|
But of course they cannot be bothered to refute the facts contained thereinIf you're citing facts and bothering to provide a link, it's presumably because you're trying to convince people. Providing a link that will convince them is smart. Providing a link that makes them think your facts are make-believe, and then telling them it's their responsibility to disprove it, is a losing strategy.
The burden of proof is on the person making claims, not on the person they're trying to convince. That's how things work.
So their damn bias gives them the ability to decide what facts to accept and what they can conveniently right off as not supporting their personal paradigm of reality? I don't think any fact can be of any use here then
But of course they cannot be bothered to refute the facts contained thereinIf you're citing facts and bothering to provide a link, it's presumably because you're trying to convince people. Providing a link that will convince them is smart. Providing a link that makes them think your facts are make-believe, and then telling them it's their responsibility to disprove it, is a losing strategy.
The burden of proof is on the person making claims, not on the person they're trying to convince. That's how things work.
You and your liberal ideas of "logic" and "reason", laying the groundwork for such filth as "reasonable argumentation".
|
|
You and your liberal ideas of "logic" and "reason", laying the groundwork for such filth as "reasonable argumentation".But of course they cannot be bothered to refute the facts contained thereinIf you're citing facts and bothering to provide a link, it's presumably because you're trying to convince people. Providing a link that will convince them is smart. Providing a link that makes them think your facts are make-believe, and then telling them it's their responsibility to disprove it, is a losing strategy.
The burden of proof is on the person making claims, not on the person they're trying to convince. That's how things work.
Except it is only logic and reason when it supports what they have already decided.
|
|
Sometimes it's not bothering to provide a reasoned counterargument to the guy on the streetcorner wearing a tin foil cap and shouting at the sky.Except it is only logic and reason when it supports what they have already decided.You and your liberal ideas of "logic" and "reason", laying the groundwork for such filth as "reasonable argumentation".But of course they cannot be bothered to refute the facts contained thereinIf you're citing facts and bothering to provide a link, it's presumably because you're trying to convince people. Providing a link that will convince them is smart. Providing a link that makes them think your facts are make-believe, and then telling them it's their responsibility to disprove it, is a losing strategy.
The burden of proof is on the person making claims, not on the person they're trying to convince. That's how things work.
And that is why i dislike talking to so many, particularly liberals, that think there are only two sides their own and crazy. No point in continual conversation with such
And that is why i dislike talking to so many, particularly liberals, that think there are only two sides their own and crazy. No point in continual conversation with such
You're not trying to have a conversation, you're trying to have a debate. Reasoned argumentation has rules. You were trying to pass off something that didn't pass muster as evidence that the big bad gub'ment are taking your guns.
They aren't.
You ARE crazy.
|
|
And that is why i dislike talking to so many, particularly liberals, that think there are only two sides their own and crazy. No point in continual conversation with suchYou're not trying to have a conversation, you're trying to have a debate. Reasoned argumentation has rules. You were trying to pass off something that didn't pass muster as evidence that the big bad gub'ment are taking your guns.
They aren't.
You ARE crazy.
Florida's baker act, tennessee law. read it. They can and are.
Florida's baker act, tennessee law. read it. They can and are.And that is why i dislike talking to so many, particularly liberals, that think there are only two sides their own and crazy. No point in continual conversation with suchYou're not trying to have a conversation, you're trying to have a debate. Reasoned argumentation has rules. You were trying to pass off something that didn't pass muster as evidence that the big bad gub'ment are taking your guns.
They aren't.
You ARE crazy.
When, in an argument, you're unable to provide evidence and instead resort to "look for yourself", you're done. Finding evidence that supports your case is not my job, it's yours.
See thejeff's response.
|
|
Florida's baker act, tennessee law. read it. They can and are.And that is why i dislike talking to so many, particularly liberals, that think there are only two sides their own and crazy. No point in continual conversation with suchYou're not trying to have a conversation, you're trying to have a debate. Reasoned argumentation has rules. You were trying to pass off something that didn't pass muster as evidence that the big bad gub'ment are taking your guns.
They aren't.
You ARE crazy.
When, in an argument, you're unable to provide evidence and instead resort to "look for yourself", you're done. Finding evidence that supports your case is not my job, it's yours.
See thejeff's response.
So you want me to post the entire baker's act here instead of reading it from another source?
