Terrorist attack in London!

[Sabras]

Terrorist attack occurred today in London, 30 minutes away from where I live. 

 

Machete used, 1 person stabbed, although rumours about second victim, police arrested the suspect. He screamed "this is for Syria".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12035552/Knifeman-screams-this-is-for-Syria-in-London-tube-machete-attack.html

 

video available : 

 

part 1:

 

https://twitter.com/LowkeyMo_/status/673246265916919808?nav=true

 

part 2:

 

https://twitter.com/LowkeyMo_/status/673246475753807872?nav=true

 

part 3:

 

https://twitter.com/LowkeyMo_/status/673260966860169216?nav=true

[st434u]

I guess these things are happening more often now. In France, then the US, and now the UK. All in the span of one month.

 

The murderer's behavior seemed bizarre. The way he stands there with the weapon in his hand doing nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if he was on drugs. Also, not to be insensitive to the victims, but a machete is generally a poor stabbing weapon. It's meant to chop vegetation, so it's main use as a weapon is in chopping or slashing/cutting.

[Sabras]

It sure managed to slash the guy's throat.

[labmath2]

Terrorist attack occurred today in London, 30 minutes away from where I live.

 

Machete used, 1 person stabbed, although rumours about second victim, police arrested the suspect. He screamed "this is for Syria".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12035552/Knifeman-screams-this-is-for-Syria-in-London-tube-machete-attack.html

 

video available :

 

part 1:

 

https://twitter.com/LowkeyMo_/status/673246265916919808?nav=true

 

part 2:

 

https://twitter.com/LowkeyMo_/status/673246475753807872?nav=true

 

part 3:

 

https://twitter.com/LowkeyMo_/status/673260966860169216?nav=true

Now imagine he had a gun. This is the foundation of liberal position on gun control.

[Sabras]

Let's imagine that a law-abiding citizen had a gun.

[dsayers]

Now imagine he had a gun.

Or a fork, or a pencil, or a shovel, etc. If somebody wishes to harm others, they're going to. Which is why demonizing objects (and uninformly at that) fails. However, a 5 foot tall sickly woman wouldn't be able to use a fork, or a pencil, or a shovel to take down a 300 lb, 7 ft tall body builder necessarily. One nice thing about a handgun is that just about any power disparity is normalized. And at range, which is helpful since a knife-wielder can easily cover 21 feet in the time it would take a person to recognize attack, draw, and fire.

[labmath2]

Let's imagine that a law-abiding citizen had a gun.

Assuming every law abiding citizen in sight had a gun, and all of them instantly recognized him as the criminal when he starts firing, and the first person to pull their gun on him only miss the first two shots which hit no one else before hitting and klling him. How many deaths do you think will result from the attack.

Or a fork, or a pencil, or a shovel, etc. If somebody wishes to harm others, they're going to. Which is why demonizing objects (and uninformly at that) fails. However, a 5 foot tall sickly woman wouldn't be able to use a fork, or a pencil, or a shovel to take down a 300 lb, 7 ft tall body builder necessarily. One nice thing about a handgun is that just about any power disparity is normalized. And at range, which is helpful since a knife-wielder can easily cover 21 feet in the time it would take a person to recognize attack, draw, and fire.

If all you said is true (which i wont dispute due to laziness on my part, i change my mind, everyone is not equally skilled wth a gun nor effective in crisis situation), this has more to do with preemptive attack in a public location. If everyone had a gun, including the attacker, i would actually be curious as to how it would go.

[dsayers]

If all you said is true (which i wont dispute due to laziness on my part, i change my mind, everyone is not equally skilled wth a gun nor effective in crisis situation), this has more to do with preemptive attack in a public location. If everyone had a gun, including the attacker, i would actually be curious as to how it would go.

Is there an argument in here? I can't tell if you're condoning the initiation of the use of force against people for lack of expertise and/or expertise as a requisite for ownership (self-detonating position). I can't tell if you're suggesting we make everybody sitting ducks because having the ability to survive might somehow make things worse. Which would leapfrog right over the moral consideration.

[J. D. Stembal]

If a perpetrator commits a crime while intoning the name of a country, it's a terror attack? If I rape a woman and tell her I'm doing it for England, am I a terrorist? Would you care to clarify your definitions?

