Because the other ways are 1: irrelevant here
No they're not, they're perfectly relevant. You're implying that banning guns would cut violent crime. I'm saying that's rubbish, and provided two other examples of how would-be criminals could commit pretty much the exact same crime with other readily available materials.
and 2: aren't done using weapons made to kill people. This is what I keep coming back to - I acknowledge that you could, if you wanted to, kill several people with a car for example. But that doesn't mean that guns shouldn't be banned. Just because something with a perfectly legitimate use can be used to kill someone doesn't make it a murder weapon. I can think of literally nothing else other than guns which is legal and has no purpose other than to kill with.
You seem to be implying that a shot with a gun is always lethal and that guns are only used for ill means. That's absurd. The primary purpose of a gun in the consumer market is for protection, and anyone trained in the use of a gun knows (or ought to know) the difference between a lethal shot and a shot to incapacitate. It's a legal concept called "necessary force;" if someone is attempting to harm you, you're generally allowed to shoot to kill, otherwise you're generally supposed to shoot to incapacitate.
I'll quote your exact words: "just because something with a perfectly legitimate use can be used to kill someone doesn't make it a murder weapon." The "legitimate use" is to incapacitate someone who is attempting to commit a crime against you.
Sorry? Cars are now a 'weapon made to kill people'?
What matters is whether the device has legitimate uses or not. Guns can be legitimately used for protection, cars can be legitimately used for driving. Both can be abused to harm innocents. Neither should be banned because a small minority of gun- or car-owners misuse them.
Again, though, these things aren't murder weapons. We're talking about the banning of guns here, not how to kill people with things other than guns.
They're murder weapons if people use them to murder others. And I'm bringing up examples of why, even if you got rid of every gun on the planet, it wouldn't make a dent in violent crime. And that's not even touching the "illegal trade" issue.
Oh, I acknowledge that an illegal industry selling guns would develop. But I doubt people would be anywhere near as inclined to use it as they would be if guns are legal as they are right now - if people even knew how to access such an industry. It wouldn't remove the problem totally. I don't think guns are a problem that can ever be removed totally because of industries like this. But the issue can definitely be alleviated to an extent.
Your "doubt" is not a legitimate argument. I can just as easily say "I'm pretty sure criminals would be just as inclined to purchase weapons from illegal sources, if not more so since there would be no associated background checks."
That said, the point is that by banning guns, you're definitely taking them away from the legitimate group of users and maybe affecting the illegitimate use group (I would argue not).
Not trusting someone with the ability to kill another person is the same as assuming that they're criminals?
Not trusting someone with a device that has a legitimate use because a small group of people misuse said device is the same as treating those people as criminals. You're saying "you can't have this because you might be a criminal and misuse it." And that violates one of the very principles upon which our society is predicated: the principle of presumed innocence.
It doesn't matter how responsible the majority of gun owners are or what their intentions are; the point is that these are weapons designed to kill which, on occasion, are used to kill.
What they're designed to do is irrelevant. What purpose they serve is what is relevant. They serve to protect the vast majority of gun owners and their friends and family.
I think erring on the side of caution with such a weapon is worth the number of lives which could be potentially saved. With other things such as cars and aerosol sprays, that's fine since they have very practical and non-violent uses. It's true that guns can deter crime, but once again, is it really worth the number of lives they cost given that they can cause crime (and not just any crime, but outright murder) just as easily as they can deter it? I don't think so. And maybe you do think so - in which case, it's just down to difference of opinion here.
You're very much trying to turn this into a "if you don't support stricter gun control, you're being cavalier with human life" argument. But it's not. Whether those other things have "non-violent uses" is irrelevant; they can be used just as readily for ill means as a gun can. The point is that banning guns would accomplish nothing except depriving people of a means for personal protection. It would
not have an impact on violent crime for the reasons I've stated above.
And even if it did, I still believe banning the sale of guns would be unfair, as it presumes guilt when we are supposed to presume innocence.
So you'd assume someone receiving mental help to be someone who can't be trusted with a weapon? You'd have to draw the line somewhere; just because someone's depressed, for example, doesn't make them dangerous
I disagree (I think severe depression can absolutely be dangerous), but now that I think about it, what I said earlier comes into play: there are plenty of ways to cause harm without a gun. I admit, I'm not sure how to handle that situation. Conventional thinking goes out the window when it comes to unstable individuals. We can't take any sort of extreme measures that might be construed as punishment, as that would discourage those people from getting help. On the other hand, if they're unstable to the point of being dangerous, they could cause a lot of harm, gun or no. I think I'll stick to my principles and say that we need to err on the side of being more free, not less. But if they, for instance, fail to show up to an appointment or something, that should be a major thing.
I don't know, it's a tough issue, and it's something people need to talk about. At the very least, more research needs to be done, and we need to figure out a fair way to prevent such people from doing harm without restricting their personal liberty.
and by removing their firearms you're rendering them, as you'd put it, defenseless.
That, too.
You can't just take people who might have something wrong with them, short-term or permanent, and deny them access to firearms when everyone else has it. It's all or nothing - if someone is able to cope in society normally then they should have the same access to firearms as anyone else should. And the only surely safe way to go about this is to remove the firearms in the first place.
I don't think that follows. Yes, it doesn't make sense to restrict their freedoms when that will deter them from receiving help. And on the other hand, yes, it's not exactly a bright idea to hand someone with mental issues a firearm. That part makes sense, and I don't think there's an easy solution. Maybe some sort of conditional sale, a give-and-take sort of thing. Allow the sale of non-semiautomatics to the mentally ill as long as they agree (on penalty of jail time) to check in and get help on a regular basis. Maybe watch them for the first day or two to make sure they actually do it.
What I don't agree with is that removing firearms entirely would solve anything. One of the reasons that, now that I think about it, banning the sale of firearms to the mentally ill wouldn't be very effective is something I've already stated: firearms aren't the only way to cause large-scale death. It doesn't take a genius to figure out alternatives.
Like I said though, we have to err on the side of personal freedom. "Punishing" the mentally ill will just push them away from receiving aid, and banning the sale altogether is flat-out unfair to the vast majority of people.
As far as psychiatric assessment goes, that's a good idea at the time of the purchase of the weapon, but people and their circumstances can change. Psychiatric assessment would only be fully effective if gun owners were regularly re-assessed, a very expensive and time-consuming endeavor.
Once a decade might be a decent balance. Or maybe sooner if their reported earnings are significantly down, or if a concerned person believes there's been a major shift.