No, I want you to post a news story of someone whose guns were confiscated. Or explain for yourself what this act is and under what circumstances guns can be confiscated, along with a verifiable anecdote of it being enforced.
|
|
No, I want you to post a news story of someone whose guns were confiscated. Or explain for yourself what this act is and under what circumstances guns can be confiscated, along with a verifiable anecdote of it being enforced.
The law is right there in black and white what more do you need? THAT is proof of what can be done right now.
The law is right there in black and white what more do you need? THAT is proof of what can be done right now.No, I want you to post a news story of someone whose guns were confiscated. Or explain for yourself what this act is and under what circumstances guns can be confiscated, along with a verifiable anecdote of it being enforced.
What law? You're not even making sense.
You also previously said CAN AND ARE, which requires evidence.After doing your work for you, and a little google fu, I've found no actual evidence of firearms being confiscated under the baker act and not returned unless they are permanently and involunarily committed to a mental health facility.
Are you actually whining that ACTUAL mentally ill people, people so badly off that they are in state care, should be returned their guns while in such a facility?
|
Everytime there is a shooting people want to ban guns. Why don't people want to ban cars after every motor vehical accident? I guess if we did we would be talking about it all the time since MVA causes a lot more deaths than guns. As a veteran of OIF 07-09 I first hand have seen tanks destroyed by home made explosives. Baning guns will not make you safer from someone that wants to kill you, they will just get more creative.
Now to the OP about Pyschiatric Professionals Blocking Gun Purchases, I also survived the Fort Hood shooting of 2009 when I got back from deployment. Malek Hassan(spelling forget) was a Psychiatric Professional. Now the fact is we already have laws such as the Lautenburg amendment that says you can not legally own a weapon if you have x y and z in your backgroun. Of corse if you are going to kill a room full of people you probably are not too concerned with firearm laws. If you think laws prevent things from exsisting, then just look at the drug laws. Children get a hold of this stuff.
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and will lose both"-Ben Franklin. I am in no hurry to give up another right and become one step closer to the police state.
|
|
The law is right there in black and white what more do you need? THAT is proof of what can be done right now.No, I want you to post a news story of someone whose guns were confiscated. Or explain for yourself what this act is and under what circumstances guns can be confiscated, along with a verifiable anecdote of it being enforced.
What law? You're not even making sense.
You also previously said CAN AND ARE, which requires evidence.After doing your work for you, and a little google fu, I've found no actual evidence of firearms being confiscated under the baker act and not returned unless they are permanently and involunarily committed to a mental health facility.
Are you actually whining that ACTUAL mentally ill people, people so badly off that they are in state care, should be returned their guns while in such a facility?
read the act, all it takes is them to decide you are.
|
|
Everytime there is a shooting people want to ban guns. Why don't people want to ban cars after every motor vehical accident? I guess if we did we would be talking about it all the time since MVA causes a lot more deaths than guns. As a veteran of OIF 07-09 I first hand have seen tanks destroyed by home made explosives. Baning guns will not make you safer from someone that wants to kill you, they will just get more creative.Now to the OP about Pyschiatric Professionals Blocking Gun Purchases, I also survived the Fort Hood shooting of 2009 when I got back from deployment. Malek Hassan(spelling forget) was a Psychiatric Professional. Now the fact is we already have laws such as the Lautenburg amendment that says you can not legally own a weapon if you have x y and z in your backgroun. Of corse if you are going to kill a room full of people you probably are not too concerned with firearm laws. If you think laws prevent things from exsisting, then just look at the drug laws. Children get a hold of this stuff.
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and will lose both"-Ben Franklin. I am in no hurry to give up another right and become one step closer to the police state.
Good luck, i've been trying such logic for pages and they just tell me im crazy and i should just let it happen
Hey, anyone want to know the definition of biased?
People who don't agree with you.
Also, I declare this thread a liberal conspiracy.
Good luck, i've been trying such logic for pages and they just tell me im crazy and i should just let it happen
Everytime there is a shooting people want to ban guns. Why don't people want to ban cars after every motor vehical accident? I guess if we did we would be talking about it all the time since MVA causes a lot more deaths than guns. As a veteran of OIF 07-09 I first hand have seen tanks destroyed by home made explosives. Baning guns will not make you safer from someone that wants to kill you, they will just get more creative.Now to the OP about Pyschiatric Professionals Blocking Gun Purchases, I also survived the Fort Hood shooting of 2009 when I got back from deployment. Malek Hassan(spelling forget) was a Psychiatric Professional. Now the fact is we already have laws such as the Lautenburg amendment that says you can not legally own a weapon if you have x y and z in your backgroun. Of corse if you are going to kill a room full of people you probably are not too concerned with firearm laws. If you think laws prevent things from exsisting, then just look at the drug laws. Children get a hold of this stuff.
