I cannot say I disagree with you on any of the above Chaos, but we probably would not see eye to eye on how to get there. In short, I feel that professionals with a bit of skill, like well myself, have a brain. We are in government employ so please let us use that brain because every situation cannot be legislated and at some point, someplace, someone has got to think. Sadly protocol and SOP deprive us of that ability to think and use our brain and use our judgement.
People not in government employ run into the same sort of things in life. I guess it is the way our society has evolved and it is a crying shame.
See, as a rule, I don't trust any given individual to exercise their judgement to even their own best interest because I feel that our society no longer values what is necessary for us to be expected to do exactly that. There's to much emphasis on material gain, and even downright anti-illectual sentiment. But I don't think it's anything particularly new and different in our generation or time or whatever, it's just the particular expression of all the usual human vices given the evolution our institutions and society has undergone.
So, what's the solution? Why hope for a better future? The Socrates complex. So long as their is someone (like me) willing to martyr themselves to poke holes in the system and hasn't given up hope, there is room for progress and change. I'm not saying I'm the next Socrates, haha, not by a long shot, but the point is that there are people like you and me out there who see the problems, and so long as we don't become apathetic and resigned to living with them, we can spark change.
Chaoslord29, I am very surprised with some of your views, considering you are also a gun owner. For someone who says they have used a weapon in self-defense, it is surprising that you want to attach a corresponding criminal charge - had you needed to kill the individual.
I still don't understand how it is self-evident that increased gun ownership will yield more gun deaths. As Retribution indicated, the last agency I would trust to control firearms is the United States government. Case in point: Operation Fast and Furious.
Realize that the scope of permissible behavior within the legal system has always been larger than the scope of behavior permissible through our moral values - and many would argue that this is the societal ideal. No one likes to see anyone get murdered, but your personal view on self-defense murders going against your moral values has no obligation to be mirrored in the legal system. Many posters here, including myself, feel that many cases of self-defense murders are justified.
I carry a small caliber weapon and only on rare occasion do I actually keep it on hand. In dealing with my own personal case, I was able to resolve the situation peacefully because my would-be assailant was armed only with a knife. If he had had a gun of his own, I doubt I would have brandished mine at all.
If I had shot him, and killed him, in all likelihood I would have plead guilty to murder and expected due leniency from the DA. In our previous debate regarding the woman on life support, I expressed my own ethical stance on murder, and while I would likely have been absolved of the crime, I feel that would in no way absolve my moral culpability for ending someone else's life.
It is self-evident in the same way that more access to drugs results in more drug use, or more people driving cars results in more accidents. In short, accidents happen, and increasing the potential for accidents does not proportionately but exponentially increases the amount of accidents which will occur. I'm not just referring here to accidental gun-deaths, but that the complexity of human behavior will invariably result in circumstances where violent impulses, criminal activity, and suicidal or fanatical tendencies will occur; and the more access to firearms there is in a society, the better the odds that the variety of factors which result in gun violence and gun-deaths will coincide.
Every mass shooting is different. Every armed robbery is different. Every gun-suicide is different. They are all of them infinitely complex circumstances unique to the experiences, perceptions, and even physiology of the person and persons involved. The only factor unique to all of them, and the only one which can actually be controlled for consistently is the presence and usage of a gun, which not only makes the violence possible, but amplifies the lethality of said circumstance in a way incomparable to any other implement of violence (weapon).
The government may not be an ideal institution for dealing with the regulation of firearms, but no less so than it is an ideal situation for dealing with say, mail. Or infrastructure. Or economic stimulation and regulation. The point is that deregulation solves nothing.