[WS:] I do not want to speak for others, but I explicitly stated early on in this thread that no regulation would likely prevent an event like Lanza's shooting spree. I was making a different argument - I linked the Lanza's case to a broader tendency of fire arm related deaths in the US (both intentional and accidental) and made the following argument:
1. Everything else being equal, the greater the number of weapons available (or easily accessible at least), the greater the number of weapon-related deaths and injuries due to the law of probability and great numbers. In other words, if a chance of an event is 1% and if the number of trials is 10, the chances are are you will not see that event. However, if the number of trials is 10,000 you are almost guaranteed to see about a 100 or so such events. These are just pure chance events,like people mishandling their weapons or blowing a gasket.
2. Since everything else is seldom equal, we need to look into factors that increase the chance of an event. We do not need large increases, small ones will do especially if we talk about large numbers. For example, sociologists identified different conditions, such as social disorganization, government stance, or class inequality.poverty that are likely to increase the probability of violence; this increased probability, in conjunction with the easy availability of weapons is likely to result in higher incidence of gun related deaths and injuries. Importantly, guns do not "cause" these acts of violence, but increase the probability of the lethal outcome of such acts.
By this logic, limiting the access to weapons (which is not the same as limiting ownership), will reduce the probability of weapon related deaths and injuries. It will not prevent them, it will not solve social problems that cause criminal behavior, but it it will reduce in fewer deaths. In other words, limiting access to weapon is virtually certain to save a few thousand souls in the US every year. It is not perfect, but better than the status quo.
That is the crux of my argument. I also happen to believe fire arm regulation in the US is rather lax and very ineffective, and far more can be done in this respect - akin to regulation of other products that pose public safety hazard - all of it without outlawing the possession of fire arms by private citizens. I can possess something but that does mean I can use it any way I please. I cannot drive my car where I want, I cannot remodel my house without a permit, I cannot smoke or drink where I want (not that I do), I cannot take my animals where I want, nor can I dress in a way that offends public decency. But few if any of such restrictions apply to guns. So my argument is that we can do far more than we currently do to reduce access to guns.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."