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and will lose both"-Ben Franklin. I am in no hurry to give up another right and become one step closer to the police state.
And here it is again. Find one post that has advocated banning guns on this thread.
Here's how the conversation always goes:
"Given that a dozen people died in a spree killing, followed by seven people being killed in what I can only call a hate crime massacre, maybe we should talk about gun control."
"WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND FREEDOM?!"
And which poster said that? (re: WHY DO YOU HATE...) I dont think its been said once in this thread, as far as I know. (I havent read every single post.) Here's the thing: people disagree, but they ARE having a dialogue. Just because you may not like their stance doesnt mean they arent talking about it.
Well, White, I'm not going to name names and spiral into a blamestorm for fear of bring redacted. I will, however, gladly admit that I wasn't talking about you when I said that.
|
Have you watched any of David Sarti's videos?
Is he really who you want to cite as an example of "sane"?
So you declare him insane and take his rights based on what now?
AND proves im right about the gun grabbers.......
I didn't give him a full psych work up, but someone who did thought he was nuts.
But watching this video doesn't make me think they are wrong.
|
|
Have you watched any of David Sarti's videos?
Is he really who you want to cite as an example of "sane"?
So you declare him insane and take his rights based on what now?
AND proves im right about the gun grabbers.......
I didn't give him a full psych work up, but someone who did thought he was nuts.
But watching this video doesn't make me think they are wrong.
And we are back to deciding who gets rights. Maybe we need to take the first from the "dangerous" folks too eh?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we are back to deciding who gets rights. Maybe we need to take the first from the "dangerous" folks too eh?Have you watched any of David Sarti's videos?
Is he really who you want to cite as an example of "sane"?
So you declare him insane and take his rights based on what now?
AND proves im right about the gun grabbers.......
I didn't give him a full psych work up, but someone who did thought he was nuts.
But watching this video doesn't make me think they are wrong.
Are you a mental health professional? If not "we" aren't handling who can and can't get guns. We aren't qualified.
I'm surprised you aren't too embarrased by the fact that when the Brady Bill passed in 1993 gun crime declined dramatically, but knife crime didn't go up.
Do I need to find bomb crime stats to kill your "Them evil fellers will find any way the can to do evil with or without them guns!" theory.
Also, who decides who is "dangerous" in your world.
I love the irony that you are fine with locking up the "dangerous" as long as they can keep their guns.
|
I love the irony that you are fine with locking up the "dangerous" as long as they can keep their guns.
Obviously speaking only for myself, but my whole stance on this from the beginning has been that we already have a system in place that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not posses them; be they criminals, or "crazy people"...
BUT (and I will admit that it is a pretty big but)...
Just like everything else in this great country of ours, it is not a perfect system. Some either fall through the cracks and crevasses, and some just blatantly disregard the system entirely...
Most of this system of ours is designed to not infringe upon the rights of the average citizen (which HAS to be kept in mind), but to also act as a deterrent for those that are thinking of going against it...
And statistic show that the laws of this country do deter most people from breaking them (and I mean in all things, not just gun laws)...
But when someone is out-right determined to act against the system, then no law or system in place is going to affect their decision, and any road-block in their way is simply bypassed...
And again, I am not just talking about gun laws, but with every law...
The reason I have brought up drunk driving in the past is to illustrate this point by showing another area in which law breakers do not care about the law and will do as they please...
Every time we come up with a new law such as the one you propose for example, (and I cannot stress enough that I am not just talking about gun laws) our rights and freedoms are eroded away just a fraction more...
Sure, it may take decades or more to be completely eroded away, but once these laws are in place, seldom are they repealed...
So for me this really isn't about guns specifically, it's about our rights, freedoms, and privileges in general...
I always have to question anyone that thinks that all psychiatric professionals are totally competent to the point where we should be allowing them to remove people's rights.
When I here stories like this I have to wonder that some people don't realize how many quacks are out there. I mean we are talking about people that studied psychiatry not nuclear physics or brain surgery, i.e. we are not typically talking about the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.
