Gun Bans

[Yes Im Biop]

So... RPGs are illegal in the US. Why is it we don't see a rash of crimes committed with them, again?

No their not.

[Yes Im Biop]

More because the regulations on them stop people who would use them for evil from owning them. People can own them, but only if they pass a massive BATFE licensing regime.

As I said, you have to pay for all that licensing, plus you have to pay a couple thousand to get the launcher itself, plus who knows how much for each Rocket

85$ + 200 dollar's per Rocket.

[Sibirsky]

A picture can say anything. Find the actual statistics.

Why me, and not the guy that posted an unsourced list of stats, that I was responding to?

[New England and The Maritimes]

As I said, you have to pay for all that licensing, plus you have to pay a couple thousand to get the launcher itself, plus who knows how much for each Rocket

85$ + 200 dollar's per Rocket.

Right, and the reason criminals don't have unregistered RPGs is...? You're all claiming any attempted weapons ban will just leave the streets flooded with criminals who will have the weapons regardless of registration requirements, sooo...

[Rusvik]

The amount of straw in this thread makes my fucking head hurt.

EDIT: You know what? It's not just straw, it's baiting, smearing, biased sourcing, repetitively repeated generic arguments, and generally the fact that these gun regulation debates seem to degenerate into the adult equivalent of 'YOU SUCK!" "NO, YOU DO!"

That's not debating, that's acting like a child. I'm a pro-gun socialist but the majority of you are behaving in a disgustingly idiotic manner.

[Yes Im Biop]

85$ + 200 dollar's per Rocket.

Right, and the reason criminals don't have unregistered RPGs is...? You're all claiming any attempted weapons ban will just leave the streets flooded with criminals who will have the weapons regardless of registration requirements, sooo...

That's per Rocket. The Tube is probably 10+ Grand. And RPG's are VERY Noticeable weapon's my guess is the Gang Banger's don't feel like involving the National guard in any Gang Wars

[Alowwvia]

85$ + 200 dollar's per Rocket.

Right, and the reason criminals don't have unregistered RPGs is...? You're all claiming any attempted weapons ban will just leave the streets flooded with criminals who will have the weapons regardless of registration requirements, sooo...

RPGS are simply obsolete for the purposes a criminal would need it for. It's expensive to fire, hard to conceal, and has limited uses, of which is is limited mostly to "Blow up a car in an action movie starring a bald white guy to show you mean business". Why WOULD you use an RPG for any reason if you're not trying to kill someone in an armored vehicle, which is the entire point of the RPG?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Right, and the reason criminals don't have unregistered RPGs is...? You're all claiming any attempted weapons ban will just leave the streets flooded with criminals who will have the weapons regardless of registration requirements, sooo...

That's per Rocket. The Tube is probably 10+ Grand. And RPG's are VERY Noticeable weapon's my guess is the Gang Banger's don't feel like involving the National guard in any Gang Wars

Yes. Why don't criminals have unregistered RPGs? Only outlaws, etc? What keeps them off the streets.

[Alowwvia]

That's per Rocket. The Tube is probably 10+ Grand. And RPG's are VERY Noticeable weapon's my guess is the Gang Banger's don't feel like involving the National guard in any Gang Wars

Yes. Why don't criminals have unregistered RPGs? Only outlaws, etc? What keeps them off the streets.

Because they are borderline useless for the act of committing crimes?

[Chernoslavia]

Right, and the reason criminals don't have unregistered RPGs is...? You're all claiming any attempted weapons ban will just leave the streets flooded with criminals who will have the weapons regardless of registration requirements, sooo...

RPGS are simply obsolete for the purposes a criminal would need it for. It's expensive to fire, hard to conceal, and has limited uses, of which is is limited mostly to "Blow up a car in an action movie starring a bald white guy to show you mean business". Why WOULD you use an RPG for any reason if you're not trying to kill someone in an armored vehicle, which is the entire point of the RPG?

We dont need a reason to own one, we own them because we feel like owning one.

[Nua Corda]

I have an honest question, actually:

What makes a member of the United States Army Infantry, or a NYPD officer have more right to own an automatic weapon than I do?