[labmath2]

Is there an argument in here? I can't tell if you're condoning the initiation of the use of force against people for lack of expertise and/or expertise as a requisite for ownership (self-detonating position). I can't tell if you're suggesting we make everybody sitting ducks because having the ability to survive might somehow make things worse. Which would leapfrog right over the moral consideration.

There is no moral consideration unless we are proposing what should be done. This conversation is about what is (or likely would be in an alternative world). I put forward the propositiom that this is an instance where everone having a gun could potentially cause more arm (in line with the liberal position that guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims). Its also possible he pulls out his gun and someone notices and shoots him before he kills anyone and everyone else realizes the person lying dead is the criminal. Most of the real world examples i know of people confronting criminals with guns involve the criminal commiting a crime that takes a while to execute (robbery). When a person simply wants to kill and they have a gun, its a different story.

[Guest Gee]

I'm within walking distance, not even a little bit surprised.

[WasatchMan]

 If everyone had a gun, including the attacker, i would actually be curious as to how it would go.

 

The point really isn't what if everyone had a gun and therefore we could repeat the end scene from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". The point is what if everyone knew before instigating that the people they were planning to initiate force against had a high probability of having a gun and defending themselves with that gun.  It is the deterrent that we want to promote, not the efficacy of Joe Blow in a shoot out.

 

[dsayers]

There is no moral consideration unless we are proposing what should be done. This conversation is about what is (or likely would be in an alternative world). I put forward the propositiom that this is an instance where everone having a gun could potentially cause more arm (in line with the liberal position that guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims).

But the determination of whether it would cause more harm or not would only be useful in the consideration of banning firearms, which does have a moral consideration.

 

I work alarm response. To drive home the reality of what you reference here, my boss has told me to keep in mind that every call I get is a gun call because I'm bringing a gun there. Unless I have reason to believe the call is NOT a false alarm, I'm usually responding alone. In which case, yes, the fact that I'm armed means I'm POTENTIALLY at greater risk then if I went in unarmed.

 

But this wasn't a case of one on one. Just the possibility of people being armed would mean the assailant would have to have 360 degree vision, which he doesn't. By time he dominated 1 person, he'd had every other person present to overcome in order to be able to dominate a 2nd person. One of the wonderful side effects of a free society is that anybody who wished to cause harm would literally have to stand against EVERYBODY else. Not just a few with a badge.

[ResidingOnEarth]

There is no moral consideration unless we are proposing what should be done. This conversation is about what is (or likely would be in an alternative world).

 

In this world, the only reason I can think of to raise the points you did is for moral consideration.

 

What's the point in discussing this fantasy, alternative world?  Does it help us solve problems in this world? 

 

I don't see any use in imagining a world where guns are not a physical possibility or where you can magically delete all guns from existence.

 

(in line with the liberal position that guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims).

 

It's true that guns allow murderers to much more effectively murder their victims than if -- for instance -- all they had was blades.

 

That's not an argument though.  I don't think it's even a controversial position to hold or widely disputed.  For that matter: it's not really even a "position".  It's just a fact.

 

These are also facts:

 

The existence of guns allow for good people to defend themselves from bad people.

 

The existence of guns allow for people to accidentally shoot themselves.

 

The existence of guns allow for people to go to shooting ranges and practise shooting.

 

The existence of guns allow for people to hunt animals.

 

These are all just true statements.

 

If there really are liberals out there that think that saying "guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims" somehow gives them a moral right to use violence (in particular: guns) to arbitrarily take away guns from people who have them and stop other people from using them or trading them, then... well... then they're insane!

[Sabras]

If a perpetrator commits a crime while intoning the name of a country, it's a terror attack? If I rape a woman and tell her I'm doing it for England, am I a terrorist? Would you care to clarify your definitions?

 

I used this definition ' the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'

 

The suspect shouted "this is for Syria" which leads me to believe that it was politically motivated since, around two days ago, UK government agreed to send RAF jets to Syria. I guess if the rape had a political aspect, then yes, it would be terrorism. However, If I am wrong you guys are more than welcome to correct me!

I'm within walking distance, not even a little bit surprised.

We might be neighbours then!

[ResidingOnEarth]

I used this definition ' the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'

 

I know that's a popular definition, but it's not a very useful one as it renders the word "terrorism" almost meaningless as anyone can claim officialdom or authority and then claim that a particular use of "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" is terrorism.

