> I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself.

Do you primarily work with invalids or children? Heck, even children can kill, but it usually requires working together. I was reading the other day about a group of under 10yos that buried alive another kid in a village because he looked weird.

Of everyone person I've ever met between the ages of 16 and 60, I'd say 99% are physically capable of killing somebody - you only need to push someone at the right time to have them fall to their death. Frail old woman have killed babies by covering their faces. There are poisonings.

Do guns make it easier or more accessible? Absolutely. Can a 95 lbs woman physically take on a 250 lbs man? Not likely in a 1:1 fight, but I met one who killed her husband with a knife.

I primarily work with people who have an issue with killing other people.

That, and that it is non-trivial without a gun, or more powerful weapon, to kill someone.

Which is why, in a lot of places it's extremely difficult to own or have a gun. And sane people consider very carefully a guns use. Most refuse to own or even consider even holding one never mind using one.

The AI discussed here is similar to me. It shouldn't be available or in use, ever. It even strips away the benefit a gun has of the user contemplating the end result.

I am agreeing that guns enable killing and make it more easy and more available. I also agree that most everyone I know have an issue will killing.

You claimed the vast majority of people you know are physically unable to kill. I think that is laughably naive.

If you mean that it is harder than you'd imagine to kill someone bareheaded, I also agree. But humans are tool makers and users. A big stick or rock to the back of the head was a common way to die in our distant past. And if you want to not allow any mechanical leverage in the killing, most people are _physically_ capable of pushing someone. That could be off a cliff, down the stairs, or on level ground where someone trips and hits their head.

This isn't a question of morality: it is a matter of physics.

The argument I am making is that the possession of a gun makes killing easier on a physical and mental level.

It lowers both those barriers significantly.

on that, we agree

It does nothing to those barriers. They are still absolutely the same. Unless you're trying to argue that somehow guns magically imbue in people the intent to kill.

I assure you, they do not. In point of fact, the hobby can get rather onerous to upkeep due to maintenance costs and the burden of magical thinking individuals like yourself employ, necessitating constant vigilance and correction.

People kill people.

AI, gun, explosive, makes no difference. Long as there are two blokes atound with irreconcilable opinions/worldviews, somebody's gonna want someone else dead. And that is the problem. The tools do not move until the mind employs them.

we agree that guns are equalizers - it allows a small woman to fend off a large man. That is the point. They make it physically easier to kill. Like, that is their entire point outside of sport.

for being more mentally available, I was just reading about some asshole that shot at a car that pulled into his driveway. Yes, he is mentally unhinged. I don't feel it is a stretch to say that owning a gun enabled him to feel safe and shoot the people from a distance and had he needed to get into a physical altercation, it very likely would not have ended with dead kids in the driveway.

I'm a gun rights supporter. I own guns. I take my kids shooting. People need to be held responsible. People can kill without guns, of course. But there is no way to argue that guns don't make killing more accessible.

You dramatically underestimate the physical capability of the people you know. Humans are strong and humans are fragile. Every single one of them could kill another human in a pre-technological society.

Apologies for my earlier reply, it's been pointed out to me it was rude. It was and I'd like to apologise.

On your point I'm not sure where you get the assertion any human could kill any other in pre-technological society. That appears evidently false to me. How did you come to that assertion?

Sure.

I would say it is evidently true to me. As stated, humans are fragile. A punch or fall can easily cause brain injury leading to death. Get in an advantageous position on a person and they are going to have a real hard time preventing you strangling them unless they're trained/experienced in hand to hand fighting. On a purely physical level it is not hard to kill a person. This isn't even considering assistance from tools or infection, where a direct kill from fighting isn't required.

The number of people capable of this isn't 100%, sure, but it's closer to 100% than your posited 10 in 1000, 0.1%