Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriendFollow

Yeah. But Kings and Queens stepped aside for him, so there's that.

If you're actually regulating the people (well, their behavior anyway) and not the weapons, sure. But if all you do is make it harder across the board to legally obtain a weapon, you're actually achieving the opposite of that. The regulations are also laws. Ergo, those planning on using their guns for malicious purposes are less likely to be deterred by them. No one who's planning on using a gun to rob or kill someone is going to sweat the fact that he obtained his gun illegally. The guy planning on using his gun to protect his family and home *is*.




Huh?



Well. That kinda says it all, right there.




Um... Right. So if you make it harder to buy the gun legally at a gun show, it wont prevent the guy fixated on killing someone from getting one. It'll maybe stop the random guy in the crowd who might have been armed and might have been able to do something about it from getting one.



So you're arguing for easier legal purchasing of firearms? Great! No argument from me at all.

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 6:16pm by gbaji

Well... would that be because possession is illegal, so anyone possessing it would be considered a criminal?

I'd tie the rabid monkey to a stick and weaponize it.

It's only a matter of time before the army transfers you to R&D if you've got ideas like that.

Sure. So we pass laws against murder. But if we make it illegal to own a knife, we'll have a much greater impact on the ability of people to cut their steak than we'll have on the murder rate, right? There's a difference between making the harmful thing someone wants to do (rob, rape, kill, etc) illegal, versus making something else which isn't innately harmful illegal because they might use that thing to help them do those other harmful things. We run into a rapidly diminishing rate of return, and a rapidly growing rate of negative side effects (like no one being able to cut their steak) when we do that.



Ah. Ok. That's not it at all. I'm saying, let's do both. I'm arguing against folks who are effectively arguing that if only we can make perfect checks at the door, then there would be no need for any security inside, so lets start by eliminating security inside first since they can't actually prevent a violent person from starting a fight, they can only intervene after the fight has begun. Yup. That makes no sense at all.



But it wont deter the people you want to deter. That's the problem. You'll deter the guy who wasn't planning on going on a shooting spree from owning/carrying a firearm, but you will *not* deter the guy who is. Thus, the net effect is to make it easier for people who want to go on shooting sprees to both do so *and* increase the effectiveness (ie: bodycount) when they do.

That's why it's a stupid approach to this problem.



Its just strange that you say that, but then still appear to come down on the side of increased gun control. If we acknowledge that we can't remove all violence from existence, then shouldn't we try to level the playing field by allowing everyone the means to respond to that violence? At the very least, let's not tilt the playing field so far in favor of the malevolent people? Just a crazy thought.



It deterred the actions of those who placed the risk of breaking the law above the benefits of smoking pot. Similarly, laws which make it harder/illegal to obtain a firearm will deter the firearm ownerships of those who place the risk of breaking the law (or difficulty of complying with it) above the benefits of owning a firearm. Assuming we agree that the guy planning to commit a mass killing is more motivated to obtain a firearm, and less concerned with the difficulty and/or consequences than someone just idly considering it as a means of protecting his home against a theoretical intruder, then we're still left with the same "you're helping the bad guys" situation.

Marijuana being illegal didn't deter the hard core pot smokers from obtaining it, right? Again, which person do you think is going to be more motivated to obtain a gun? I'll give you a hint: It's the guy with visions of gloriously blowing away large numbers of people in some public place. He'll do whatever it takes to get the weapons he needs to fulfill that fantasy. There's a very low rate of return in terms of firearm restrictions versus gun ownership for people in that group. So maybe we should look at other ways of dealing with them?

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 7:23pm by gbaji

Except for all the cases, which I've mentioned in this thread, of people using the threat presented by a firearm to defend themselves without once firing a shot.

Yup. Which means that a gun can be used to... wait for it... threaten to kill. That's not the same as actually killing someone. And if, in the process of merely threatening to kill someone as opposed to actually killing someone, I can manage to prevent them from committing a crime, or causing harm to someone, then that gun can be used to help prevent harm. See how that works?

With enough creativity, we can imagine all sorts of uses for a device that allows us to threaten someone with harm, in a credible way, but without actually inflicting any harm on them. But hey, let's get rid of those, because I'm sure pulling out a knife or club would be just as effective at preventing someone from inflicting harm on someone else. Oh wait! They aren't. And that's more or less exactly why people own firearms. So this isn't some little distraction or anything, but is actually the core point of the issue at hand. Guns are the most effective means by which a person can protect themselves from a potential assailant/criminal/whatever intending them harm.

Shocking.

It's the ability to do something that gives it the threat. Without the ability to kill it's not very useful. Well, you can still bludgeon people with most guns, but that's true of most objects anyways.