Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Please don't "invent" what you think I am saying, especially when it is totally wrong, as it is here. Of course this man was to blame for his actions. All that I am saying is that it is highly improbable that he would have been able to kill 13 people had he not had access to guns, but was forced to use, say, a knife. Guns are not "responsible" for crime, people are; but guns can certainly make the consequences of crime a lot more horrific than they would otherwise have been.
|
Not true, Harry. As mentioned below, many mass murderers have killed more than just 13 people at a go using something other than a gun. You assume that the only weapon available to him would have been a knife. Big assumption.
Now, how many people have been killed in mass murders by bombs, just in the UK and Europe? More than 13 at a pop in several instances?? Are you all certain you have adequate controls in place for those weapons?? Where was all that public outrage after the 7/7 bombings? Did you all ban the possession of the items used for making those bombs??
Be honest now ..... did you?? And, please don't give me that crap about how if it's politically motivated it's not mass murder.
You do realize, don't you, that if you don't mind killing yourself in the blast, it only takes about a half an hour to build a pretty damn effective bomb? It's also much cheaper than a gun.