Summations Only

What is it irrelevant to? I've already showed what it was relevant to (a discussion about gun control).

While I agree that there are circumstances where getting hold of your gun may be more difficult than getting hold of your knife, I don't agree that this means much - as the opposite circumstances could exist. And further - the gun still has the attraction over the knife in the killing business, so even if it was marginally more difficult to access your gun (ie., you have to do the rather trivial task of unlocking a case) I don't think unlocking a case makes it a lot more difficult to get your gun. Not to the degree that pulling a trigger is easier than stabbing someone.Furthermore, I should stress that I'm not 'making the argument'. I'm telling you what it is, because you seemed to not know it. I can believe that. And most people know their killer, too.

Well, I'm afraid I don't see why opening a lock is something that you really can't do if your mad enough to kill someone. Nor do I suppose that all people have their guns locked when passions rise. That's probably why about 1/4 of murders in the USA are related to an argument.Source, and 2/3 of which involved firearms (especially handguns) and only about 1/4 involve knives. About 180 murders were committed by people involved in brawls while armed (or within reach of a firearm) and under the influence of drugs (2010) - 1/2 of which involved a firearm and again only 1/4 involved knives.When tempers flare, people still tend to turn to guns more than they turn to knives - despite any impediments you might imagine may exist in certain circumstances. I have no idea. But so goes the argument. It's pretty difficult to test it in practice. To be honest, I don't think moral norms are in consideration in many instances of homicide. I would agree that it won't always be an obstacle, as can be seen by the above stats. But I think its reasonable to think it might be enough of a factor to dissuade some percentage of murderously inclined people.But that's what it comes down to really, intuition. Definitive study seems impossible to conduct, and I don't think any study so far definitively shows us anything. I agree again.

I don't think unlocking a cabinet constitutes a fine motor task. Nor does remembering a short string of numbers really constitute anything particularly difficult. And to answer the question the last time that happened was the first and only time I've completed the construction of a card pyramid using a complete pack of cards - so yeah, I think fine motor skills were in working order.Maybe I'm the exception, but as the figures I posted indicate - somehow people overcome these difficulties you are thinking of enough times to make shooting someone in the course of an argument a major player in the overall homicide statistics while stabbing someone in the same general circumstances is rarer.

The main problem is that governments aren't honest, because they know how to manipulate large numbers in terms of election theory. An armed populace has not lead to honesty in American politics, as the amount of honesty in American politics is as minimal as possible. Nor has it served as much a dissuasion from corruption, denying people rights, acquiring ever more powers to spy on the population. Sometimes I wonder if the only thing the American people would revolt over is gun ownership - 'We need our guns to stop the government gettin' our guns!'American tyranny will probably come at the consent of the People - much like German tyranny in the 20th Century. I doubt anyone is going to try a military coup or a 'people's' revolution. I think RPGs are generally the Soviet ones, the ones the 'bad guys' use. The good guys use LAWs I think these days, though bazookas too I think (Rocket Launcher M1 and variants, the M9 and others). But I'm no military geek, so I could be wrong. I don't care who regulates them, but sure I'm happy for the states to do their own regulating. I'm perfectly content for the states to regulate marriage. As long as they do it within the realms of federal law. For instance, I would oppose a state that said that only white people could marry, and my argument would probably look very much like the argument that states should allow gay marriage. Again, as long as the states regulations are lawful, I'm fine with them regulating the displays of religion.The current consensus among the judicial branch seems to be that governments cannot display religious items that could be construed as promoting one religion etc. So the states regulations should reflect this. We've done gay marriage, gun control, abortion, the liberal media, and whatever else has struck as sufficiently interesting to discuss. I look forward to seeing future posts from you.