 

I could -- for-instance -- claim that in my private ResidingOnEarth club, that a use of violence in this way is not officially condoned.

 

This definition allows for anyone claiming officialdom to almost arbitrarily declare someone a terrorist and no dispute can be made.

 

This definition from WordNet 3.0 by Princeton University seems more sensible to me and on the rare occasion where I use the word "terrorism", this is what I mean:

The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

 

The only word I'd change in this definition is "civilians".  I'd change it to "people".  I don't see why the distinction "civilians" is needed.  Why couldn't you commit terrorism against someone in the military, the police or against someone living in a free-society where there are no "civilians"?

[Sabras]

I know that's a popular definition, but it's not a very useful one as it renders the word "terrorism" almost meaningless as anyone can claim officialdom or authority and then claim that a particular use of "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" is terrorism.

 

I could -- for-instance -- claim that in my private ResidingOnEarth club, that a use of violence in this way is not officially condoned.

 

This definition allows for anyone claiming officialdom to almost arbitrarily declare someone a terrorist and no dispute can be made.

 

This definition from WordNet 3.0 by Princeton University seems more sensible to me and on the rare occasion where I use the word "terrorism", this is what I mean:

 

The only word I'd change in this definition is "civilians".  I'd change it to "people".  I don't see why the distinction "civilians" is needed.  Why couldn't you commit terrorism against someone in the military, the police or against someone living in a free-society where there are no "civilians"?

I think that is a very good definition, I'll use it from now on. I still think it would apply to yesterday's incident.

[ResidingOnEarth]

I think that is a very good definition, I'll use it from now on.

 

I've been trying to use this better definition of terrorism as a wedge into the irrational minds of statists.  If they accept this definition, then you can bring up the Iraq war and other recent wars started by various states.

 

If one of the primary goals of the Iraq war was to use violence and intimidation against people to replace a dictatorship with democracy (a political goal) then surely the UK gov and the USA gov are both terrorist organisations.

 

George Bush Junior said democracy was there goal:

 

The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is for there to be democratic and free countries who are allies in the war on terror. That's the goal.

source: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Record-shows-Bush-shifting-on-2690938.php

 

The shock and awe campaign in the initial invasion of IRAQ was a violent act with the deliberate goal of extreme intimidation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War

 

Many thousands of civilians were killed during the initial invasion.  See the first column of the chart titled "Deaths caused per month by US-led forces and others" on this BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm

 

 

I still think it would apply to yesterday's incident.

 

Me too (based on what I know so far).

[jpahmad]

In the case of a lone gunman, or even a group of gunman, how would people be able to decipher who is the aggressor if everyone pulled out a gun to defend themselves?  That's the only thing that bothers me.  

[Kaesar Sm]

Let's imagine that a law-abiding citizen had a gun.

 

Bang, bang, the terrorist is dead. I wish and want for a 2nd ammendment in my country- Norway and also for the rest of Western nations

[Sabras]

Bang, bang, the terrorist is dead. I wish and want for a 2nd ammendment in my country- Norway and also for the rest of Western nations

I wish it was this easy. Gun at least gives a person a fighting chance.

[Sabras]

In the case of a lone gunman, or even a group of gunman, how would people be able to decipher who is the aggressor if everyone pulled out a gun to defend themselves?  That's the only thing that bothers me.  

Yes ifs and buts always exist. But if someone is coming at you with a knife, something tells me you'll be able to tell that the person is a threat.

[dsayers]

In the case of a lone gunman, or even a group of gunman, how would people be able to decipher who is the aggressor if everyone pulled out a gun to defend themselves?  That's the only thing that bothers me.  

This is precisely the problem when politicians make it about the gun. There would be FAR more data present for you than just gun in hand. One person yells "This is for Syria!" while 5 people are yelling "Drop your weapon," "Don't do it," "Look out, he's got a weapon," etc. One person seems extremely angry while 5 people seem frightened. One person seems aggressive while 5 people seem assertive. One person is taking a risk for an ideology while 5 people are taking a risk for safety's sake.

 

If anything, your concern speaks to your own lack of situational awareness. Please understand that this is not a personal attack! Most people are walking around in a haze because their survival is not dependent on scanning their environment for threats. As a result, people who witness a robbery might come up with a physical description that is completely made up when asked what they saw. When I started carrying a gun, the first thing I noticed is how much more I'm aware of my surroundings.