What specifically gives the MILITARY a right to own something that a CIVILIAN can't? Where is it written that wearing a uniform means you are more responsible or in the right to own something than anyone else? I'm not trying to be insulting, but I do not think that they need an automatic weapon any more, or less than I do, and I don't think anything should give certain institutions, wheter they are federal or not, more rights than the common person. I think all people should have the exact same amount of rights to be allowed to own more than this or that class of people.

Why, I ask, are politicians defended by a team of men with sub-machine guns, if I couldn't carry an MP5 to defend myself? What gives THEM the right to be defended with an automatic weapon? Why not me? Am I worth LESS as a person than they are? I don't think so. 'The state', as a term in the United States Constitution, refers not to the federal government, but to the people as a whole. In that regard, who is protecting me? The military acts under the orders of the federal government. Police departments work under their own orders, and follow the law of the land. So who, then, takes the orders from me, to defend me? Only one person will do that: Myself. So why, then, am I to be less armed than our federal government? Why am I deemed to be worth less than a politician, or a general, or an officer?

Of those three, I do respect the general and the officers, and maybe a couple politicians on a good day, but at the end of the day, none of them are going to protect me from anything. They've got much bigger fish to fry than threats to my personal safety, and it's my responsibility to protect my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in their absence, inability, or lack of directive to do so for me.

Because they have to answer to the chain of command, are not allowed to be insane nutbags, are properly trained, and have rules about when they can use their guns. Because they actually need them, and the benefit of them having them outweighs the potential harm of them not. Unlike civilians, who are varied, sometimes very stupid or insane, not trained well if at all, and don't have commanders to stop them from murdering people.

No. You just don't need one, might not be trustworthy enough to own one, and could potentially do a massive amount of harm with one. You shouldn't need defense beyond the laws of the land.

Not true. The Police exist to protect people. They just sometimes don't have the funding or manpower to do so in every case. But you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself from criminals. This ain't Death Wish, and you ain't Charles Bronson. Get over it.

Now, I do think you should be allowed to own automatics, provided you can qualify for an ATF Class III license. If you can't? Cry me a river.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It always frightens me how gun owners have such a deep worship of guns and a lust for violence.

I don't worship firearms. I do enjoy going to the range with my friends (and hopefully it's something I'll get to do more often this year), but it's far from the only thing I think about, and it's not even the thing I think about the most (right now, I'm doing a lot of research on BBQ, it's going to be time to fire up the grill soon). I also don't have a lust for violence, unless it's for those damn paper targets (paper cuts hurt ).

[Free Detroit]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town

[...]

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

In reality, strict regulations or outright banning of guns would likely lower gun violence.

Gun rights folks (I am one) do not like to admit this, because admitting it is against our interests and, given a host of other underlying discourses, it will be taken as overly significant; anti-gun folks harp on it like the gun rights folks don't get it (and, to be fair, some don't) and if they did get it, suddenly they'd see the light and be willing to give up their guns.

I'm just going to say it, then - I do think that we need gun control to stop gun violence, because if guns are everywhere, a lot more people are going to go apeshit and kill people. I would suggest that participation in gun violence is a rather commonplace fantasy in the US, and I would argue that, essentially, gun control is there to stop people who have been completely subjugated from taking advantage of the only (if totally irrational) way they have to regain their honor and dignity in the face of a really shitty way of running human society.

In other words, yes, I am defending the utterly lost cause that mass shootings and popular insurgency represent, because they cast a stark light on the general failures of our society.

For example: why does Militiaman X fantasize daily about engaging in the violent overthrow of, or defense against, the established order? why does a relatively normal guy suddenly wig out at his high stress, dead end job and start popping rounds into coworkers? Why does some kid grab his folk's rifles and a couple home-made pipe bombs and start blasting up the shithole suburban school where he faces constant harassment and public ridicule for failing to find constant joy and affirmation in his community's hamfisted production of docile, mindless wage slaves?

Could it be that our entire way of living is so fucked up that it breaks people like this? Could it be that we only want to control guns because gun violence reminds us of how fucked up we are?

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Not entirely true.

Excluding deliberately lit bushfires, 17 people have died in Australia in mass murders. 15 died in an Arson in 2000 and 2 died in A mass shooting in 2002.

So then I expect to find those cases in the pdf you just posted right? I haven't found any unless I'm missing something here.