Cars are used for transportation, often without killing anything.
Knives are tools, cooking, woodworking, general handy work, most of the time no one dies.
Fertilizer helps grow food, usually without resulting in the death of something.
Guns can get food... but something is still being killed. Bringing me back to my first point, the only purpose of a gun is to kill and maim.
Oh, and I'm a vet too. OEF, in theater September 2001.
And as predicted, the question of "Shouldn't we not allow certified crazy people to purchase guns?" derails into "Liberals want to take mah guns!"
Usual suspects, usual outcomes. Bignorsewolf excluded as I think we just have a reasonable disagreement about how slippery the slope is.
I'm a very unusual suspect! I think this is largely a case of going so far left you run into the people on the right.
Primary source of disagreement: The level of backlash from gun owners against psychiatrists. On what is a very liberal message board look at the reaction the idea is getting. Imagine that after the fox news spin team gets a hold of it and blares it over the airwaves for 6 weeks strait. "Obama using Stalinist era tactics to declare gun owners crazy"
and
How effective it would be: There are way too many ways around it. Buying an illegal gun, using a relatives credit card, having a girlfriend make the purchase. I don't know if it would stop anyone.
I think just on a cost benefit analysis this would wind up in the negatives. I'm willing to risk a slippery slope (and subjectivity makes for some great grease) if i think there's a large benefit to be gained, but not to break even or for a net loss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.
Cars are used for transportation, often without killing anything.
Knives are tools, cooking, woodworking, general handy work, most of the time no one dies.
Fertilizer helps grow food, usually without resulting in the death of something.
Guns can get food... but something is still being killed. Bringing me back to my first point, the only purpose of a gun is to kill and maim.
The car argument is not acceptable for another reason: Most people getting killed by cars get killed by accident. People die of accidents all the time - slipping in the shower, falling down stairs, falling off ladders or scaffoldings. You can´t reasonably argue to ban everything that "might" cause an accident. Look into a modern car and into one forty years old - lots of security measures nowadays, like airbags, seatbelts, cars built in a way that harm to pedestrians is hopefully minimized. Car companies know that driving cars is dangerous in case of an accident and build their cars for it. Still, perfect security is a dream.
Pointing a gun at somebody and shooting is not an accident (most of the time at least). It is a decision made by the person pointing the gun.
Ask yourself what is a higher value: The freedom to own a gun or innocent lives saved? I think if a psychatrical evaluation (with all the legal wrangling included) leads to preventing the loss of even one life, it is worth the trouble. Life is the highest value there is.
|
|
And as predicted, the question of "Shouldn't we not allow certified crazy people to purchase guns?" derails into "Liberals want to take mah guns!"
Usual suspects, usual outcomes. Bignorsewolf excluded as I think we just have a reasonable disagreement about how slippery the slope is.
I'm a very unusual suspect! I think this is largely a case of going so far left you run into the people on the right.
Primary source of disagreement: The level of backlash from gun owners against psychiatrists. On what is a very liberal message board look at the reaction the idea is getting. Imagine that after the fox news spin team gets a hold of it and blares it over the airwaves for 6 weeks strait. "Obama using Stalinist era tactics to declare gun owners crazy"
and
How effective it would be: There are way too many ways around it. Buying an illegal gun, using a relatives credit card, having a girlfriend make the purchase. I don't know if it would stop anyone.
I think just on a cost benefit analysis this would wind up in the negatives. I'm willing to risk a slippery slope (and subjectivity makes for some great grease) if i think there's a large benefit to be gained, but not to break even or for a net loss.
I think we have abdicated the discussion because anyone in the south is afraid to call out the NRA.
Many people have been convinced by the NRA that the government is coming for their, personal guns.
And since 30% of people have guns...
I gut the concern, because many cities are trying to ban guns because in a city you can call 911 and reasonably expect police to arrive and deal with "X" problem.
In the country, 1) You are on your own and 2) The gun is a multi-purpose tool and not just something used to kill people.
I'm not sure how to deescalate the fear in enough people to make the realize we aren't coming to ban hunting next, as the endangered species protections and left wing environmental nuts have done a great job of making every hunter an enemy rather than an ally.
But at the end of the day, I think we need to keep having the reasonable discussion about who should and who should not be able to buy guns. We all agree on felons, most agree other criminals. People who are certified as crazy shouldn't be a long step to make.