 

I think when I'm on an ATM run is a good example. We sometimes get calls for a bodyguard for technicians as they work on ATM's that are out of order. When I'm there, I'm perpetually ready to yell "Get down!" Because the reason I'm there is so the technician can focus on the machine and not have to watch over his shoulder.

 

But let's say you're joe blow and you pull into a gas station parking lot and see two people at the ATM and the ATM is open. How do you know if this is maintenance or a heist? The badge, the vest, and the technician's service vehicle is a good start. But what about our body language? The technician doesn't appear nervous or as if he's trying to hurry. I'm always between you and the technician and if you're pulling in from an odd direction, I go out of my way to let you know that I know you're there. As opposed to a thief who is going to try and stay out of sight. Yes, all of this can be spoofed, which is why everybody's situational awareness is key.

 

If you haven't already (anybody interested in this topic), check out the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.

[Sabras]

 

George Bush Junior said democracy was there goal:

source: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Record-shows-Bush-shifting-on-2690938.php

 

The shock and awe campaign in the initial invasion of IRAQ was a violent act with the deliberate goal of extreme intimidation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War

 

In this case spreading political goals like democracy, is the same as spreading sharia law.

[labmath2]

In this world, the only reason I can think of to raise the points you did is for moral consideration.

 

What's the point in discussing this fantasy, alternative world? Does it help us solve problems in this world?

 

I don't see any use in imagining a world where guns are not a physical possibility or where you can magically delete all guns from existence.

 

 

It's true that guns allow murderers to much more effectively murder their victims than if -- for instance -- all they had was blades.

 

That's not an argument though. I don't think it's even a controversial position to hold or widely disputed. For that matter: it's not really even a "position". It's just a fact.

 

These are also facts:

 

The existence of guns allow for good people to defend themselves from bad people.

 

The existence of guns allow for people to accidentally shoot themselves.

 

The existence of guns allow for people to go to shooting ranges and practise shooting.

 

The existence of guns allow for people to hunt animals.

 

These are all just true statements.

 

If there really are liberals out there that think that saying "guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims" somehow gives them a moral right to use violence (in particular: guns) to arbitrarily take away guns from people who have them and stop other people from using them or trading them, then... well... then they're insane!

I actually like your post. You presented the idea better than me. While i have no opinion on gun laws, i do find it fascinating that you think gun restrictions are insane. Everyone thinks they know the perfect distribution of gun ownership that minimizes deaths, but proof is hard to come by. Maybe the outcome is irrelevant to you as long as long as the process is just.

[rosencrantz]

we could repeat the end scene from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". 

 

 

Didn't you mean the coffin scene from Django?

 

[Mister Mister]

Assuming every law abiding citizen in sight had a gun, and all of them instantly recognized him as the criminal when he starts firing, and the first person to pull their gun on him only miss the first two shots which hit no one else before hitting and klling him. How many deaths do you think will result from the attack.

 

If all you said is true (which i wont dispute due to laziness on my part, i change my mind, everyone is not equally skilled wth a gun nor effective in crisis situation), this has more to do with preemptive attack in a public location. If everyone had a gun, including the attacker, i would actually be curious as to how it would go.

 

There's no need to speculate.  Many potential mass shootings, as well as other violent crimes,  have been prevented by armed civilians.

 

I find it quite astounding that people are so confident that gun control will prevent mass shootings after what happened in Paris just two weeks ago

[J. D. Stembal]

If one of the primary goals of the Iraq war was to use violence and intimidation against people to replace a dictatorship with democracy (a political goal) then surely the UK gov and the USA gov are both terrorist organisations.

 

One can easily make the case that America is worse than Germany's Third Reich. We are not only the dominant world military power with over 900 encroaching military bases, and troops in 130 countries (as of 2011, at least), but we wield the world's default trade currency, which we constantly devalue. Essentially, between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Long Arm of the Military, we are fucking over and dominating the entire world.

 

It's no wonder a great proportion of the world despises America and, by extension, Americans. I would be ashamed to be classified as one, but I had no choice but to be born here, thus there is no moral component to my classification.