New Zealand had a cluster of Mass shootings in the late 80's to the mid 90's just like Australia. The two countries are very similar culturally and economically.
One of the differences between the two is that Semi-Automatic rifles are still legal in New Zealand and NZ gun laws are fairly permissive compared to Australia or the world in General.

I don't know much about the gun policies in New Zealand or if they had just as much sweeping reforms in gun control as Australia had. So I can't tell you much about that.

Neither country has had a mass shooting since the mid 90's.

http://www.cjcj.org/files/Mass_shootings.pdf

Well, according to the 2011 pdf which you just posted, the table 1 chart lists mass shooting cases in Australia and not one of them lists any mass shooting cases after 1996, except for one which only took place in New Zealand. The earliest case of mass shootings in Australia the pdf cited took place in 1981 which killed 5 people.

[Nua Corda]

In 1996, Australia passed a massive reform gun regulations and laws after a devastating mass shooting in a small town

[...]

16 years later, wanna know how many cases of mass shootings they've had since then? A big stinking fat ZERO!

In Japan, take 2006 for example, they suffered only 2 gun homicides while the US, whose population is 3x larger, suffered 10,225. No one can own a gun in Japan, except air-powered rifles. And even then, you'd have to jump through hoops and red tape to even own an air-powered rifle.

In reality, strict regulations or outright banning of guns would likely lower gun violence.

Gun rights folks (I am one) do not like to admit this, because admitting it is against our interests and, given a host of other underlying discourses, it will be taken as overly significant; anti-gun folks harp on it like the gun rights folks don't get it (and, to be fair, some don't) and if they did get it, suddenly they'd see the light and be willing to give up their guns.

I'm just going to say it, then - I do think that we need gun control to stop gun violence, because if guns are everywhere, a lot more people are going to go apeshit and kill people. I would suggest that participation in gun violence is a rather commonplace fantasy in the US, and I would argue that, essentially, gun control is there to stop people who have been completely subjugated from taking advantage of the only (if totally irrational) way they have to regain their honor and dignity in the face of a really shitty way of running human society.

In other words, yes, I am defending the utterly lost cause that mass shootings and popular insurgency represent, because they cast a stark light on the general failures of our society.

For example: why does Militiaman X fantasize daily about engaging in the violent overthrow of, or defense against, the established order? why does a relatively normal guy suddenly wig out at his high stress, dead end job and start popping rounds into coworkers? Why does some kid grab his folk's rifles and a couple home-made pipe bombs and start blasting up the shithole suburban school where he faces constant harassment and public ridicule for failing to find constant joy and affirmation in his community's hamfisted production of docile, mindless wage slaves?

Could it be that our entire way of living is so fucked up that it breaks people like this? Could it be that we only want to control guns because gun violence reminds us of how fucked up we are?

Fix'd for ya. Banning guns outright (and especially rifles) will not stop the violence. Extensive regulations, however, will, to a degree.

[Alowwvia]

Because they have to answer to the chain of command

And the people in chains of command are infallible? Are they working to defend me at all times? Will they stop someone from taking my life, will they put THEIR life on the line for ME?

are not allowed to be insane nutbags

Most people aren't. Myself included.

are properly trained and have rules about when they can use their guns.

Hey, me too, what a coincidence.

Because they actually need them, and the benefit of them having them outweighs the potential harm of them not.

Like me.

Unlike civilians, who are varied, sometimes very stupid or insane, not trained well if at all, and don't have commanders to stop them from murdering people.

So we have to punish the majority for the few people who are stupid, then? Everyone needs to suffer?

No. You just don't need one, might not be trustworthy enough to own one, and could potentially do a massive amount of harm with one. You shouldn't need defense beyond the laws of the land.

You don't have the authority or knowledge of me to say that. You know nothing about me.

Not true. The Police exist to protect people.

The police will not instantly show up and put their life on the line the second I need them too. They aren't magic, they aren't angels, and they aren't always self-sacrificing or even always great shots. I can't count on police, though I do respect them and recognize them as necessary.

They just sometimes don't have the funding or manpower to do so in every case.

This is also true.

But you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself from criminals.

I disagree, I disagree a lot.

This ain't Death Wish, and you ain't Charles Bronson. Get over it.

