[jbellis]

True, but a common argument from gun owners is that if you're feeling homicidal, you'll find a way to commit murder with or without a gun.

Looking at all homicides vs gun ownership seems to bear that out. In fact, there appears to be a negative correlation with gun ownership: http://diegobasch.com/homicides-vs-gun-ownership

(Can we start abbreviating Correlation Is Not Causation as CINC now? In any case, if you're going to argue that more guns = more murders, at the very least you're going to have to concede that other factors are much, much more important.)

[purephase]

Outside of higher-yield weapons like bombs, guns are the fastest, lightest and easiest-to-use methods for murdering the most number of people in the shortest amount of time.

It seems insane to me (as a Canadian citizen) that the pro-gun folks continue to peddle that safety comes from increasing the number of "responsible" carriers. Here are the issues that I see with this:

1. The assumption that all gun users are trained and responsible. It seems obvious to compare this to other licensees such as drivers and you'll immediately see that it is not a valid argument. There are terrible drivers on the roads with valid licenses, who have presumably been trained with a lot of experience. The barrier to entry is even higher in that the cost of a vehicle is higher than a weapon.

2. How do you differentiate the good vs. bad in a situation such as Aurora? If you see a number of random strangers running around with guns in hand, few of whom would have any sort of melee training outside of video games, who do you shoot at? Where does the liability lie if one innocent murders another innocent by mistake?

3. The number of guns will increase (as they are now). With more lying around either forgotten or marginally broken, it increases the availability for non-licensed usage as I doubt responsible users dispose of their weapons appropriately (see item 1).

I say all this fully recognizing the gun's position as a tool, strongly advocating mental health reform and even supporting the OP's position of rational rather than emotional response to Newtown.

[hga]

Errr, you're ignoring the highest casualty mass murders, at least in the US, which were done by arson. Maybe not "fastest", but otherwise very "competitive" with firearms. I can't track a list down, but in a recent discussion someone mentioned counting something like 19 out of the top 20 mass murders in the US.

[purephase]

But arson has been largely addressed in western countries by legislation. Building and fire codes are strong, positive examples that federal and/or state legislation saves lives (as I'm not a US citizen, I'm not sure where juridiction lies).

[hga]

It's state and local. But I think you underestimate the distinction between a normal fire and one set to deliberately murder. To get back to the current topic, one reason the death toll at Virginia Tech was so high was the shooter chained shut from the inside all three exits of the building. No one could escape and that gave the shooter an extra 5 minutes before the police could breach a door.

Then there are the cases where the building codes are not observed; Wikipedia even has a category "Fire disasters involving barricaded escape routes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fire_disasters_involvi...). Only one of these is listed as an arson attack, I know of one other (Happy Land), although both of these were code type problems. Hmmm, and according to Wikipedia, the Dupont Plaza Hotel arson, 2nd worst in US history at a minimum of 97 killed, locked emergency exits on a casino floor were a factor (wow, I'm impressed Wikipedia's article does not use the word union once...).

Still can't find a list of arson fires, so further analysis by me will have to wait, but I know plenty of smaller scale ones I've read about have involved the arsonists blocking the entrances, often by setting more than one fire.

[purephase]

I'm still not sure where the arson/gun violence comparison is viable. Steps have been taken to try and curtail deaths caused by fire (deliberate or otherwise) which have clearly succeeded.

Are they foolproof? Not at all. But aside from more inspections to prevent code violations, what additional steps are there? Preventing doors from being locked? Providing better battering devices for police? Banning fire?

The way I see it, the pro-gun lobby and enthusiasts have so successfully barred the door to future attempts at legislation that most consider it a topic un-worthy of discussion.

And, again, I say all of this not even really believing that more gun legislation is the answer. These are the better options:

- Better, easier to access healthcare (including mental health resources -- this is something that most western countries should improve)

- Close the income discrepancy between the wealthy and poor which will open up advancement opportunities for lower income families and individuals

- Decriminalize certain drugs, or at least possession

- De-emphasize incarceration over re-habilitation in the prison system (for profit prisons? Jesus...)

Address the perceived necessity for weapons rather than the weapons themselves.

[hga]

Address the perceived necessity for weapons rather than the weapons themselves.

But how can you ever do that?

No matter how much the above prescriptions change the facts on the ground, there will still be criminals and mentally ill people who attack others. And you'll never change what's historically the biggest killer of all, the threat of governments, most especially including your own as the last century's history wrote in blood.

So I don't think you'll ever change my perception that I need weapons.

(I also "need" "weapons" to target shoot, but that gets a little complicated.)

[zzzeek]

The scale and total harmfulness of a mass murder incident is increased dramatically with access to weapons designed and manufactured for military personnel to kill as many people as possible with maximally engineered effectiveness.

In China, where guns are generally (if not totally) banned, they've had a problem with citizens going on murderous rampages in schools with swords and knives. So yes, the lack of guns is not necessarily decreasing murderous intent. But look at something interesting: all 22 victims of the most recent China rampage survived (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-sc...). If this man had a bushmaster, he'd have done a lot better.

Murder with highly refined weapons of war is much more effective than murder without. Removing assault weapons designed for wars would not necessarily decrease the count of incidents but would decrease the harmfulness of those incidents.