 

Citation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/

 

 

[labmath2]

There's no need to speculate. Many potential mass shootings, as well as other violent crimes, have been prevented by armed civilians.

 

I find it quite astounding that people are so confident that gun control will prevent mass shootings after what happened in Paris just two weeks ago

Can you please link mass shooting averted by law abiding gn owners? (I have never actually heard of one. Maybe i should look it up) The person that wants all guns banned is probably very irrational. The point of my inquiry is to see if there is any wiggle room. Here are a few broad questions on gun ownership.

 

Should individuals known to be connected to criminal enterprises (including terrorist groups) be allowed purchase assault weapons?

 

Should individuals with history of violence and psychiatric problems be given the same access to firearms as everyone else?

 

Shold there be a limit to the type of weapon individuals are allowed to own (this question goes beyond guns)?

[ResidingOnEarth]

I actually like your post. You presented the idea better than me. While i have no opinion on gun laws, i do find it fascinating that you think gun restrictions are insane. Everyone thinks they know the perfect distribution of gun ownership that minimizes deaths, but proof is hard to come by. Maybe the outcome is irrelevant to you as long as long as the process is just.

 

I didn't say gun restrictions are insane.  I said this:

 

If there really are liberals out there that think that saying "guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims" somehow gives them a moral right to use violence (in particular: guns) to arbitrarily take away guns from people who have them and stop other people from using them or trading them, then... well... then they're insane!

 

My point was that it's insane to decide that gun-owners should be aggressed against because "guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims".  That makes no sense at all.

 

I probably should've said "irrational" instead of "insane".

 

I actually agree with some gun restrictions.  For instance: a parent should restrict their very young child/baby from having any access to a gun.  A carer who is responsible for a severely mentally disabled person shouldn't leave any of their guns around that disabled person.  If I was a gun store owner I would impose restrictions on some customers.  I would refuse to sell guns/ammo etc to people who are known to be thieves and violent aggressors.

 

In this case spreading political goals like democracy, is the same as spreading sharia law.

 

I didn't say they were the same.  I said that it's my understanding that the UK and USA government fit the definition of being terrorist organisations.

 

Also: if democracy is better than sharia law; does that mean that it is morally ok for a democratic government to initiate force against people in a foreign land where many people in that land claim to be practising sharia law, so that a democratic system can be imposed upon them? 

 

I think that would be a very hard case to make.

[Sabras]

Can you please link mass shooting averted by law abiding gn owners? (I have never actually heard of one. Maybe i should look it up) The person that wants all guns banned is probably very irrational. The point of my inquiry is to see if there is any wiggle room. Here are a few broad questions on gun ownership.

 

Should individuals known to be connected to criminal enterprises (including terrorist groups) be allowed purchase assault weapons?

 

Should individuals with history of violence and psychiatric problems be given the same access to firearms as everyone else?

 

Shold there be a limit to the type of weapon individuals are allowed to own (this question goes beyond guns)?

I do not know why your post got down voted, these are some excellent questions, some of which I came across on my path of becoming pro-gun.

 

I recall Stefan saying "You are afraid of them having guns, I am afraid of them having armies".

 

These are very hard question to answer in the context of the current society. In the free society however;

 

1. - Why would there be people wanting to engage in a terrorism acts in a free society which does not intervene or engage in coercion with other geographical areas?

 

2. - Do these people not deserve to own a weapon? Are they less worthy of having the ability to defend themselves? I personally think that these people should be taken care of by their families and friends.

 

3. - I don't see a reason for restricting it. Not many people will be able to own a nuke. And hey, if they do, social and economic ostracism, who would want to engage and do business with these people (unless they are company which is hired to defend the free society).

 

These are just some of my thoughts, stolen from Stefan of course and other wonderful people of FDR, all credit goes out to them

[jpahmad]

This is precisely the problem when politicians make it about the gun. There would be FAR more data present for you than just gun in hand. One person yells "This is for Syria!" while 5 people are yelling "Drop your weapon," "Don't do it," "Look out, he's got a weapon," etc. One person seems extremely angry while 5 people seem frightened. One person seems aggressive while 5 people seem assertive. One person is taking a risk for an ideology while 5 people are taking a risk for safety's sake.