"durr u think ur an akshun heroo lol"

Now, I do think you should be allowed to own automatics, provided you can qualify for an ATF Class III license. If you can't? Cry me a river.

Jesus Christ, all of this argument for you to end up AGREEING with me? holy shit

I never said unqualified people should be able to own weapons. I argue AGAINST that all the time.

[Scandinaviay]

Why does gun rights argument always turn to UK or Australia? Maybe what works there will not in US? Why do gun rights activists talk about Czech Republic or Finland?

[Nua Corda]

Because they have to answer to the chain of command

And the people in chains of command are infallible? Are they working to defend me at all times? Will they stop someone from taking my life, will they put THEIR life on the line for ME?

Not nessesarily infallible, but a hell of a lot better than John P. Civilian in most if not all cases. That is rather the point of them, yes.

are not allowed to be insane nutbags

Most people aren't. Myself included.

But those who are? That's why we have Class III Licenses. So those who are not can get autos

are properly trained and have rules about when they can use their guns.

Hey, me too, what a coincidence.

Are you ex-Military/Law Enforcement? If not, then you don't. And you don't have superiors and hundreds of armed people around you constantly to enforce those rule.

Because they actually need them, and the benefit of them having them outweighs the potential harm of them not.

Like me.

No, not like you. You don't need an automatic weapon, and if you happen to be insane, then the harm outweighs the negligable benefit

Unlike civilians, who are varied, sometimes very stupid or insane, not trained well if at all, and don't have commanders to stop them from murdering people.

So we have to punish the majority for the few people who are stupid, then? Everyone needs to suffer?

The needs of the potential victims of gun violence outweigh the wants of a few people, yes. Though I wouldn't call not being allowed to own an automatic weapon suffering in any sense of the word.

No. You just don't need one, might not be trustworthy enough to own one, and could potentially do a massive amount of harm with one. You shouldn't need defense beyond the laws of the land.

You don't have the authority or knowledge of me to say that. You know nothing about me.

No, I don't know anything about you. Which means I must consider the possibility that you are a crazy wacko. Oh, and assuming that everyone in the US is identical to yourself is a fallacy, by the by

Not true. The Police exist to protect people.

The police will not instantly show up and put their life on the line the second I need them too. They aren't magic, they aren't angels, and they aren't always self-sacrificing or even always great shots. I can't count on police, though I do respect them and recognize them as necessary.

Not always, no. But the chances of you actually needing them too? Slim to none. Even less if people are not walking around with automatic weapons. And in the case of needing to? I hardly think you'd need an automatic.

They just sometimes don't have the funding or manpower to do so in every case.

This is also true.

But you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself from criminals.

I disagree, I disagree a lot.

The only thing you need an automatic weapon for is suppressing fire. That's something only the military and law enforcement needs. All you need is a decent pistol to protect yourself from attack by most if not all criminals.

This ain't Death Wish, and you ain't Charles Bronson. Get over it.

"durr u think ur an akshun heroo lol"

Then stop acting like you do, and get a grip on reality.

Now, I do think you should be allowed to own automatics, provided you can qualify for an ATF Class III license. If you can't? Cry me a river.

Jesus Christ, all of this argument for you to end up AGREEING with me? holy shit

I never said unqualified people should be able to own weapons. I argue AGAINST that all the time.

Well, why didn't you say so? Seemed to me you were arguing for any Tom, Dick or Harry being allowed to own an M249 because teh ebil gubernments. But, if we agree that regulation is required, and that the current regulation of automatic weapons is sufficent, then your arguement is rather moot...

Responses in red.

[Alowwvia]

Why does gun rights argument always turn to UK or Australia? Maybe what works there will not in US? Why do gun rights activists talk about Czech Republic or Finland?

They seem to like to overlook, also, that the UK and Australia lack massive ghetto hives like Chicago where most of these 'gun homicides' occur, where it's usually gang violence.

I can't fathom the idea that gangs will stop trying to kill people when their ammunition runs out. You know what they'll do? They'll face off in the streets, Warriors-style, and beat eahc other with baseball bats. They'll hit each other with their cars, they'll burn each other's houses down, and they'll shank each other in the streets.

