The shootings and the campaign

[Politico]

Statistics show that if you have a pool, a firearm and one or more children on your property, your children are far more likely to drown in the pool than be killed by your firearm. As a result of this, should we outlaw pools? Or should we just heavily regulate pools? Should we constantly tell parents how to parent and what they can see, hear, read, own, and do in the privacy of their own homes? OR maybe, AND THIS IS A STARTLING MAYBE for some folks, we should instead have a government that allows law-abiding citizens to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes so long as they do not unlawfully harm others? A nation cannot prosper if its citizens are crippled by a Big Brother-style of government. People need to be free to make choices and take responsibility for their actions. Should they screw up, they need to face the consequences them self. The government should not function like a big brother, supposedly looking out for citizens with huge bureaucracies and a long list of laws and regulations. That is not how a nation and its people progress and prosper to the greatest degree possible.

Just like prohibition did not end the sale and consumption of alcohol, "gun control" at the national level would not solve the problems of gun proliferation and the misuse of firearms.  Just look at neighboring Canada, for example. Their "gun control" has produced nothing more than further government bureaucracy and, as an extension, fewer tax dollars for truly essential national endeavors such as education, infrastructure, defense spending and scientific/technological research. The misuse of firearms has not gone down, they also have problems with gun crimes on their streets and in their schools, so why did they waste billions of dollars on "gun control"? It produced nothing except further government bureaucracy. I strongly doubt America, a nation with a population ten times larger than Canada's, would be able to produce a different result.

When it all comes down to it, a gun is a tool that has been used for numerous purposes the past few centuries. All law-abiding citizens ought to have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. If they choose to defend them self with a firearm, and they properly maintain and care for their firearm, I do not think any government has the right to say, "No, that is not permissible." That is a step away from freedom and towards totalitarianism. That is not where we want to head in the 21st Century.

Just because an incredibly tiny minority of a select few decide to misuse a tool for evil, criminal purposes, the government should pass a law that prohibits all law-abiding citizens from owning and using that same tool for defensive purposes? That is a slippery slope that would be a huge step towards 1984. Such measures are anti-freedom and, as such, I reject them vehemently.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens if you intentionally throw a plugged-in TV into a swimming pool while somebody you would like to murder is submerged in the water?

Unfortunately, we live in the real world. In the real world, if somebody really wants to kill somebody they're going to find a way. They do not necessarily need a gun to get the job done. And even if they did need the gun, all of the "gun control" in the world is not necessarily going to prevent them from obtaining one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vast majority of people in this country who possess firearms do not use their firearms to unlawfully harm or kill other human beings. They do not use them for any unlawful purposes. The vast majority of gun owners in this country have their weapons for defensive purposes and/or animal hunting purposes. Only the tiniest minority of firearm owners use their firearms for unlawful purposes just like only the tiniest minority of owners of pools use their pools for unlawful purposes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you would like to completely cede control of such a tool to the government rather than allow law-abiding individuals to make an individual choice whether or not to own and use such a tool? Go read up on what that idea ended up producing in Germany in the early half of the 20th Century.

I strongly agree with the "liberal" viewpoint on the vast majority of issues, and consider myself a staunch Democrat, but you'll never convince me that allowing the federal government to control and regulate the ownership of firearms is a good idea. I strongly believe that law-abiding citizens ought to be able to choose for them self whether or not to protect themselves with a firearm.

[Politico]

About the swimming pool/gun arguement:

Drowning in a swimming pool is an accident, being shot is purposeful...

Plenty of shooting are accidental, and gun control advocates often use those figures to argue against guns or for gun regulations.

Thank you for clearly stating the obvious reason for the original analogy.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are the police able to be everywhere at once? Of course not. As such, I think it's fair to say that law-abiding individuals ought to be given the choice whether to rely solely on the cops or to also have protection for them self in the privacy of their own homes. People ought to be free to choose whether or not to provide additional protection for them self at home. Should a criminal break into somebody's home with the most unlawful intentions, the cops will likely not be able to come to the rescue in time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The biggest problem is not the Quebec residents who decide to use firearms for unlawful purposes? It's the fault of everybody in the United States of America instead? What happened to personal responsbility?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What would happen if a pool had 32 fully-submerged people, and somebody threw an electric device into it? Sick people will always find sick ways to kill people, with or without guns. Unfortunately, "gun control" is not going to end the madness.

[Politico]

I'm not trying to convince you, since I know I can't.

It's just growing up in a different environment. The idea of owning a gun, let alone owning one in an urban area is just utterly ridiculous to me.

Nobody is saying you ought to be forced to own a gun. I think you, and all other law-abiding individuals, ought to be given a choice. I do not judge your choice to not own a firearm and I obviously accept it. Perhaps you ought to accept and respect the choice of other law-abiding individuals who choose to own a firearm?

[Politico]

I respect the differing views on the subject and can understand the personal decision not to possess a firearm. That said, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to the following question:

Why should law-abiding individuals not be able to choose whether or not to own a firearm in the privacy of their own home?

I believe that law-abiding adults are capable of making a personal decision about how to best protect them self. I believe that law-abiding adults should be given the right to defend them self from criminals should their life ever become endangered. Finally, I believe that a nation is far less likely to turn away from democracy and head towards totalitarianism if a significant amount of its populace is armed. For all of the above reasons, I strongly believe law-abiding individuals should not be prohibited from choosing for them self whether or not to own a firearm. It is a personal choice best left up to each law-abiding individual in the nation, not the government.

[Politico]

We should have gun control "because it is safer"? I'm not quite sure that allowing only the government to possess firearms is "safe." If anything, it would make it much easier for a government to turn towards totalitarianism. What could the people possibly fight them with? Sticks and stones? Good luck with that.

AIDS has killed millions of Americans the past quarter century and continues to kill many thousands each year. *Beginning of sarcastic rhetorical question* Gee, should we outlaw sex outside of marriage? *End of question*

[Politico]

We should have gun control "because it is safer"? I'm not quite sure that allowing only the government to possess firearms is "safe." If anything, it would make it much easier for a government to turn towards totalitarianism. What could the people possibly fight them with? Rocks and stones? Good luck with that.

Please, no matter you have guns or else, if a government turns toward totalitarianism, he'll have the army with it, it's not your riffles and your magnums which could stop it. Then, most of time totalitarianism can work cause the majority of the population is OK for it, watch the 20th century's history to check it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Outside of the fact I don't see what this do here, and how you can compare sex with gun ownership, you can just doing the promotion of condoms.

I am all for the promotion of condoms and safe sex practices. Likewise, I am all for the promotion of gun SAFETY practices, not gun control.