I think the end game for many advocates of gun control is complete or near complete bans on firearms, with confiscation to follow. See England, Australia, Japan. This obviously makes the idea of compromising on common sense gun laws more difficult. For example, is the law moving its way through the NJ legislature currently that would ban the Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle (over 10 million made and in continuous production since 1960) “common sense” or just plain overzealous?
The goal of gun rights advocates is to allow individuals the right to own and carry firearms. That seems clear, even if it results in such questionable policies as allowing convicted felons or those who are a danger to themselves or others because of mental illness.
One of the immediate objective of many gun control efforts is to keep guns from those two groups. Other objectives are to prohibit the sale of “military style” rifles (as opposed to military rifles). A more long term or larger goal is to address “gun violence” (as opposed to violence per se, oddly). But simply “addressing” gun violence does not define a logical stopping point. According to the FBI, firearm-related homicides have fallen from 17,075 in 1993 to 10,869 in 2008 – more than a 40% decline. The number of nonfatal gun violence incidents has declined from 1,222,701 in 1993 down to 331,618
View original post 205 more words