As typical of some BITOGers (and the general public), you see this from the wrong side of the equation.
As many of you know, I focus on results, not inputs.
Why is my thread not meant to be political? Two reaons; first of all, it's against our policy here. I have repeatedly stayed away from that side, although some of you taunt the edge of that. Second is that politics (admittedly integral to the gun control debate) is an INPUT to the issue, not a result.
I FOCUS ON RESULTS. Just like I don't care what oil has what amount of boron or moly or calcium or .... I look at wear data to tell me how things are performing. I don't care what is in the bottle.
To that same degree, I look at regulation of any industry as as input. I do certainly believe that some amount of regulation is a good thing, as I've stated before. We want decent controls on how we build tall buildings and homes, how we design and build electrical appliances for safety, have some amount of gun sales controls, have a decent amount of training for doctors and lawyers, etc etc etc.
But OVER regulation shows no benefits. Look at the medical industry; it is the third leading cause of death in the US despite the "intent" of helping. A major tennant of the Hippocratic oath? Do no harm. But iatrogenisis is FAR more dangerous than any gun will ever be, regardless of whose hands it's in.
I don't care about politics, because politics hasn't shown to be an effective input to this equation. Some States have lax gun laws, others have tight gun laws. To some degree, those with tighter regulation seem to have more gun problems. However, when you look at the world view, the US is sort of "in the middle". We have VERY prominent gun ownership, but our murder rate is mid-ground. Those countries with poor governments and tight control have very high murder rates per capita. Western Europe is sort of an anomoly. But I contend that it really does not matter, because when gun violence is low in modern countries, other forms of murder (both individual and mass events) exist via other means! Have no gun in western Europe? Use an IED ...
Again, my point to this thread is that a man killed his entire family with a car. No one peeps a word about more and stricter licensing of the person or weapon, or holding the OEMs fiscally liable.
But when someone shoots another group using an assault rifle, woe unto those who own them, because the outcry from some is deafening.
What I ask, in a rhetorical sense, is WHY this dichotomy of attitude? Clearly I have proven by now that the mode of death (weapon chosen) has no bearing on the severity of death (dead = dead regardless of the method). For those who believe more control over fireamrs is necessary, where is you proof that it matters?
QUIT FOCUSING ON POLITICS; THAT IS AN INPUT.
SHOW ME RESULTS THAT INDICATE A TANGIBLE EFFECT COMES FROM OVER-REGULATION!
If you cannot show this, then your viewpoint is flawed and has no logical basis.
This is supposed to be a "teachable" moment in terms of how to view, well, just about anything in life.
If you manipulate an input, but it has no effect on the result, then it is of no importance, despite your emotional attachment to the topic.
