I'll break it down for you: GP made a statement, that since people already have guns, making guns illegal doesn't fix the problem.
Except that isn't what the original poster stated; which was that those people are already breaking the law in carrying the guns, thus it is not reasonable to assume that making another law is going to modify their behavior.
Maybe your assumption is that some sort of gun control only applies to the individual on the street, and since he's already breaking the law by owning a gun, everyone should own a gun in order to be safe. The problem is, when everyone owns a gun, guns are easier to come by, i.e. a society with 1 gun is far less likely to result in gun violence than a society with 1 billion guns. So, yes, it is reasonable to assume that new law can modify someone's already illegal behaviour.
You may not like the analogy, but the logic is sound: laws do good for society.
The problem is you're trying to base your argument upon that being a truism. Laws also do harm to society. Most all laws, in fact, do both, but there is no reason to suppose the balance is in any particular direction and the original poster stated a reason why it is unlikely to do good in this case.
Not really, I was just making a rather flippant comment, but if I had to say, then, ya, I'd say I'd rather have laws than no laws.
Making it illegal to own butcher knives almost certainly would reduce the number of deaths by butcher knife.
It might be, but reducing murders with butcher knives is a logical misstatement of the problem.
And it is also sound to say that it is easier to kill with a gun than with a knife. And it is sound to say that by making it more difficult to kill people, less people will be killed.
I reject the assumption that making any particular implement illegal to own makes it harder to kill people. In fact, when a particular implement is already being used illegally by criminals and legally by non-criminals it has to opposite effect. That is to say, one more law means nothing to a criminal, whereas the lack of a defensive tool in the hands of those who obey the laws makes killing easier for them.
I think this is where we part ways, because if you're saying that you can kill me with a knife as easy as you can kill me with a gun, then I really don't know what to say.
It should also be noted that most criminals aren't interested in murder. Most gun deaths occur because a gun is handy in an emotional situation.
We're talking about whether a gun makes you safer.
Actually, no we're not. We're talking about the effect of guns specifically on crime, which is a completely different matter.
The subject of this and your very own post begs to differ.
You're simply making the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Because people die with guns you assume the causation is that gun result in more overall death. There is NO evidence to support said hypothetical causation. Moreover, there is significant evidence to refute it in regard to crime, such as the increase in violent crime and murder overall in the UK, when the strict gun controls came into effect; or the worldwide lack of correlation between firearm legislation and rates of violent crime and murder. While I'm sure you are only concerned if you are shot to death, some people don't really prefer being beaten with clubs, stabbed, or blown up as a preference.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've provided links, and you haven't. Show me the studies that say the more guns a society has, the less gun deaths they have.
The data I've seen (and provided) supports the hypothesis that less gun ownership means more safety.
What do you mean by "safety"? To quote, "Do not be too proud of your safety for even a thief in prison is safe from robbery by another thief." Personally I support the right to suicide and effective tools with which to commit the act. Fewer botched suicides is fine with me. I also support providing free mental health services to the citizenry, and other healthcare while we're at it. Statistically, it will have a much, much, much more dramatic effect upon rates of death and rates of violent crime than any firearm legislation could. It's a sad society that judges "safety" by the rate at which it prevents people from dying at a time and in a manner of their choosing when life becomes unbearable to them.
Agree completely on suicide and body-autonomy issues in general. It's your body, you can off yourself if you want to, and yes, guns will make that easier (link provided above :-P). Also agree on more mental health services. I also agree that mental health is a better place to put money than gun control in general.
I also agree that safety is a complex issue. When I used it above, I was referring to personal safety (on a societal level) from gun violence. Of course, there are other reasons for having an armed society... but, personally, I don't see armed revolutions being very effective these days.