Date: Dec 15, 2012 8:42 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

"28 DEAD IN SCHOOL SHOOTING; SHOOTER KILLED MOTHER AND HIMSELF" - http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-hook-shooting-gundman-2012-12

"How Japan Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths" - http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-guns-2012-12?op=1 (An article reprinted from "The Atlantic")
QUOTE:
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. With almost one privately-owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
UNQUOTE

I wonder: Would effective gun control laws be considered to be "unacceptable social engineering"?

[I for one would wonder why Japan even allows the possession of ANY firearms at all (shotguns and such even under its severely restrictive laws). Why not simply ban ALL private ownership of firearms? What purpose do they serve in a lawful world (apart from profits for their manufacturers and dealers)?

[Why not work towards creating a world that is generally law-abiding instead of generally lawless, which seems to be the case today. Ah yes, would that be considered to be 'social engineering' by some?]

For the record, India's gun control laws are quite restrictive - though they are generally rather ineffectively implemented, as are most of our laws. My primary recommendation for my country is that we need to start implementing, effectively for a change, the laws that we do have in place - while debating effectively about what might be the laws that we need as a free nation, that would enable all:

- -- to live in reasonable happiness AND
- -- to fulfill their own individual human potential.

Would this position be considered to be 'social engineering'?

Just asking (mainly to find out which part of the political/social spectrum I might be considered to inhabit).

GSC