The issue now isn't law, but refusal of enforcement in some states.
It isn't a coincidence that the shootings took place in areas of lax maintenance of the no buy lists.
In the case of the Neo-Nazi, he would have found a way to get a gun. But maybe not as good a gun or as large a magazine clip.
I don't know that Cho, Loughner, or Holmes were socially adept enough to be able to get others to get guns for them, and I don't believe they would have been able to get as many or as high quality.
I also think if people working with them were notified they were trying to buy a gun, particularly a semi-automatic weapons with extended magazines, they likely would have acted aggressively in a way that would have prevented the shooting.
The base problem is the health care system. People I work with get out of treatment and go off meds all the time primarily for simple financial reasons. And some are just resistant to treatment.
But many of these people are dangerous, and if we can all agree a felon, even a non-gun charge felon, should be on the no buy list, we should be able to agree someone mentally unstable should be added as well, pending appeal.
|
|
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.
Now here you've gone to far for me.
My family grew up in rural West Virginia, where a gun is both a very practical farm tool and the only real protection your family has given the proximity of law enforcement.
I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.
As Cho, Loughner and Holmes all were.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always have to question anyone that thinks that all psychiatric professionals are totally competent to the point where we should be allowing them to remove people's rights.
When I here stories like this I have to wonder that some people don't realize how many quacks are out there. I mean we are talking about people that studied psychiatry not nuclear physics or brain surgery, i.e. we are not typically talking about the sharpest knives in the drawer.
This is like saying because some police officers are douchebags we wouldn't let any of them arrest people.
|
|
The reason I have brought up drunk driving in the past is to illustrate this point by showing another area in which law breakers do not care about the law and will do as they please...
And so we shouldn't take their license, because they are going to drive anyway?
Like most crime, drunk driving is down. Do some people drive drunk? Yes.
Should we lock up everyone who drives drunk? No.
Are we aware people who drove drunk in the past are likely to drive drunk again? Yes.
So what do we do. We start by suspending the license. If that doesn't work we detain them "briefly" for driving on a suspended license and impound the car.
Or we make them install a breathalyser in the car, which prevents drunk driving.
These don't stop all drunk drivers, but it does reduce the number of drunk drivers.
Because we can't have the perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the better.
Using your logic to approach drunk driving we shouldn't restrict the license of drunk drivers until they actually hit something or someone while drunk, because until then we don't know they are bad drunk drivers.
|
|
Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.
Now here you've gone to far for me.
My family grew up in rural West Virginia, where a gun is both a very practical farm tool and the only real protection your family has given the proximity of law enforcement.
I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.
As Cho, Loughner and Holmes all were.
The problem isn't that we need the dangerously crazy to not be armed, it is that we need to do it in a way that doesn't crush rights and give too much power to people to enact political and personal vendettas through a warning system. A doctors (preferably a group of them with unanimous diagnosis) with a history of treatment i can agree should have some means but not just a shrink or doctor making a knee jerk assessment without full understanding of the patient because they act in anyway counter to standards (like us gamers dressing up and acting out fantasies....)
|
|
Ask yourself what is a higher value: The freedom to own a gun or innocent lives saved? I think if a psychatrical evaluation (with all the legal wrangling included) leads to preventing the loss of even one life, it is worth the trouble. Life is the highest value there is.
Would you abandon the right to religious freedom and freedom of speech for the sake of potential lives saved? Some want all abortions illegal saying it is murder, do you side with them to save lives? Or is it just something you don't like that has to go for the "greater good"?
Would you abandon the right to religious freedom and freedom of speech for the sake of potential lives saved? Some want all abortions illegal saying it is murder, do you side with them to save lives? Or is it just something you don't like that has to go for the "greater good"?
Ask yourself what is a higher value: The freedom to own a gun or innocent lives saved? I think if a psychatrical evaluation (with all the legal wrangling included) leads to preventing the loss of even one life, it is worth the trouble. Life is the highest value there is.
I can not imagine a scenario in which religious freedom or the freedom of speech result in people getting killed, unless the religion in question demands to kill "unbelievers", or the free speaker incites violent riots - both cases are an infringement on other peoples rights (the universal human right on being alive and being not bodily harmed, to be precise). If religion or free speech were abused in this manner as to lead to bodily harm or death of others, yes, in these special cases, these freedoms need to be curtailed.
