> "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.
I guess I will conceed that you have made an air-tight statement, but I'll point out that it doesn't have anything to do with either a) the current state-of-the-headline conversation that the US is having in regards to Adam Lanza and "these type" of events; or the general problem with guns in the US, which I posit is violent crime.
Whatever fantasy world you have where laws could be written such that "limiting the access to weapons" would magically result, you'd still be left with most of the gun crime that is mostly violent crime. Your "reduction of probability" effectivgely takes a small number and makes it smaller. Congrats!
So fine: you are now the undisputed master of this inconsequential little point, which I'll add was not your original point nor even the secondary point you tried to make when your first one was taken from you (which had something to do with the relationship between guns and masculinity or some such twaddle, I think).
BTW, everytime you start a sentence with "By this logic ..." you seem to confirm my suspicion that you don't understand logic at all, and that whatever it is that is coming after should probably be treated the same way as sentences that start with "Like David Brooks says, ..."
/jordan