I would like to point out that YOU are the one who used the word "irresponsible" first. I consider a bad gun owner to be one who hurts others. Anybody who hurts themselves, due to either negligence or suicide, to simply be Darwin in action. My comment about suicide still stands. A person who simply desires to do themselves in without hurting others, by whatever means, is no danger to you or me. Were guns to be banned, would you be on a campaign to ban cars simple because a few choose to leave them running in a closed garage?
You are perhaps right about legitimate police and self-defense shootings in that there must be somebody else out there who is doing the wrong thing. Might I point out that people have been legitimately shot who have been armed with knives?
You said, irresponsible ownership of a gun is very seldom
Way to put words in my mouth... Here is what I said:
After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.
Even if it is actually more like 99.99%, my point still stands. But let's get actual figures...
Gun homicides in US (2010, according to CDC): 11,078
Gun ownership in US (2010, according to Gallup): 39%
Population in US( 2010 US census, according to Wikipedia): 308,745,538
Lets assume that the average size of households with and without guns are the same average size. That yields 120,410,760 people with access to firearms. We could get into a discussion about how many people in the household have access to the guns and the average sizes of gun vs. non-gun households, but to start with, we will make some simplifying assumptions.
So, the actual percentage of good gun owners who manage to not commit murder is 99.99079%. Lets put this in perspective. For each and every gun murder out there, there exists 10,869 people out there who have access to a gun and yet manages to kill nobody. To round, one out of every TEN THOUSAND gun owners does bad things. Clearly, this is a problem. Damn the rights of the TEN THOUSAND if we can stop one. This really bothers me. I am an honest person. I work hard, pay my taxes, and raise my kids. It really annoys me when somebody tells myself and over ten thousand others like me that I cannot do something because ONE person does something wrong.
Now let's put this in perspective. From Wikipedia:
A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.
This means that approximately 2 out of every seven black males will be in legal trouble. This is a LOT more than one in ten thousand. Do you think that it would be wise to simply outlaw black males based on this logic? (full disclosure: I have three adopted children who are black) So why is it a bad idea to restrict the rights of some people based on a two-in-seven chance of doing something wrong, but a good idea to restrict the rights of other people based on a one-in-ten-thousand chance of doing something wrong?
Really, I want to know how you justify this.