to firearm ownership and safety. Massad Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme was the game changer for me. Also, over the years, I read material from both sides of the argument and have always come to the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was deemed necessary by our forefather's for reasons of first principle. Furthermore, I do not think it was a coincidence that it was the 2nd amendment and came directly after language describing the ideas of a free society.
In regards to your "current line of thinking," while you may want that to be the case, it's not. Driving a car, though this can be debated, is a privilege afforded to you by the state and not a right given to you by the supreme law of the land as the right to bear arms truly is.
There should be restrictions, sure, and many of them I agree with but the idea that we can send our 18 year olds to fight in a foreign land for, presumably, the rights of others, but not allow them the right to defend themselves in their own country seems ill formed. Also, someone who gets two convictions as a result of using marijuana but has no violent crime record still deserves the right to defend themselves in my opinion.
Reaffirming my position was just using common sense when reading news stories dealing gun issues.
Your opening paragraph referenced this common idea that gun owners are fearful or worried but yet these same adjectives are never used on people who regularly use their seat belts or wear cycling helmets. For instance, I don't wear my seat belt or cycling helmet because I'm worried or fearful of crashing or falling every time I drive my car or ride my bicycle, I wear them just in case. Examples of defensive gun use are plenty and happen everyday in this country. They're their if you want to see them.
