Reply #29: Excellent. We have some points of agreement.

[GreenStormCloud]

First, please allow me to define some terms. "Gun Control Advocate" is a bit much to type each time I want to collectively refer to those on your side of the argument. I shall use GCA to refer to the collective you. For Gun Rights Advocate, shall use the term "gunnie" for us, collectively. CCW is a generic term for Carry Concealed Weapon. The actual title varies from state to state.

I also stand by my position that people with mental health problems, substance and alcohol abuse histories, and those with anger-management issues really should not have access to guns.

You will find that almost all of us gunnies agree with you. In fact we will add in an additional group who should be, and are, banned from legal gun ownership. That would be those with convictions of felonies, and convictions of violent crimes, even if it doesn't rise to a felony. Also we would list those who are underage from having unsupervised possession of guns.

A question immediately arises as to how do we sort those people out from the rest of the population. The best way is to look at their past. People with hot tempers will almost always have gotten into trouble with the police fairly early, and will have a record. Same with most of the other catagories on the list. The NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) run by the FBI does much to stop them from legally buying guns. Here is the FBI link on how the system works: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

The NRA was and is completely supportive of the NICS system. All of the regular gunnies here support it too. Many of us, myself included, would like to see some way in which it could be opened up to allow private sales to be checked, but at present that is not available.

Your other point, that guns are easier to use than other forms of violence is true. But it works both ways. Guns also allow the weaker people to more easily defend themselves against the stronger predator humans. I am a senior citizen, and if I am targeted by a mugger, I have no chance to fight him off. Except that I am armed. (I have a Concealed Handgun License and am always armed when I am out an about.) My training and my practice of situational awareness allow me to be able to use my guns effectively, should trouble ever come to me. I also exercise caution and try to avoid bad situations and bad places. A few years ago, my wife used her gun to defend herself. No shots fired, would be mugger turned into a star quality sprinter as he un-assed the area.

There is a problem in counting DGUs. (Defensive Gun Uses) There are no numbers that are agreed upon. Both GCA and gunnies agree that there are about 300 million guns that are privately owned, and about 80 million gun owners. But nobody has agreed upon data as to how many times guns are actually used defensively. Since such uses usually prevent a crime from being committed, it becomes difficult to count uncommitted crimes. Often, no police reports are filed. Further, such numbers are in extreme flux right now, as the number of citizens who are armed in changing so greatly. Before, DGUs tended mostly to happen at a person's residence or business as that was the only place they could legally have a gun. Now, there are about 5 million people in the U.S. who have CCWs, so there are more opportunities for DGUs. CCWers have proven themselves to be extremely safe and responsible with guns. You are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally killed by a CCWer.

Which brings us to one of my main points. The GCA people do not attempt to make a distinction between guns that are owned illegally and those that are owned legally. All of us gunnies will readily state that a person who is barred from gun possession but has one anyway - illegal - is a very high risk situation. That is, after all, why both your side and our side wants the guns our of their hands. Legal gun owners, however, are only rarely involved in a gun crime. And CCWers are even safer and more responsible.

The problem is that organizations such as VPC (Violence Policy Center. Previously Handgun Control, Inc.)which has a strong GCA stance, makes no distinction between legal and illegal possession. The statistics from criminals are mixed in with the stastics for law-abiding citizens. We gunnies contend that such mixing produces badly flawed result. It is from that mixing that the statement that one is most likely to be murdered by an aquaintance comes from. If the already criminals are removed from the mix, the remaining law-abiding citizens, have excellent records, collectively, of safety and responsibility with guns.

You seem to be an open minded person. I look forward to discussion.

Also, welcome to DU.