[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dalger

<snip>

I've never really understood that line of thinking. Just because a problem is less frequent, does it mean it's not worthy of acknowledging it or even finding a solution to it? Couldn't we then also get rid of traffic controls targeting drivers who are under the influence, given that relatively few people die because of car accidents as compared to, say, cancer or even diabetes? What about legalizing drugs? Given that far less people die of a drug overdose or at the hands of a drug addict than a heart attack, maybe drugs aren't much of a problem either in the big picture. And does it really make sense to spend billions of dollars to prevent terrorist attacks, given that the number of people falling victim to such attacks in the Western civilization each year is pretty close to zero?

Bernados mentioned that "gun ownership should come with training and evaluation similar to getting a driver's license". I agree, and that may be all that's needed to have a shot at reducing the problem. There's no way to completely eliminate it. Instead, it would be all about finding ways to make the problem less likely to occur, as Bernados mentioned as well.

Cars serve an important purpose, so we cannot get rid of them to avoid fatal accidents. We can only try to reduce risks; that's why there are speed limits, traffic lights, signs and controls. And of course a driver's license. Assuming that guns serve a purpose as well, why is it difficult to come to terms on a couple of measures to reduce risks stemming from unconditional gun distribution?

Handing a gun to a criminal is like handing car keys to an alcoholic--one way or the other, it's not going to end well...

But most do get a license when they hunt or want to carry concealed, etc. Also, guns do serve an important purpose - even if that purpose is to make sure that something else doesn't happen. Hunter safety cert required for hunting license, etc.

Presently there isn't unconditional gun distribution. At least not for what most people do. There is background checks anytime a new gun is bought. There is all kinds of checks if you want to carry concealed.

The problem is -- you can't stop illegal transfer and theft. Criminals will have the guns regardless. Most can't accept that as fact -- although in my opinion it is fact. Just like you can make possession of drugs illegal, but I think I can get my hands on them in a few hours if I wanted to.

Why do you want to keep causing problems for the law abiding people? Since they are the only ones you can effect anyway.

Guess what, if you make guns illegal -- there will be a demand for them outside the legal ways, and you will create an even larger black market.