The problem is that guns are so readily available that even those that cannot use them responsibly can still get their hands on them. Three of the four guns used in Columbine weren't even purchased by the killers but by a fellow school mate who had turned 18 and could buy them for the killers. Similarly, with the Sandyhook shooting -- it wasn't even the shooter's gun that was used.

In the Columbine case, was the school mate prosecuted for, at the very least, negligently contributing to homicide?

With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it?

>With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it?

No, because she was the first person killed by the very weapon.

You don't see how, if people know they are legally responsible for what guns they own are used for if they give them to someone else, they would be more careful about who they give them to?

Obviously prosecuting someone after the fact is retroactive for that particular act. But that in no way means it does not send a signal to other people to proactively change their behavior. That is how most law enforcement has its effect. And it has the advantage of putting the responsibility where it belongs; whereas if you take away everyone's guns because a few people can't use them responsibly, or can't be bothered to be careful about who they give them to, you are punishing the wrong people.

Speed limits: Speed doesn't cause accidents just people who go faster than their ability to control the vehicle. Many people are sensible and wouldn't do this.

Drugs: Many people can take drugs and enjoy them and not descend into anti-social and criminal behavior.

Sure, and if "regulated" means a person has to show some proof of being a responsible citizen, that's fine.

This sort of attitude is a big reason why US politics is polarized around this issue. So let me try to adjust your "small punishment for a greater good" attitude a bit.

Guns are self-defense weapons. They are particularly useful as equalizers: a little old lady who can shoot can defend herself against a mugger much larger than her in a way she couldn't possibly do by any other means. So any government that proposes to take away people's guns "for a greater good" has an absolute obligation to extirpate any kind of violent crime that might cause a person to need a gun for self-defense. I mean "extirpate" literally: zero violent crime. Or at least so close to it as to be rounding error. But of course no government on Earth ever has or ever can achieve that level of control over violent crime, at least not in a free country. Perhaps China could do it, though even there I doubt it: China has criminal gangs.

So given that the government can't possibly make it truly unnecessary for any law-abiding citizen to need a gun, if the government still insists on taking away people's guns "for a greater good", the government is taking the attitude that, as long as the politicians who live in gated communities and have personal protective details can have their bodyguards have guns so they aren't victims of violent crime, they don't care that the people they're supposed to be representing are victims of violent crime and can't defend themselves. And that is not an acceptable attitude for the government of a free country.

Ah yes, the classic example of little old ladies defending themselves. This is pretty much a "think of the children" trope.

Guns in a home actually lead to greater dangers especially for women. Most people are actually murdered by someone they know, quite often a close relative of friend. It may not feel that way but you are actually safer not owning a gun.

No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person, you might well be safer owning a gun. At worst it will be neutral as far as your safety goes (if you live in an area that is safe anyway). The fact that irresponsible people will use guns to do irresponsible things is not a valid reason to blame the guns. The blame lies with the irresponsible people.

Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home.

It's not like people have mental breakdowns or have an onset of a mental illness, right? Of course not, once responsible, always responsible.

Doing that doesn't just "solve" gun violence. Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem.

> once responsible, always responsible

I made no such claim. Obviously the responsible/irresponsible judgment is not one you just make one time and then it never changes. Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.

Guns aren't the root problem but their accessibility is an enabler -- a multiplying force for opportunistic carnage.

>Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.

This goes against what we've seen with mass killers and the third parties involved: Average, every-day people convince themselves that their loved one / friend will get over whatever they're dealing with. We also know that many of these mass killers are sociopaths and have no difficulties in acting normal and hiding their motives.

That still doesn't justify taking away guns from people who aren't going to commit opportunistic carnage. The root problem is the people, not the guns.

> Average, every-day people convince themselves that their loved one / friend will get over whatever they're dealing with.

I get that this happens. But the average, every-day people still have to understand that, if there is a gun in the house, "convincing yourself" is not enough. Unless you are sure, i.e., sure enough to bet your own life on it (because you are) that the person is not going to misuse the gun, you cannot allow them access to it. That is perfectly compatible with still believing that they will get over it in time.

> We also know that many of these mass killers are sociopaths and have no difficulties in acting normal and hiding their motives.

If you are not sure that someone is not a sociopath, then don't allow them access to your gun.

I simply don't see any of these things as valid reasons to take away guns from people who are responsible adults. If your definition of "responsible adult" actually does not include making judgments like the above, and being able to separate your emotional desire for a loved one to "heal" from your rational, practical need to not give them access to guns until you're sure they are healed, then your definition of "responsible adult" is wrong. And if our society has deteriorated to the point where the definition of "responsible adult" I am giving--which to a person of, say, my parents' generation would have seemed so obvious as to not even be worth stating--is something "average, every-day people" do not think they can live up to, then we have a much, much bigger problem with our society than gun violence. Our society has adult problems that require adult solutions. That requires adult citizens. If we don't have adult citizens, our society is doomed.

I don't think you're arguing in good-faith here. The Misdeeds of criminals? It's not like mass shootings are carried out by felons. They're carried out by mentally ill people that have access to guns they should not have access to. They're not criminals until they take action.

I could say the same about you, but I'll just leave it that I don't think you have thought through your position.

> They're not criminals until they take action.

And nobody calls for banning guns until they take action either. At which point, as you say, they are criminals. So the calls for banning guns every time there's a mass shooting are exactly what I said: calls to punish law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals.