Which isn't very frequently, at all, given how much "potential" for it exists. Surely you wouldn't disagree. As they say, 300 million guns in the USA were used to kill NO ONE last year. A relative pittance of the total were. Vast potential, tiny realization of that potential. I didn't link them, as strictly in the "more guns = less crime" way, though I believe that to be plausible. Merely pointed out that vastly more weaponry out there "on the street" isn't contributing to more killings, in the only example of a real world test we can look at. Or in fact, rising rates of violent crime despite the most draconian gun laws imaginable (e.g. England). Of course, but that's not a legislation problem, and it is also a problem vastly in decline. Firearms accidents have fallen just as violent crime has. Oh, I understand it, too. It is nonsensical and contemptible and a horrid reason to infringe on the rights of others, but I understand it. See, the thing is, I don't really concern myself with "a solution." I see violent crime as a natural consequence of the society we live in and a eternal reality of the human condition, and (since I'm a history buff) I see us as living in an almost abnormally safe and secure time, wherein violence is actually a pretty distant concern for the vast majority of folks living out in American society. (The fact that violence is concentrated in inner city poverty is a social issue that gun laws can't even begin to touch, and makes people look at you like a racist if you dare to discuss.) So, in very real terms, I don't think violence is a pressing social issue requiring further disruptive efforts to quell. It will never be eliminated and we're pretty far into the law of diminishing returns on that count. (As you mentioned, observe the prison population. Yikes.) There isn't a solution to violent crime. There is one pretty useful defense against it, and that is the responsibility of each citizen to prepare on their own. Agreed, and this well sums up the reasons that I don't make such links myself. You've missed the point. I was asking you why you felt these were reasonable and positive things to do if you were troubled by my characterization of gun control as an attempt to fix social issues. Yeah, if you AREN'T trying to make society better/safer then coming out in favor of increased legal millstones around the necks of the citizens looks awful suspicious. You've answered, sort of, that you aren't actually proposing anything or supporting anything or being part of any movement so, I gather you see no reason to make an answer to that question. That's fine. I think the majority of those real grass roots ma and pa type folks who lean toward gun control ARE trying to make society safer. I don't think they're totalitarian statists. Of course, no such assumptions are to be made about their political Pied Pipers. I have NOT said you sound like a liberal, or called you any such thing. I've made my positions clear and supported. You're dismissing them as ideology. It would be supremely easy for me to make the same claim about your own line of thinking, and claim you simply disguise your statist leanings with a mask of studious political agnosticism, but that's not how I debate issues as I find labeling a poor strategy, weak and self-defeating. Holy cow, you think I'd FORCE people to own guns? Jeez. Not everything is about coercion, man. I said I think the world would be a safer place if people DID own guns, not if they were MADE to own guns. I'm for maximum freedom, not government control -- even seemingly pro-gun government oppression. Your question was this, "Or does gun ideology mean that one must take the position that firearms restrictions should exist for schizophrenics and clinical pyschopaths?" Honestly I don't have any idea how to answer because I can't figure the question out. I don't know what "gun ideology" is in your view, and I guess I missed the meeting where they handed out the sheet telling everyone what to believe about restrictions on gun ownership for those people. So, I directed you to the two legal principles that can actually answer the question for you. But to be more clear so we can quell any further circling the mulberry bush, "adjudicated mentally defective" means that a person may not possess firearms if they've been found by a jury -- through their Constitutional "due process" to be formally charged and to defend themselves in a court of law -- to be incapable of peaceable and lawful conduct among the free citizens of this country. No other limitations are needed or acceptable.