[arnie]

Alright, I tried to remain out of this discussion, but I can't.

Respectfully, Arnie (you know I love ya!), I think the logic you present above is based on a presupposition that needs to be examined before we can accept your conclusions.

The presupposition that you've accepted without question -- and drawn your entire conclusion from -- is where the discussion needs to start. And the underpinning philosophy/presupposition that comes before your argument is:

"Guns are pointless and serve no purpose, therefore every death that occurs by a gun is pointless and could have been prevented."

And thus the whole argument, at its core, goes back to whether one believes guns serve a useful purpose or not.

There's where the meat of the debate is: do guns serve a purpose? Because if they don't, then every death by gun is pointless -- much the way every death by alcohol is pointless.

But if they do serve a purpose, then what we are willing to accept in terms of loss is much different -- and that point is easy to illustrate, by using cars as an example. Nearly 40,000 Americans are killed in car wrecks each year -- but because we view cars as serving a purpose, you don't hear cries of: "Another life lost pointlessly in a car wreck! WHEN WILL WE COME TO OUR SENSES AND BAN THESE DANGEROUS MACHINES???"

Gun deaths pale in comparison, so we know that objection to guns is not really about the loss of life -- it's about whether we feel the losses outweighs the gains and vice-versa.

And that, my friend, is partially a philosophical question. At its deepest, it challenges my rights as an individual to protect myself and my family -- and therefore the answer to that question should not be presupposed and skipped over.

The opposing philosophy to that presupposition says:

"Guns serve a purpose as a tool for self-protection, for protection of others, and for hunting. Unfortunately, most tools have some inherent danger if abused -- but there is simply no solution for this, because the problem isn't in the tool itself, the problem is in the individual who wields the tool."

And, in fact, the very same deranged individuals who use guns to kill are part of the reason that many "sane" individuals want guns to remain legal. The logic is simple: a madman isn't going to "live and let live" simply because he doesn't own a gun. If he can't find a gun, he'll use a knife. If he can't find a knife, he'll use a rock. Or he'll poison bottles of Tylenol, or lure kids into his basement, or he'll build mail-bombs... or any of a million other ways crazy people inflict harm.

You're not going to stop him by banning guns, because his intention is to hurt or kill others. The tool he uses is secondary to that intention.

But, by banning guns, you will make him harder for other people to stop.

Will gun laws stop someone from killing? Well, we've already got laws against murder... and usually these laws carry the harshest penalties we can imagine. So the answer is: no, gun laws will not stop criminals from killing. Gun laws are completely and utterly pointless as a deterrent to gun crime, we know that with simple logic. Someone who's going to kill someone else is, by definition, NOT CONCERNED WITH THE LAWS. This seems self-explanatory.

However, by passing laws against guns, you do keep the sane people (the law-abiding people) from protecting themselves against the crazies who don't play by the rules anyway.

To boil it all down: Each year, a number of people are beaten to death with hammers. Yet, no one is out parading for a "Hammer-Free America." That's because even people who don't own hammers can see they serve a useful purpose.

People who see the purpose served by guns don't want them banned (and people who see no point in passing laws against guns when we've already got laws against murder don't want guns banned).

People who see no purpose in guns do want them banned.

So... that's where I think the true debate lies: do guns serve a purpose, or not?

Actually I wrote about the 40K deaths per year by cars in the US in a previous reply, but decided to delete it (to stay on topic). Again, and to be even more clear than in my previous posts:

I AM NOT FOR A BAN ON GUNS! (I hate caps locks but it must be made clear, or the discussion keeps on circling back to it, for some weird reason ...., and not move forward...)

Of course guns serve a purpose, I clearly stated that actually already: "everything has a place in society, even guns". That goes without saying for me.

The whole philosophical question is "are we as a society willing to accept the price (of innocent defenseless children being slaughtered to the tune of an entire class room) because of our current gun ownership law(s)?". Because that answer will logically be "no", we thus need to change the law. That is the only logical next step after acknowledging something is wrong. Change can only come from accepting something is wrong. And apparently the current law is dysfunctional. (otherwise we are self-justifying... the biggest and most dangerous mind-trap of all)

Why would we otherwise spent so much time, money, energy, manpower, etc on trying to make our roads and cars safer? Because we have accepted it ain't perfect, but it requires change. Will we ever get 0 deaths per year in traffic? No, of course not. Can we reduce the number of deaths? Yes we can. Hence our constant work on changing the situation (traffic laws, traffic safety, cars etc). So we don't scream for a ban on cars, that's silly and unrealistic, but we as a society do demand less traffic-related deaths and improved traffic safety.

It is therefore logical to conclude that we can also work on improving our gun laws to reduce the number of gun related deaths and to improve gun safety. Or would that be too much to ask??? Improving them so that next time, because there will be a next time (just like there will be a next car accident) we may be able to safe a life. One life saved will already justify all the changes. That would be beautiful.

That's pretty much all I am asking for.