Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

I was going to respond to Sinanju, but this makes the point better. Thanks.

I tend to avoid gun-control discussions because you're right, my heart's not in it. It's not a burning issue for me either way. I'm reasonably sure I've never made this argument before anywhere.

But when I see unnecessary deaths, I tend to approach it from a public health perspective: can we reduce the deaths, and at what cost? I tend to think there is a balance in such things, although it often requires a value judgment on the relative worth of each element.

Where is the proper balance between gun rights and public safety? The answer is not 100% in either direction; it's somewhere in the middle.

Just as an example, strict restrictions on handguns don't bother me much. They cause the most mischief, homicidewise, while being the most useless in a "defense against tyranny" sense. Long rifles and even machine guns are far more useful for the latter, and less likely to be used for the former.

So as far as handguns are concerned, it then comes down to how much mischief they prevent vs. how much mischief they cause. And are there precautions we can take to maximize the first while minimizing the latter.

As for Sinanju's numbers, consider Switzerland. Outside the militia-required weaponry (which are rifles, not handguns, by the way) gun ownership is about half ours. And guns still account for about half of their homicides.

http://diodon349.com/Attack_on_America/swiss_guns.htm