With abortions - I´m not in the position to make a final decision what constitutes "life", and under what circumstances abortions are justified. I´d say if it is known early on that carrying the child will result in life-threatening conditions for mother or child (or both), it is justified. Anyway, I don´t subscribe to blanket statements - it is always the individual case that needs to be evaluated. And I honestly don´t think that abortions can be compared to murder at gunpoint.
In the case of the Neo-Nazi, he would have found a way to get a gun. But maybe not as good a gun or as large a magazine clip.
On what grounds would he be on your list?
In the case of the Neo-Nazi, he would have found a way to get a gun. But maybe not as good a gun or as large a magazine clip.On what grounds would he be on your list?
I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.
You're putting a lot of faith in these being two mutually exclusive groups of people.
Am I too late for Glenn Beck?
"If we don't act now we won't be able to stop the pot-smoking Trotskyites, who won't tell you about their real agenda, which is to round up all FOX News viewers and put them in MSNBC-run reeducation camps."
Hee hee! It's part right, anyways.
Oh, wait, this one's awesome, too:
"Hemp-growing Marxist fornicators are seeking to indoctrinate our children as part of their plan to erect a statue of Fidel Castro made out of recycled garden burger boxes right in front of the Pentagon."
If only!
|
|
The problem isn't that we need the dangerously crazy to not be armed, it is that we need to do it in a way that doesn't crush rights and give too much power to people to enact political and personal vendettas through a warning system. A doctors (preferably a group of them with unanimous diagnosis) with a history of treatment i can agree should have some means but not just a shrink or doctor making a knee jerk assessment without full understanding of the patient because they act in anyway counter to standards (like us gamers dressing up and acting out fantasies....)Guns serve no purpose, except to kill and maim.
Now here you've gone to far for me.
My family grew up in rural West Virginia, where a gun is both a very practical farm tool and the only real protection your family has given the proximity of law enforcement.
I don't want to take guns from sane, rational people. Just people who are certified by mental health professionals as mentally unstable and potentially dangerous.
As Cho, Loughner and Holmes all were.
Which is where the appeal process comes in.
I see it working this way. A doctor can file a hold, which goes in place immediately and notifies them if a patient tried to buy a gun. If the person who has the hold put on them appeals, the burden will be on the doctor who put the hold in place to file a report to a panel justifying the hold within, say, 30 days.
The panel has a set period of time to agree or disagree with the findings of the doctor and keep or lift the hold.
If the hold is kept, then the person can appeal again if they can find a doctor who will give them a clean bill of health.
|
|
In the case of the Neo-Nazi, he would have found a way to get a gun. But maybe not as good a gun or as large a magazine clip.On what grounds would he be on your list?
As I said before, he probably wouldn't be unless the DUI charge was more serious or recent than I think it is, or if there was more in his involuntary discharge than has come out yet about his mental health.
|
|
And so we shouldn't take their license, because they are going to drive anyway?
I highly doubt that you read anything of my post past what you quoted, because it seems that you utterly failed to see my point...
I am talking about some people's willingness to ignore the law, any law; be it theft, drugs... Doesn't matter!
And just because a few people within our population (like you said, crime overall is going down) choose to ignore the law does not give anyone the right to pass laws that either punish those that abide by our laws, or infringe upon the rights bestowed upon us by our Constitution...
Because laws that do either of the above (again, laws in general, not specifically gun laws) tend to look good on the surface, but serve only to chip away at our rights and freedoms...
And THAT is what I have a problem with...
Would you abandon the right to religious freedom and freedom of speech for the sake of potential lives saved? Some want all abortions illegal saying it is murder, do you side with them to save lives? Or is it just something you don't like that has to go for the "greater good"?
Ask yourself what is a higher value: The freedom to own a gun or innocent lives saved? I think if a psychatrical evaluation (with all the legal wrangling included) leads to preventing the loss of even one life, it is worth the trouble. Life is the highest value there is.
Women's rights have a direct impact on economic prosperity and the level of freedom within a country. Not that women's rights control these factors, but it's kind of a canary in a coal mine effect. So, taking away a women's right to control her own reproductive organs means we are going to lose a lot of other things and those things will also result in a lower standard of living, which means lower life expectancy.
Seriously, make a list of countries and order them based on the amount of freedom women are specifically given, compared to men in that country. You will also have ordered those countries by a general trend of economic, educational and overall freedom.