4 ms·

Who knows? Maybe there were a few people he'd really like to kill that he couldn't kill with his tractor but could have killed with a gun, and killing them wou

Who knows? Maybe there were a few people he'd really like to kill that he couldn't kill with his tractor but could have killed with a gun, and killing them would have appeased his insanity (briefly, at least) so that there would have been fewer people dead. Maybe if tractors were banned he would have built a fertilizer bomb and killed hundreds. We can't know, and setting policy based on speculation is pointless.

lmm 14y ago
Disingenous. We can't possibly be certain of the impact of any particular policy change, but that doesn't mean we should never change policy; we have to use our best judgement based on the available evidence. Guns are weapons (duh) and killing is their raison d'etre; if they weren't more effective at killing than the alternatives, there would be no reason to ever produce them.
- harshreality 14y ago
  There are times when killing (or threatening to kill) is legally acceptable, and morally acceptable unless you're a pacifist. By trying to restrict or ban firearms to prevent crazy people from carrying out attacks, you prevent everyone else from using, in self defense, what you just stipulated are very effective killing tools. Maybe the population would be statistically better off (less likely to die or be injured in crimes or by accident) without a gun, but that global statistic does not apply to smaller groups or individuals. The relative risk to certain demographics it seems to me would go up. Even discounting self defense, the problem remains. If someone values hunting or target shooting enough, they won't be willing to give those up to prevent (maybe) some criminals and insane people from getting guns.
  - lmm 14y ago
    >Maybe the population would be statistically better off (less likely to die or be injured in crimes or by accident) without a gun, but that global statistic does not apply to smaller groups or individuals. The relative risk to certain demographics it seems to me would go up. Seems unlikely to my mind. People talk about equalizing the odds for more vulnerable victims, but if you don't keep a gun constantly on you and loaded then the attacker will have the advantage (even if you're talking young woman home alone vs. large male intruder, I suspect she's safer if neither has a gun than if he's carrying one and she has one in the safe); if you do there's a not insignificant risk of injuring yourself or your own family with it. And I cringe when I hear people talking about "home defense", as if property is worth getting into a shootout over. The overwhelming majority of intruders are burglars who will usually flee if a home turns out to be occupied. Where I live (with gun control laws) burglars don't generally carry guns, the regular police don't either, and everyone's safer for it. >Even discounting self defense, the problem remains. If someone values hunting or target shooting enough, they won't be willing to give those up to prevent (maybe) some criminals and insane people from getting guns. Yes, that's a legitimate argument to have.

lmm 14y ago

Disingenous. We can't possibly be certain of the impact of any particular policy change, but that doesn't mean we should never change policy; we have to use our best judgement based on the available evidence. Guns are weapons (duh) and killing is their raison d'etre; if they weren't more effective at killing than the alternatives, there would be no reason to ever produce them.

harshreality 14y ago
There are times when killing (or threatening to kill) is legally acceptable, and morally acceptable unless you're a pacifist. By trying to restrict or ban firearms to prevent crazy people from carrying out attacks, you prevent everyone else from using, in self defense, what you just stipulated are very effective killing tools. Maybe the population would be statistically better off (less likely to die or be injured in crimes or by accident) without a gun, but that global statistic does not apply to smaller groups or individuals. The relative risk to certain demographics it seems to me would go up. Even discounting self defense, the problem remains. If someone values hunting or target shooting enough, they won't be willing to give those up to prevent (maybe) some criminals and insane people from getting guns.
- lmm 14y ago
  >Maybe the population would be statistically better off (less likely to die or be injured in crimes or by accident) without a gun, but that global statistic does not apply to smaller groups or individuals. The relative risk to certain demographics it seems to me would go up. Seems unlikely to my mind. People talk about equalizing the odds for more vulnerable victims, but if you don't keep a gun constantly on you and loaded then the attacker will have the advantage (even if you're talking young woman home alone vs. large male intruder, I suspect she's safer if neither has a gun than if he's carrying one and she has one in the safe); if you do there's a not insignificant risk of injuring yourself or your own family with it. And I cringe when I hear people talking about "home defense", as if property is worth getting into a shootout over. The overwhelming majority of intruders are burglars who will usually flee if a home turns out to be occupied. Where I live (with gun control laws) burglars don't generally carry guns, the regular police don't either, and everyone's safer for it. >Even discounting self defense, the problem remains. If someone values hunting or target shooting enough, they won't be willing to give those up to prevent (maybe) some criminals and insane people from getting guns. Yes, that's a legitimate argument to have.