I disagree that overarching social ills are traceable to gun control legislation.
I wouldn't call gun control a primary cause of social ills, either. What I am saying is that fundamental social lessons are contained in the teaching and passing on of firearms culture. Give those what weight you will, or not. But whatever social lessons exists apart from the more apparent net benefit (and it sounds like you think there are none), they are left behind with the denial of the right.
Implicit in your first graph is a loss of trust.
Yes. And I would add trust of oneself might be worth examination. Anecdotally, I have often heard those who have never held a firearm express a real fear of what horrible thing they might do in a heated moment. That may be a reasonable fear, but only they have the same level of fear about what they may do out of anger with a sharp knife, a baseball bat, or some other implement capable of severe harm.
The clear meaning is that the citizens become untrustworthy.
It would seem so, but the finer point is that they aren't
seen as trustworthy, and some who would otherwise
be trustworthy believe the lie. Like the smart kid who is told repeatedly what an idiot he is. Humans often live up to negative expectations of authority figures like parents, teachers, or government leaders.
The reciprocal is that the citizens lose trust in government.
Perhaps.
So you leave me with two choices, either the citizens of America are untrustworthy or the citizens have lost faith in government.
That's quite a leap. And a false choice.
First, most states do not infringe on the right to a degree that demonstrates a fundamental mistrust of the populace. So we aren't talking about the 'citizens of America' en total.
Second, I never said the citizens of America have lost faith in Government, although if true, it would be hard to blame them. On the contrary, approximately half of the country generally believes government to be the solution to most societal shortcomings. But that view is either evidence of, or reinforces the belief that folks really can't be trusted by the government to handle even the most basic duty of keeping their family safe from harm, which necessarily includes the exercise of the 2A rights.
OK here's your statement of ideals. I gotta say I think they describe things that aren't integral to gun ownership and use, with the exception of responsibility.
I don't think they are integral to gun ownership and use with the same exception. But I do think they they are positive by-products and attributes and that are absorbed by young, formative minds in the process of learning the responsible safe use of arms.
Sacred trust, because I believe innocent life is sacred (feel free to disagree). We trust each other not to misuse the right.
Honor, because being trustworthy with lethal force is honorable. When a parent teaches a child to shoot it inevitably communicates a sense of worthiness, and trust between the parent and the child.
The fragility of life, because learning muzzle and trigger control inevitably calls to mind to the preciousness and vulnerability of human beings.
The responsibility that comes with gun-culture socialization.
I also dislike the phrase "gun culture". It seems to be elitist when connected with phrases such as "sacred duty".
Feel free to substitute a phrase that's less loaded for you. The duty to which I refer is the duty not to harm innocent (to me, sacred) life. Perhaps that will go down a little easier for you.
Those of us who grew up exercising 2A rights didn't just learn gun safety and marksmanship. We learned about the sacred trust, honor, the fragility of life, and the responsibility that comes with gun-culture socialization.
Those who haven't been raised with that credo have been robbed of that as well. That is perhaps the most damaging aspect of gun control on communities like Chicago.
The first sentence is incomplete, what credo?
Sure it's incomplete, when you fail to post the previous sentence to which it refers. See bold.
. . . But it also sounds like hubris. Many men and women have lived in America since 1776. Many of those people didn't own guns, didn't care one way or the other about gun rights or gun "culture". Many of them also left there lives on battlefields from Bunker Hill to Bastone.
Here's where you really lose me. This is a classic straw man argument. I've said nothing to indicate that many of these positive qualities are impossible to acquire in some other way, nor would I ever disparage in any way a person who, for reasons of conscience or any other reason, declined to take up arms.
Were they and was their sacrifice somehow less than those raised with guns? How many times do we have to hear about the good Samaritan before we realize that people outside our tribe can also be amongst the just?
I would never posit such an absurd notion. My family has been in this country since about 1730, roughly the time of Washington's birth. Some of my direct ancestors were Quakers (pacifists), but many others fought in the American revolution. While that doesn't make me one bit more of an American than last week's immigrant, is has given me a sense of national identity and an inclusiveness for diverse views on the subject of arms, up to, but not including the denial of the right.