Lairiodd wrote:That isn't very fair. You need to look at the actual murder rates, who cares if you are murdered by a gun or some other means.
The issue isn't overall murder rates though, it's about gun crime because gun crime is one of the few methods of murder that can lead to massacres like this one. There may well be a lot of knife murders in the UK, or strangling murders for example but neither of these types of murder are going to be relevant to a massacre, because, well you just aren't going to kill everyone in a class room by trying to strangle them.
Perhaps a decent sword, or bombs could be taken into account but even then it's really not terribly easy to create a decent bomb unless you're part of a politically motivated terrorist group or some such. There are far more failed attempts at bombs than there are successful attempts in the Western world, it's much harder than people think to carry out a successful bomb attack - the only reason it was so easy for the IRA was because they had the links to get military grade explosives, something your average wacko is likely to struggle to get hold of, deploy and detonate without getting caught. Even the tube bombings here in the UK weren't that catastrophic, it took 4 people 4 bombs and months and months of planning to kill 52 people, yet 1 person in a messed up state of mind killed 32 by himself with minimal planning.
Decreasing overall murder rates is a completely different animal that's for sure, but reducing these kind of massacres is something that could be targetted by gun control. When this guy bought the gun all he had to do was tick "No" to the question about whether he had a history of mental problems or not to walk out with the gun no questions asked, even though he did actually have a history of mental problems.