The thought of wanting to choose a gun to kill someone takes the human brain to do such action, Getting rid of guns wont fix that problem. At that point you are considered a criminal therefore you are not going to follow the law. You will get it from someone, Cartels, any other source available.
Criminals are not a separate class of individuals; increasing operational friction to get a gun makes everyone less likely to get one, including criminals. Especially in an American context where most shootings are disputes between individuals and not otherwise premeditated. "Axes, torches, chain saws, knives, which can also be used as weapons[sic]" but those have much lower lethality, so with those, it remains assault. With a gun, it becomes a homicide
A Criminal is a criminal regardless of the person, The gun itself doesnt shoot anyone the person chooses to shoot someone either for a reason of robbery, act of violance due to a heated argument. Tthat is a per cases basis of that persons moal charecter Not the fact they have a gun or any weapon for that matter. So you are saying if someone decides to rob a house which happens more than you think or mass shootings is not premeditated? Surely you have to think about how to do such act before you do it. Taking the guns away doesnt solve the problem in them situations. Their are alot of cases where the Active shooter or intruder whichever the case is was subdued by another Law biding citizen was there carrying as well because the media does not disclose everyhting that is needed.
I agree there. If you break into a house with the intent to rob the family, you get shot dead in the process you are not going to do such act again thats up to whoever your higher power to decide what happens. In the grand scheme of things the act by that same person isnt happening again.
IF you committ an act or in progress of doing such you have committed a criminal act if it is not "self defense" The lower leathality doesnt matter I can axe someone til they die the only difference its not as easier to gain such task unlike a gun as it can be done from a distance unlike an axe or torch. It still can kill regardless of the tool/weapon. anything can become a weapon.
My argument is that firearms access makes homicides far more likely. Not crime per se. Firearm access turns what would otherwise be simple assaults into homicides. Most homicides are disputes between parties and where a self-defense argument doesn't make much sense. There's a weaker argument on mass shootings that adding operational friction which itself make mass shootings less frequent; US rates of mass shootings are still the highest in the DM.
Intent is often not strong. It's for the most part, temporarily formed and only lasts momentarily. It's thus a matter of degree: keeping the worst-case outcome of intent as assault compared to homicide are different. This argument is a bit circular too since "we need guns to defend against other people with guns and if we ban guns, only criminals will have guns" but most criminals either acquire firearms legally or acquire firearms through through theft from a legal civilian market. Increasing that operational friction to acquire firearms would reduce crime of all sorts. The mass shooting case is a bit of a strawman in any case since most shootings are disputes between people that know each other. Everyone being armed in a business dispute makes it more dangerous for everyone; no one being armed makes everyone safer.
Assault is a better outcome than homicide for everyone.
It does matter though! Most crime lasts only for a fleeting moment and since survivorship rates for blunt force trauma and stabbings are higher than shootings, there are substantially improved public health outcomes if crime is done with knives instead of guns