 

If anything, your concern speaks to your own lack of situational awareness. Please understand that this is not a personal attack! Most people are walking around in a haze because their survival is not dependent on scanning their environment for threats. As a result, people who witness a robbery might come up with a physical description that is completely made up when asked what they saw. When I started carrying a gun, the first thing I noticed is how much more I'm aware of my surroundings.

 

I think when I'm on an ATM run is a good example. We sometimes get calls for a bodyguard for technicians as they work on ATM's that are out of order. When I'm there, I'm perpetually ready to yell "Get down!" Because the reason I'm there is so the technician can focus on the machine and not have to watch over his shoulder.

 

But let's say you're joe blow and you pull into a gas station parking lot and see two people at the ATM and the ATM is open. How do you know if this is maintenance or a heist? The badge, the vest, and the technician's service vehicle is a good start. But what about our body language? The technician doesn't appear nervous or as if he's trying to hurry. I'm always between you and the technician and if you're pulling in from an odd direction, I go out of my way to let you know that I know you're there. As opposed to a thief who is going to try and stay out of sight. Yes, all of this can be spoofed, which is why everybody's situational awareness is key.

 

If you haven't already (anybody interested in this topic), check out the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.

 

I suppose you're right.  Regardless, I would rather be in a situation where everyone had a gun (even though it may take a few seconds to understand who the aggressor is), than in a situation where no one had a gun except for the aggressor.  

[dsayers]

Everyone thinks they know the perfect distribution of gun ownership that minimizes deaths, but proof is hard to come by. Maybe the outcome is irrelevant to you as long as long as the process is just.

I for one have never spoken towards minimizing deaths. My purpose in speaking on the subject is to point out irrationalities, inconsistencies, and the moral component of banning anything.

 

The point of my inquiry is to see if there is any wiggle room. Here are a few broad questions on gun ownership.

 

Should individuals known to be connected to criminal enterprises (including terrorist groups) be allowed purchase assault weapons?

 

Should individuals with history of violence and psychiatric problems be given the same access to firearms as everyone else?

 

Shold there be a limit to the type of weapon individuals are allowed to own (this question goes beyond guns)?

What other things in the world are you curious about to this extent that people can use to kill people? I don't think a free society would be producing many violent types, but the ones we were aware of, we wouldn't be trading with until they voluntarily rehabilitated. As for psychos, that's like asking if we should sell guns to dogs. You mention "allowed to own." Allowed by who?

 

All you have to do is put yourself in those shoes. You own a gun store. What criteria do you have for selling a firearm to somebody? What mechanisms would you use to solicit feedback from your community about your criteria? What mechanisms would you use to determine the efficacy of your criteria? How often would you revisit and revise your criteria?

 

Wouldn't asking questions pertaining to the root of human aggression and how to prevent it be more beneficial than addressing one object used by one symptom of the problem?

[labmath2]

I for one have never spoken towards minimizing deaths. My purpose in speaking on the subject is to point out irrationalities, inconsistencies, and the moral component of banning anything.

 

What other things in the world are you curious about to this extent that people can use to kill people? I don't think a free society would be producing many violent types, but the ones we were aware of, we wouldn't be trading with until they voluntarily rehabilitated. As for psychos, that's like asking if we should sell guns to dogs. You mention "allowed to own." Allowed by who?

 

All you have to do is put yourself in those shoes. You own a gun store. What criteria do you have for selling a firearm to somebody? What mechanisms would you use to solicit feedback from your community about your criteria? What mechanisms would you use to determine the efficacy of your criteria? How often would you revisit and revise your criteria?

 

Wouldn't asking questions pertaining to the root of human aggression and how to prevent it be more beneficial than addressing one object used by one symptom of the problem?

 

I recently realized that is not a very good position to start from. It may well be the case that people will be very different if some changes were made, but its purely hypothetical. Until such a world exists, people want solution for the world we live in. Which makes the argument about how people will sell guns also unknowable. As it stands right now, i imagine there are different kinds of gun dealers, from those who intentionally sell to criminals to those who already follow all those practices you described. 

 

I am curious about many things people can use to kill people, luckily most of them are either conspicuous (such as sword, bow), takes a bit of effort to be lethal (knife) or has some daily utility outside of killing people (cars). The one i am most concerned about at the moment though is drones. Drones make guns look like knives. Its unfortunate that anybody has it, but i am not in a position to do anything about it.

[labmath2]

Also criminals adapt.