"You have a red dot on your forehead," said a child. Then a man shot his nephew.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

I can never be sure if you're joking or not.  Is this a serious point?

Obviously, some people may need a gun because they enjoy hunting or need it to kill/chase off a polar bear.  However, most people live in areas where hunting is illegal, right?  In terms of self-defense, the fact is that a gun in your house makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, guns make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious. 

I am trying to use humor to make a serious point.

Obviously, some people may need a car because they enjoy driving or need it to go someplace way off the beaten track.  Most people travel in areas where professional transport is available, right? In terms of transportation, the fact is that a car in your driveway makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, cars make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What right do you have to decide whether they benefit?  More people die from the misuse of cars than from the misuse of guns, considerably more if one doesn't count suicides by guns as a misuse.  That would seem to suggest that car control is a far more pressing need than gun control.  As an aside, I would add that it is a sad commentary on our society that we have made one of the more messy ways of suicide the easiest one for most people to obtain.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And so, we ought to regulate cars heavily and we do.  We ought to heavily regulate guns and cars in an well-considered and appropriate way.

Except you are advocating an inappropriate way of regulating guns by requiring people to justify owning one.  You're getting it all wrong in my opinion.  People should never have to justify a priori why they possess anything, rather the state should have the burden of justifying why a particular person shouldn't have a particular possession, be it a gun or any other item.  Liberal democracy depends upon the assumption that most adults can be treated as responsible adults and that the state needs to show that a particular adult is not responsible before not doing so.  If that presumption is false, then so is the idea that democracy will provide the best system of governance.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

The safety of the public.  Would allow people to buy nuclear weapons too?

How many people could actually afford them?  More seriously, do you really think that the laws we have about machine guns, explosives, and nuclear weapons accomplish the intended task of keeping nefarious people from acquiring them?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

So, you're advocating no regulation of any weapon, explosive or WMD?

No, I'm advocating no banning, not no regulation.  Just because I have libertarian tendencies doesn't not mean I'm one of those nuts who sees no role for government.  However, I do tend to be fairly skeptical about whether what government can do will accomplish what it intends to do.

Let's take for example the most extreme example, a nuclear weapon.  First off, there's all the health, safety, and environmental laws that would need to be followed in the production of a nuclear weapon.  Plus once you have the weapon, requirements concerning safe storage of the warhead and trigger locks to prevent accidental detonation.  Given all the expense involved, especially if suppliers would potentially be liable for the damages should their product be used for such a purpose, you'd need to be a billionaire to own one, and I doubt that billionaires would be all that interested in them unless they become the latest status symbol of those who have more money than they could possibly use.  Even then, background checks to ensure that those who are unstable mentally or financially would not be able to obtain the nuclear cores would be quite necessary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You seriously think a bunch of people with assault rifles and handguns will be able to do anything against the US military? They'd meet the same fate as the Yemeni funeral you never stop harping about.

Unlike Yemeni militants, hypothetical American militants would be operating from here and thus be able to make life dangerous for our political and military leaders and for their families in a way that militants abroad never will be able to do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If cars are to be considered a necessity, naturally, guns will be a necessity to shoot car thieves.

Thankfully, Washington State doesn't consider them such a necessity as to make shooting a suspected car thief a justification for homicide.  Even if they were considered a necessity, property theft should never be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

If you think the cost to the state for seeking to uphold the law is the sole criterion as to whether to prosecute then I presume you oppose ever seeking the death penalty.  It is a shame that the defense was able to successfully make this a trial not of the shooter but of the shot.  Hopefully, as often happens is these sorts of cases where the deceased is not available to rebut the claims of the killer, the civil trial will be able to redress the balance.

A car being stolen does not justify a shooting.  If the deceased had had a weapon, then likely he would have been able to fire first unless the killer came out of his house with his weapon already drawn.  Hence I think it is quite likely that in a civil trial they will find that the killer came out of his house intending to use his gun to at the very least intimidate whoever was stealing his car.  Even assuming he wasn't intending to kill the thief when he came out of the house, his use of the gun in that situation was not justifiable.

Still, I may be wrong about what a future jury may do.  At the time, I was convinced that OJ would not get off scott free at the criminal trial for killing his ex-wife.  At least in the civil trial where the scales of justice were not stacked in favor of the defendant, OJ received what his actions earned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A jury has already acquitted Mr. Gerlach and ruled 10-2 that this was a justified shooting. As a result of the frivolous charges the state of Washington is out $300,000.

The law is bad then. Murderers shouldn't be allowed to steal taxpayers' money.

Call me a moderate hero, but I wouldn't go quite that far.  Still, it is a bad law that allows a jury to decide a civil tort on the basis of evidence in a criminal trial.  Since the evidence is quite naturally weighted in favor of the defendant in a criminal trial, a criminal jury cannot render an appropriate decision in a civil matter.  At most, the finding of the criminal jury should be determinative of whether the defendant can bring forward a civil tort under the presumption that if the defendant cannot convince the criminal jury to so find, he would have no chance of getting a civil jury to rule in his favor at a civil trial.