Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything you've said up to this point indicates that you believe the rights of the majority supercede the rights of the minority or individual.
Yes, within reason, that would be my basic philosophy. (Note: does NOT make me socialist, because I don't believe the rights of the majority are best served by socialism) I believe if a policy is fairest for the majority then it is usually right.
As we've seen from the statistics you've provided, the majority of gun deaths are suicides.
There is no information how many homicides were caused by law-abiding gun owners.
My argument is that I'm not responsible for individuals who choose to kill themselves or criminals who use weapons. Those that choose to use guns illegally should be punished.
As we can see from the statistics, the US lax laws on guns coincide with over 350% more HOMICIDE'S. I would assume that in Europe, people who really want to kill themselves use other methods, I very much doubt gun control has any significant impact on suicide rates. My argument is that it is impossible to tell when you give someone a gun how they will use it, and since the majority of these reaosns will be defence against others with guns, I prefer the European system where to get a gun you must provide a reason for its use other than self-defence and undergo a thorough psychiatric check-up, as well as have any gun licence revoked if you get a criminal record.
The first step towards a totalitarian state is to remove the means of resistance.
"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed."
I do not recognize the right of the majority to exercise control over me if I'm not doing anything wrong.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Funnily enough, there's no evidence in Europe of states imposing totalitarianism on their weaponless citizens. Roughly equivalent to me saying that the first step to legalising homicide is giving everyone a gun, or more likely, giving everyone a gun is the first step to a massive increase in gun crime......which has actually proven to be true.
Re: your last statement... I just had to laugh. By that logic, the current majority (at least in the U.S.) supports the 2nd amendment so I guess we're all set then.
Remember, I don't live in USA. I don't really care about your gun laws, I happen to think they fly in the face of all logic, but if you guys like them, then that's up to you. In Europe, your gun laws would be hated, we like knowing that the local psycho doesn't have access to lethal weapons.
In this case, the right to and use of personal property by law-abiding citizens outweighs the cost of deaths incurred by suicides or criminals.
The very fact that you've totally ignored the deaths of innocent citizens there is exactly why we will never agree on this. But think this through: given that the USA had 3.81 gun deaths/100,000 strictly to homicide, the next highest being Italy with 0.81, assuming you treated the values of criminals lives as zero (which I think is fundamentally wrong anyway) you'd need 79% of the homicides in the US to be those of criminals (assuming all Italy's gun deaths were innocent civilians) to say that US gun policies don't cause extra deaths to civilians. Even if this were as high as 50% (highly unlikely, I would assume the criminal has a significant 'advantage' over the victim) the US would have nearly 2.5 times as many civilians dying as any of the other countries. Is that worth it, really? I cannot possibly fathom how you can justify that loss of life.
As a solution, I suggest treating the causes rather than the symptom.
Teach people self-respect and respect for others.
Don't limit the rights of many because of the faults of a few.
Nice idea, but far less achievable than getting guns off streets; there will always by psychos.