...I'm not concerned with whether murder is easy or likely to succeed, but (insofar as I am concerned at all) in whether it is actually carried out more often. Having the potential for a thing is not the evil that concerns one, but the actual act. Big difference.
Well in this case the potential and the evil itself should be of equal concern given how frequently the potential realizes.
The likeliness to succeed is obviously related to how often it occurs by the simple fact of chances of victim survival. Its also related to how frequently the attempts are made, which you below seem to agree with, if to a different degree than I.
Sometimes. Though your violent criminals and mental defectives examples would seem to speak very, very loudly against that, seeing as those two categories of actor are on one hand most likely to see, repeatedly, the effects of enforcement of laws (little of consequence), and the other's actions are not likely to be bounded much by rational decisions regarding consequences or even personal survival.
The fact that actors at times take a gamble does not mean the risk of consequences do not weigh. For some, prison is in fact not much of a deterrent to begin with, unfortunately. Further, in 'heat of the moment situations' the subconscious performs a good part of the decision making, often in ways the conscious mind might choose differently otherwise, but it variables still weigh. A gang member sees a rival on the street and decides to attack because he has a gun at the moment, a man catches his wife in bed with another man and decides to shoot him, etc.
And of course such examples exist, I haven't said they don't. I've said that more universal armament is the correct reply to such concerns. Squishy thoughts about taking guns out of those situations by some legal avenue are either disingenuous or are ignorant and poorly thought out. It can't happen. The guns are there.
Removing guns or not, is not the point. The example was given to demonstrate that the presence of a gun influences behaviour.
The grand experiment since (depending on where you want to start counting) 1968 of whether strict institutional gun controls make society more or less homicidal. And that grand experiment, right here in THIS country not some other, has proved that for Americans that answer is NO. Resoundingly NO. The astonishing rise in the proliferation of firearms in the last 20 years and the dramatic reduction in restrictions on gun ownership that has been enacted during that time, are attended by the lowest murder rates and other violent crime rates we have ever known. Probably the lowest we've known as a species.
My premise from the start, in spite of your effort to represent as otherwise above, has been that access to firearms will increase the incidents of murder. No legislation has made any significant impact in said availability, as you yourself have said.
To link the current low rates of violent crime with more guns in private hinds is highly specious. Numerous other variables exist, such as the fact that an enormous percent of our population is in prison, which provide far better explanations. Further, total households owning firearms hasn't actually changed all that much but rather existing gun owners have been buying more.
The guns are ALWAYS there and always going to be there. And where there aren't guns there are all the other implements by which we kill each other. If you say a gun makes people more likely to kill, I reply -- as you would do well to consider as one who purports to believe in self defense -- that guns are much more likely to give people the means to defend. If that's not a value statement you believe and hold dear, stop and introspectively search yourself for why that is so.
I am fully aware of why i hold that value and it does not conflict with anything else i've said or believe. I absolutely would oppose any law that would prohibit law abiding and sane individuals from owning guns, and i've said absolutely nothing to the contrary. However, if additional restrictions could be passed which had a substantial chance of reducing violent crime, i would be open to considering supporting such even if it added some burden to myself and other gun owners so long as it didn't prevent gun ownership. For example, if universal background checks could positively impact violent crime (I'm not saying it would or wouldn't so lets not get off that tangent), it would likely be somewhat burdensome to an individual like myself who sometimes engages in private sales and purchases. Why? For the exact same reason i support the right to self defense. Innocent people have a right not to be murdered.
Short of very draconian legislation though, i do agree that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to significantly reduce access for criminals to guns in this country for the simple fact that there are already so many in existence. At the very least, it would take a long time to have any impact on guns available to criminals. This is another reason why comparisons with countries which have enacted gun bans are problematic. Most had far fewer guns than us, and much lower murder rates, before their bans to begin with.
