Before any trigger is ever pulled there is a series of decisions
Suicides, homicides and even so-called accidents all require a series of deliberate choices. I am increasingly of the belief that if we confront that fact we will confront the causes of the vast majority of illicit gun uses and even instances where such things occur but do not involve the use of a gun.
What you said is 100 percent truth, but, the great majority of posters we deal with on the other side of the issue simply don't care. They're not interested in root causes, they're intent on going after guns.
One need look no farther than their false pretense that suicides and homicides are the same, to see it.
of their proposals -- but at least we engage in the discussion. If my point is not practical I would like to see them state why such an approach is not practical, particularly since I believe it would also confront non-gun suicides, assaults and murders.
Yet, I fear we will only see them ignore the issue as they return to claiming we have no desire to work towards solutions.
That, of course, is what they'll be doing.
When you say 'solution', you're referring to gun deaths, but when they hear the word 'solution' or use it in discussion of tis subject, they mean guns.
They want a solution to guns. They'll try to cloak that in 'reasonableness', misrepresentation and muddy water, but their actions betray their intent every time.
in numbers, we need to closely identify what is working right now, and build on those practices and policies. This is vital, since the number of guns and the number of gun-owners is rising.
that there is a cultural shift as well. I wonder if it is akin to the social stigma against drunk driving that recently developed in our culture.
...to secure firearms (I use a safe). Similarly, using hunter orange is a message that you aren't the only one in the woods, and to hunt better. The most explicit relationship in this regard is hunter ed.: You may not remember all of it, but handling guns and ammo tends to stick with you.
Personal responsibility is rather the antithesis of government control, wouldn't you say?
I used to think government was there to be there when circumstances became too overbearing for the individual, i.e. if you lost your job and couldn't recover before the kids got hungry and the bills came due or a disaster struck or people needed protection or providing everyone with a fair start regardless of socio-economic status.
In other words, each of those things envisions personal responsibility, just with different aspects of organized assistance. If some are willing to treat personal responsibility as an adversarial trait in order to extend control what else might they do with organized government power? Where will they find their next enemy?
After all, it's not as if they have shown themselves to be respectful of those who dissent.
...(lost your job, disaster struck, people needed protection or providing a fair start) a society can judged by its tolerance for dissent. Intolerance of dissent is just another aspect of tyranny.