X-post. "Very simple question..."

[beevul]

Very simple question...


and probably not the first time it's been asked...

Given that in the US the NRA and other gun rights organizations have the right to promote gun ownership, do they not have a corresponding obligation to work to reduce gun violence?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629364

My comments about the OP:

Do Colorado and the other legal rec MJ states, and people who smoke herb in them, have a corresponding responsibility to stop drug related violence?

Does NORMl have a responsibility to stop drug violence?

My comments about another comment over there:

Every advance in auto technology was made through legislation. At this point there are 30+ federal specifications for safety items in the passenger compartment of a car. There are no federal specifications for the manufacture of guns.

This isn't just incorrect, its blatantly incorrect in the empirical sense.

Most advances in auto technology, came from either the military arena, or the motorsport arena, and few if any originated because of legislation demanding their invention.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. How much pot violence is there? OTOH, are there any...

organizations advocating the constitutional right of using heroin or crack, where the violence is common?

On your other point, perhaps the post you are responding to is a bit OTT, but safety and emissions legislation have been responsible for quite a bit of what's in your car.

[beevul]

4. Depends whos standards we use.

How much pot violence is there?

Depends whos standards we use.

The phrase "1 is too many" has been uttered many a time where gun violence is concerned, however...

On your other point, perhaps the post you are responding to is a bit OTT, but safety and emissions legislation have been responsible for quite a bit of what's in your car.

The poster said "Every advance in auto technology was made through legislation".

That, at least to me, speaks to advances in technology, rather than how they're applied.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. The analogy I would use is --

Do 1A advocates have a responsibility to reduce libel and slander or do we only hold those who actually engage in libel and slander responsible for their actions?

Do religious frauds or religious-based violence invalidate an individual's sense of or search for something higher?

Does the fact that inadmissibility rulings sometimes allow criminals to go free invalidate Bill of Rights amendments 4, 5 and 6?

Assigning collective guilt never brings reforms.

[petronius]

3. It's not a simple question so much as a vague question, and the vague answer is that yes,

everyone involved with firearms has an obligation to obey the relevant laws, as well as to know, practice, and teach safe and responsible behaviors. Beyond that, the "obligation to work to reduce gun violence" would depend on the specific 'work' being referenced...

[Eleanors38]

5. My problem with "reducing gun violence" is that it highlights and emphasizes instrumentality...

If guns were to magically disappear today, how long would it be before the causes of murder, mayhem and crimino-celebrity to take on new instrumentalities and again approach the same levels of casualties? I heard an NPR program this month about some effort to curb violence in a California city. The interviewee used the term "gun violence" so often I lost count. You can only do so much with regulations on instrumentality before the causes mutate into another "synthetic drug."

[OakCliffDem]

6. Do the marketers of Corvettes have an obligation to reduce street racing?

Good business practices would say yes. Obligation would have to be no.