And the “occassional freak” who does something like Dunblane is ACTUALLY LESS of a PROBLEM WITH A GUN than without one !
Without a gun, the Dunblane thing could have been done ‘better and more effectively’ with 2 cans of petrol – one poured round the outside of the building first, to prevent people leaving, then one inside to burn them out – it would kill everyone. (As Bomber Command how to kill thousands of people and the answer is fire, not shrapnel)
But we don’t ban petrol – we cart millions of gallons of the stuff through our city streets every day.
We SHOULD make guns a lot more accessible to the general public – as in Switzerland where EVERY adult male has an automatic assault rifle, no less.
December 12, 2010
WRONG – WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ARMED !
[I find it encouraging this and a number of other pro-gun comments are showing up in a U.K media outlet. Gun rights is not completely dead over there.
I have sometimes considered analyzing crimes committed using firearms and showing there was a “better” way to have committed the crime without a firearm. The mass killings are the easiest to demonstrate this. And as john_u suggests fire is one of the better ways. Driving a vehicle through crowds of people and causing structures to fail are also “good” methods.
I have not done so for two reasons. 1) I’m hesitant to give people ideas on effective mass murder. And 2) There aren’t that many mass murders to analyze.—Joe]