After a total ban on the sale of firearms and ammunition, I guarantee you that the only decrease will be in GUN-related death, not counting illegal firearms (which there are plenty of, and even if you banned the sale of guns and ammo, the use of firearms by criminals would continue well into the 2050's due to the sheer, massive amount of it just floating around). The number of batteries, stabbings, hit-and-runs, arsons, not to mention break-ins (there is now no reason to NOT break in somebody's home, it's not dangerous), rapes, muggings, carjackings, and so on.

[Alowwvia]

And the people in chains of command are infallible? Are they working to defend me at all times? Will they stop someone from taking my life, will they put THEIR life on the line for ME?

Not nessesarily infallible, but a hell of a lot better than John P. Civilian in most if not all cases. That is rather the point of them, yes.



Most people aren't. Myself included.

But those who are? That's why we have Class III Licenses. So those who are not can get autos



Hey, me too, what a coincidence.

Are you ex-Military/Law Enforcement? If not, then you don't. And you don't have superiors and hundreds of armed people around you constantly to enforce those rule.



Like me.

No, not like you. You don't need an automatic weapon, and if you happen to be insane, then the harm outweighs the negligable benefit


So we have to punish the majority for the few people who are stupid, then? Everyone needs to suffer?

The needs of the potential victims of gun violence outweigh the wants of a few people, yes. Though I wouldn't call not being allowed to own an automatic weapon suffering in any sense of the word.



You don't have the authority or knowledge of me to say that. You know nothing about me.

No, I don't know anything about you. Which means I must consider the possibility that you are a crazy wacko. Oh, and assuming that everyone in the US is identical to yourself is a fallacy, by the by




The police will not instantly show up and put their life on the line the second I need them too. They aren't magic, they aren't angels, and they aren't always self-sacrificing or even always great shots. I can't count on police, though I do respect them and recognize them as necessary.

Not always, no. But the chances of you actually needing them too? Slim to none. Even less if people are not walking around with automatic weapons. And in the case of needing to? I hardly think you'd need an automatic.



This is also true.



I disagree, I disagree a lot.

The only thing you need an automatic weapon for is suppressing fire. That's something only the military and law enforcement needs. All you need is a decent pistol to protect yourself from attack by most if not all criminals.



"durr u think ur an akshun heroo lol"

Then stop acting like you do, and get a grip on reality.



Jesus Christ, all of this argument for you to end up AGREEING with me? holy shit

I never said unqualified people should be able to own weapons. I argue AGAINST that all the time.

Well, why didn't you say so? Seemed to me you were arguing for any Tom, Dick or Harry being allowed to own an M249 because teh ebil gubernments. But, if we agree that regulation is required, and that the current regulation of automatic weapons is sufficent, then your arguement is rather moot...

Responses in red.

Alright, let me try again:

I am for THE MORE COMPETANT REGULATION of ALL WEAPONS. I am not for "ban this and that bcuz MASS SHOOTINS MUH FEELIN'S WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN'S"

I am sternly against banning an AR-15 because it has 'the shoulder thing that goes up', or anything else that 'increases its child-killing capacity' or whatever the fuck. I'm against people making exceptions for politicians or anyone else, and I'm against people not only ASSUMING I'm incapable of defending myself right off the bat, but also being unwilling to acknowledge that I could EVER be able to do so. That's what pisses me off the most.

And hey, here's the thing: The police can fail when you need them most. My step-father is a police-officer, and they're good people, generally. I love cops, actually. But, they're fallible. My step-father knows the value of keeping a gun in the home, and while I agree that fully-automatic firearms aren't always needed for self-defense, there is always the chance it might be. Even if it's the chances of, say, getting struck by lighting. But I still don't carry umbrella's made of electric-conducting material out in the rain.

I do practice self-defense, as often as I can, really. I'm not paranoid, even if you disagree, but I just don't want to become a statistic myself. I don't want to be the girl in the headline 'Woman Raped and Strangled to Death in Own Home Last Night', or the 'Girl Beaten to Death by Boyfriend'. These things happen. They really do. Not often, no, but they do, and I'm determined to minimize my chances of it happening to me.

[Free Detroit]

Fix'd for ya. Banning guns outright (and especially rifles) will not stop the violence. Extensive regulations, however, will, to a degree.

