I don’t think that killing people is always wrong. Killing to defend yourself or another is a good thing. So, tools that are made for killing people are useful tools as well. I favor having better tools, because they are a great equalizer. A 100 lb. woman with a gun is just about as dangerous as a 250 lb. man with a gun. Give them each baseball bats and the odds dramatically favor the man.

I think that deterrence does stop many crimes of passion. How many is of course hard to say, but I think human nature is universal, and when I see things like the prevalence of ‘honor killing’ in the Islamic world I ascribe that those killings happen in part because they are not deterred. (It is not a perfect example, because those crimes are not only not deterred, they are encouraged.) I don’t thin Arabs or Muslims are more naturally inclined to kill out of a sense dishonor/passion, but I do think that the laws of a society can shape and mold that inclination.

Certainly there will always be crimes of passion. We cannot deter them all.

http://www.lightbody.net/politics/archives/2005/05/gun_control_kni.html

I agree that people will always find ways to kill people. I do think that if an object has no alternative use other than killing people, we should limit its availability.

Re: deterrence — do you think that swift and harsh punishment will stop crimes of passion (”Honey, I’ve been seeing someone else…”)?