It seems to me that what you’re saying is: in order to reach a conclusion about any tool’s value, both the costs and benefits must be weighed. What a novel idea.

If a gun’s only purpose is to inflict harm then all of mine are defective because as far as I know the only things they’ve ever harmed are targets at a firing range.

If a gun’s only purpose is to “inflict harm” then why do Police carry them? Is the purpose of Police to inflict harm?

The very characteristics that make a gun an effective tool for the application of criminal violence are the characteristics that make it particularly well suited for use in defense against said criminal violence.

Yes, guns can be used to inflict harm. Sometimes that harm is criminal, sometimes it is justified in defense against said criminal harm. And sometimes they are used to prevent the infliction of harm altogether.

The statistics comparing different countries are meaningless. Correlation does not equal causation, and the correlation is even suspect. Some countries with low legal gun ownership rates have very high crime and murder rates (Mexico and Russia come immediately to mind), some countries with very high legal gun ownership rates have very low crime (Israel, Switzerland).

The United States has an inner city, gang subculture that is very prone to violence. Our non-gun murder rate is higher than the total murder rate of several of the other countries with low gun ownership and low murder rates. As admitted by both the CDC and the Department of Justice following independent studies, there is no evidence that gun control measures reduce crime. Britain’s crime rates, including gun crime, have been climbing steadily since the gradual enactment of their current virtual total ban on gun ownership. Although their murder rates are still lower than ours, they are on the rise and their violent crime rate has actually exceeded that of the US.

Correlation does not equal causation so that does not “prove” that gun control causes an increase in crime, but it does indicate that gun control, in and of itself, does not reduce crime…not even gun crime.

And, since we seem to have switched from snark and sarcasm to a semi-serious discussion, exactly what “stricter gun control” measures do you propose that would have prevented the incident that prompted your post?

For evidence, please see every other country in the world where owning a gun is not a public right and per capita crime statistics are drastically less than the US. Indisputable. Less guns equal less crimes perpetrated people with guns. Simple, indisputable math. Anythin to the contrary in support of the status quo in this country is a weak analogy or parallel masquerading as fact.

I would support an outright ban and deal with the short term consequences if in the long term it meant that the a disgruntled college student couldn’t acquire the means to kill almost 30 of his classmates in a hour span. Could he have built a bomb? Poisoned them? Driven a car through campus? Sure. But nothing is as easy and brutally effective as picking up a gun, pointing it, and shooting it. He could never have achieved remotely similar results within the same time frame with any other instrument.

Yup, stricter gun control MIGHT reduce crime and accidents…of course, there’s no evidence anywhere that it’s ever done so any time it’s been tried…but why let little details like fact and reality get in the way of a good fantasy?

Every time there is a poll released showing the majority of the public agrees that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, it is often tempered by showing that a majority still believe in stronger gun control laws.
I think…