I'm fine with that. I am opposed to gun regulation anyway, as a matter of principle.

[Nua Corda]

Responses in red.

Alright, let me try again:

I am for THE MORE COMPETANT REGULATION of ALL WEAPONS. I am not for "ban this and that bcuz MASS SHOOTINS MUH FEELIN'S WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILLUN'S"

I am sternly against banning an AR-15 because it has 'the shoulder thing that goes up', or anything else that 'increases its child-killing capacity' or whatever the fuck. I'm against people making exceptions for politicians or anyone else, and I'm against people not only ASSUMING I'm incapable of defending myself right off the bat, but also being unwilling to acknowledge that I could EVER be able to do so. That's what pisses me off the most.

And hey, here's the thing: The police can fail when you need them most. My step-father is a police-officer, and they're good people, generally. I love cops, actually. But, they're fallible. My step-father knows the value of keeping a gun in the home, and while I agree that fully-automatic firearms aren't always needed for self-defense, there is always the chance it might be. Even if it's the chances of, say, getting struck by lighting. But I still don't carry umbrella's made of electric-conducting material out in the rain.

I do practice self-defense, as often as I can, really. I'm not paranoid, even if you disagree, but I just don't want to become a statistic myself. I don't want to be the girl in the headline 'Woman Raped and Strangled to Death in Own Home Last Night', or the 'Girl Beaten to Death by Boyfriend'. These things happen. They really do. Not often, no, but they do, and I'm determined to minimize my chances of it happening to me.

1. There we can agree, most definately.

2. I'm against banning anything outright. Regulate, don't ban. That's me. I think we may have a bit of a misunderstanding here.

3. Aye, and a safe can fall on my head, but I still feel perfectly comfortable walking under tall buildings. A crazy-ass terrorist could detonate a nuke in my hometown, but you don't see me cowering in a fallout shelter.

4. Which is great. But you don't need an automatic for that story to end well. The #1 weapon recovered by police is a knife. The #1 firearm recovered is a short-barreled revolver, usually .38 Special. Only 2% of gun crimes are committed with a rifle. This is what criminals carry. You don't need to suppress them with fully automatic fire to allow artillery or other indirect fire to finish them off (the only reason for automatic weapons), a simple M1911 clone, preferably in 10mm Auto, is more than enough to fend off your average thug or angry spouse.

[Nua Corda]

Fix'd for ya. Banning guns outright (and especially rifles) will not stop the violence. Extensive regulations, however, will, to a degree.

I'm fine with that. I am opposed to gun regulation anyway, as a matter of principle.

Huh?

[Free Detroit]

Why does gun rights argument always turn to UK or Australia? Maybe what works there will not in US? Why do gun rights activists talk about Czech Republic or Finland?

They seem to like to overlook, also, that the UK and Australia lack massive ghetto hives like Chicago where most of these 'gun homicides' occur, where it's usually gang violence.

They seem to also overlook the fact that the UK, even more than the US, has come to rely upon an ever-expanding and totalitarian system of mass surveillance in order to control its increasingly restless lower classes; this, at least, indicates that it might not be entirely in the interest of the people that the UK wants to minimize access to weapons. Note I am not suggesting there is a brewing revolution in England, but simply - as in the extended post above - that popular violence, like crime in general, tends to indicate social failure, and that gun control legislation (or even the threat of legislation), surveillance, and other overt symbols of government control serve to cover up the fact that those who would institute such measures are only doing so because they've fucked up everything they are supposed to be for society.

[Free Detroit]

I'm fine with that. I am opposed to gun regulation anyway, as a matter of principle.

Huh?

Huh, what? I am not "opposed" to gun violence, or mass shootings, or any of the "bad stuff" gun control reactionaries use for argument. I see them simply as symptoms of a broken society, and suggest that the fact that the state's only recourse is removal of the means of violence (rather than resolving the cause of, or motivation for, such violence) is evidence that the state has failed on a fundamental level and, thus, proven that it ought not have such responsibility.

The tool of violence is, in fact, not the problem. Take away the guns, and all the reasons for someone to snap and shoot up a school or office still remain, they just get covered up by the fact that the means have been taken away. It obfuscates social failure - that is the sole reason the state gives a shit about controlling guns.