@freemo To be fair, they usually make that argument about *mass* homicides, which are considerably easier to carry out with a gun than with a bat, garrote, or knife.

@LouisIngenthron Sometimes they do, yes. Often times not so much.

The real question is, do they compare other things that can easily be obtained to kill large numbers of people at once and hold it to the same scrutiny? That matters less to me than if a non-mass weapon is treated as a non-mass weapon or not.

@freemo I mean, I think the majority in this country is good with having your ID checked when you buy poison, explosives, or operate a heavy vehicle, so yeah.

@LouisIngenthron Oh really? Everytime I made explosives I never had to give an ID or had any barriers, same when i bought poisons. I have also never once heard a liberal argue that common poisons should be regulated... It would take absolutely no effort for anyone to buy the components of a high yield explosive or poison and use it.

@freemo Components are different. You can't reasonably stop people from making weapons. You can only place restrictions on purchase and ownership. The vast majority of people aren't interested in the effort it takes to make such things, and those that are are probably already being tracked by the feds.

@LouisIngenthron We arent talking about complex components, we are talking about mixing two things and getting a high yield explosion.

Why cant i reasonably prevent people from buying 2 chemicals that when mixed makes a high yield explosive. But its perfectly reasonable to say a person cant buy the components of a gun? Buying the trigger group of a gun, separate from the slide, separate from the bullets are all restricted to buy individually AND combining them is illegal. Why can i do one and not the other?

As for poisons, those arent even components, high-potency poison can be bought in the vast majority of circumstances (there are some exceptions) with no restrictions.

@freemo I'm not denying the simplicity. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and this is a reasonable place to draw it. You can't stop people from buying gasoline or styrofoam, but you can make it illegal to combine them or sell branded napalm.

As for the poisons, "no restrictions" is nonsense. You're definitely going to get your ID checked when you buy poison, just like you do when you buy a lighter. It's not the full background check, but there will be *some* check that at least you're an adult, and it probably stores that ID swipe in some databank somewhere for future investigators.

@LouisIngenthron

> I'm not denying the simplicity. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and this is a reasonable place to draw it. You can't stop people from buying gasoline or styrofoam, but you can make it illegal to combine them or sell branded napalm.

Yes, no one is saying drawing the line somewhere is a problem. The problem is that as i stated the reasoning and logic and where you draw the line all has radically different rules for guns than any other source of death and violence.

For guns both the gun, its contituent parts, and even further modifications to said guns are all either illegal or regulated significantly.

Yet for anything else it isnt. Poisons you can get outright, explosives you are welcome to have in "disassembled" form and even once assembled are often legal until used improperly. I can literally go and buy a tank of CO with no regulation and its ready to mass kill. stick it in my backpack, open the valve and leave it and everyone on an entire train would be dead... didnt even need to assemble it.

There is nothing remotely equivelant int he logic behind how a disassembled gun or constiuent parts of a gun are treated, or even a whole gun, as compared to how poisons and explosives are treated, not even remotely comparable.

@freemo I suppose the counter-argument to that is that the number of homicides actually committed with the above-mentioned methods aren't remotely comparable either.

If there were a rash of high-profile mass-poisonings, I'd wager the same people *would* be calling for tighter restrictions.

@LouisIngenthron

> I suppose the counter-argument to that is that the number of homicides actually committed with the above-mentioned methods aren't remotely comparable either.

That is one common argument, and that common argument shows my point well.

The fact that people, as you point out, argue against guns due to the deadliness of the weapon. Then refuse to apply that same concern on more deadly things then that means the deadliness of the weapon isnt the issue, they dont mind more dangerous things being accessible. So now the argument becomes "this weapon is used to hurt more people than other more deadly weapons, so THAT is the reason it should be illegal.

Then this logic likewise fails in fantastic fashion. Melee weapons are the most commonly form of weapon used in the USA (bats, blunt objects, knives, etc) for assaults and violence (which would include homicide) Melee for example is ~160K a year where handguns are ~150K a year.

So again if logic was actually applied consistently then melee weapons, being the weapon most often used to inflict violence would be our top concern and most regulated form of weapons, not guns.

> If there were a rash of high-profile mass-poisonings, I'd wager the same people *would* be calling for tighter restrictions.

There is already a consistent pattern of other weapons being used for violence more often than handguns.. I dont hear the screams to regulate bats or knives.