>> responsible gun ownership > That's an oxymoron. The most responsible is to not own guns. Guns are not toys. Buy a PlayStation if you want to shoot something

>> responsible gun ownership > That's an oxymoron. The most responsible is to not own guns. Guns are not toys. Buy a PlayStation if you want to shoot something. VR is also getting better. Your two first statements cannot both be true. The latter statement ("most") implies a continuum, the former a binary condition. It is also unclear to me if you mean private gun ownership or any gun ownership (such as organizational ownership: police, army, etc.). Regardless, I'm not sure your statements are meaningful in a world in which both violence and knowledge of guns exist. And, even if so, I think only dedicated pacifists could hold such a view without cognitive dissonance. Regardless, the opposite of not owning a gun is not "I own a gun because I see it as a toy." > Deterrents are just one of the tools. In combination with reducing gun advertising, and concienciation campaigns on the dangers of weapons, it could cause a great improvement. Mental illness treatmeants, better general education, etc. also help. Most of those things are not gun regulations. I agree that those things would help. However, my question was about the inherent conflict between your claims regarding deterrence and regulation.