Even then, legal gun owners, as we see with disturbing frequency, do also at times use their guns in very stupid and dangerous ways. Education, maybe, is the only way to reduce such that i can fathom.
If solving one of society's ills is NOT the entire reason to propound gun control, what is your reason? You claim we misrepresent you and your movement, but when you say that "claiming gun control is seen as an equal to solving social ills" is a MISREPRESENTATION of your platform, that leaves the observer wondering why you want such control? If you aren't trying to fix a social problem, what DO you want these restrictions for?
As far as misrepresentation, you just made a big one of me, but i'm part of no gun control movement. Please don't mistake me for the sheeple which make up the mass majority of folks on both sides of gun related debates. 'Group think' i don't. I've actually not propounded any gun control here. I do see valid arguments on both sides, and gaping holes as well, and i call out such to members of both groups i engage with. One can objectively consider the perspectives of others without adopting their positions. Believe it or not, lacking pro-gun ideological purity doesn't automatically put someone into the camp of anti-gun. Unlike others, i dont simply interpret and filter information in whatever way i find convenient.
Personally i see violent crime as largely a symptom rather than a disease so i understand why people try to treat symptoms when they can't cure the disease, for whatever reason. Bad driving is the primary cause of vehicle accidents, but its asinine to say, "lets not wear seat belts because that doesn't address the real problem." But that doesn't mean i believe any effort, not matter the cost, is warranted.
The irony is that opponents of gun control who frequently say, "people, not guns, are the problem" offer no solution either. Many love to point to Switzerland as a country with high levels of gun ownership and low homicide levels, but conveniently ignore the fact that Switzerland has in place the type of social systems and programs which they rabidly oppose. The same type of programs that are present in nearly all other first world countries with low murder rates. Instead, we hear ridiculous attempts to blame our high violent crime rate on things like secularization of schools, in spite of the fact that the low crime rate countries tend to be even more secular than us.
Hence, the common theme that it isn't about GUNS, it's about CONTROL. Yes, maybe there is some third reason we've not considered. It isn't to fix a social problem, and it isn't control of others for the sake of power and control. So...what's left? What other purpose do you have?
Right, gun control advocates don't actually care about preventing murder and gun accidents, its all just part of their grand conspiracy to implement a totalitarian dictatorship. "Its about control" is just another silly mantra to demonize people who hold a contrary view, another straw-man.
You're playing a name game. If you believe you can label my position an "ideology" you can then dismiss it by playing your token "ideology=bad" card. But you haven't dismissed it, you've just found a place to stop thinking critically.
I'm not labeling your position as ideological just so i can aptly dismiss it. I'm labeling it as such because your comments followed ideological thinking - guns are always the answer. No, if you want to see the name game, see x-rap's post. No substance, just the tired old "you sound like a liberal".
And there always have been. And every one of them can avail themselves of a gun right now, if they want to. You seem to believe we live (already) in a world where the government literally prevents people from doing dangerous, irresponsible, stupid things. Or could. But we live in a world populated by the brave and the cowardly and the stupid and the less stupid both. "Reasonable restrictions" or whatever the buzzword is these days are NOT what keep these people from homicide now, never was, and won't be even if all the gun laws you prefer fall completely.
Yes, stupid and irresponsible people do currently own guns, and bad things happen because of such. Its one thing to realize that irresponsible gun owners are inevitable but its something else entirely to make people have guns knowing that such will dramatically increase the number of dumb ones who do as well. Unintentional deaths alone would without a doubt increase, which probably already exceed justifiable self defense shootings as it is now. I have no idea by what means one would cause everybody to own a gun, but at least when we let legal gun owners seek them of their own accord they are more likely to educate themselves than those who have no interest in ownership to begin with. Unless mandating such is also what you're advocating.
I'll direct you back to the phrases "adjudicated mentally defective" and "due process." They really sum up what you need to understand about mental health and gun ownership.
And i'll direct you back to the question which you've failed to answer.
