I like how "sophomoric" and "sophistry" are Dad's new words of choice when he comes across something he thinks is totally stupid.
We get it, dad, some things/people are dumb. Just know that we know what that word means.
I'll first address what I mean by gun control. It would mean that government would enact a gun ban and then a sweeping gun buy back, or something similar. For those that question if our government can afford that, the answer is yes, we spend trillions of dollars on national defense funds, we can certainly afford this.
But the question is SHOULD government create gun laws? Many of us say that it is not the governments role to intervene in our freedom to bear arms. The 2nd amendment states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." First of all, the constitution also says you can own a person. This is clearly not a flawless document. Second, we need to understand that what the founding fathers meant here, was that there needed to be armed MILITIAS. There is a distinction between a militiaman and an ordinary citizen. A militiaman's job is to protect the state (or country) from foreign attacks or to fight in war. My mind is boggled when people take that to mean every citizen in the united states needs to be carrying a gun. We all know that is ridiculous! Imagine a teacher holding a gun with one hand while writing the abc's on a chalkboard with another. Sounds crazy, right? Well if we want to stop all the attacks happening in schools, this is the only way!
It's not the only way. I'm guessing many of you, if given the chance, would vote against making marijuana legal in your state. I certainly did so when I lived in Washington. But based on your argument against gun control, you'd also probably have to say that they shouldn't be involved in banning drugs either.
When you say "Government should not get involved" you are successfully negating the concept of all lawmaking. Our government was designed to reflect the needs and interests of the people, and to protect us from harm. Why else do you think there are seatbelt laws? If you think gun control is too "controlling" I am very surprised you are not fighting for your right to not wear a seat belt! Can you believe the government even has the right to ban Kinder eggs?
It is interesting you brought up the story of of the anti-nephi-lehis, because that story actually really helps my point. They did indeed CHOOSE to do away with their weapons! That is exactly what we would be doing if we voted to enact gun laws. We do not live under a dictatorship, and we wouldn't be if gun control were enacted.
When you compare guns to other weapons such as knives and sticks, you are comparing apples to oranges. Guns make it hundreds of times easier to kill someone. Trust me on this, I have heard about more attempts at suicide than should be right, and they almost always fail, unless they have a gun. I suggest we do away with this argument. You are saying that unless we can do away with all crime, there is no point to making laws at all.
The me, most of the resistance to gun control is just a classic case of "well this is the way we have always done it." Having guns might be okay if people weren't killing as often as we are, but the fact is, WE ARE. A LOT. There are more deaths by guns since 1968 then on battlefields of all the wars in America's history. ALL OF THEM. You guys, America has a problem. It is not hard to see this. It's getting worse. Why? Because we keep thinking MORE GUNS MORE GUNS. The result of this is, sadly, MORE DEATHS MORE DEATHS.
And no, this is not God's plan. I have faith in God, but not in people. People are capable of great virtue, as Plato says, but men are weak. When given an easy choice, facilitated by a deadly weapon (guns) it is easy to make a terrible, terrible choice. Yes, agency has a role, it always will, no form of government can take that away. But we can take guns away.
As members of the church, I think we can do better. The article of faith does not say "We believe the constitution to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly"...and the Prophet is not going to dictate to us how to vote. I bet you could imagine the host of problems that would arise if he did. But the Prophets DO say that we need to vote! This is important because our voices represent and truly legitimize our government. In the past, monarchies and aristocracies theocracies tried to make their societies work, by appealing to diety as the ruling power. The genius of our current system of government is that it is represented by the people, for the people. This is precisely why the Revolutionaries sacrificed everything to break away from Britain's monarchial system: for religious freedom, and the freedom to create a society governed justly, and not just by one man's understanding of God's will.