Because the objective is to generate controversy and attention. The Virginia Tech incident being a perfect illustration, he took movie poster photographs complete with action hero scowl as part of his 'media kit' which was sent to MSNBC.
See above. It's rather easy to figure out..
Firearms are a dramatic and personal (in contradiction to your thoughts) way to go, made glamorous due to film and games, and will continue to be preferred because of the attention and infamy that generates.
If you remember my initial post, my own speculation as to "why handguns" was along similar psychological "glamour" lines. I was speculating though, and as you seemed to discount this explanation, I backed down from it. The
point is not why they use them, the point is that they use them.
But what happens when he uses a sword he learned to use in Bushido class or a chainsaw to do the same damage?
They (disturbed grudge-based multiple murderers)
don't though, do they? Post examples if they do, by all means. If you haven't worked it out yet, I actually
want to be convinced that gun bans don't work whatsoever. I already think they don't work in general terms, for the reasons of illegal weapons being readily obtainable and lawful gun owners being by and large very responsible people. The "flip-out" killings are a different proposition. Try to separate the two. Rational gun crime vs irrational gun crime if you will. Laws do nothing to stop the former, but arguably something to ameliorate the latter.
Do we restrict dangerous and useful products to prevent trivial sensationalized incidents to compensate for cultural decay?
Well, we probably shouldn't, but we do. They've just banned replica guns and "samurai swords" (whatever that means) in the UK. A group of surgeons a couple of years ago tried to ban all knives over 4 inches long, on the grounds that critical penetrative injuries would be reduced (won't someone think of the sushi chefs?!). I absolutely disagree with this "BAN IT!" mentality, and if I could be sure bans didn't have an impact on irrational gun crime, I would disagree with those too, more than I already do for their knee-jerk, blanket, criminalising nature. These things only get through when the "moral" majority flexes its collective muscle. Democracy isn't always what you personally want.
You can't restrict lawfully owned firearms without increasing the crime rate far higher (privately owned firearms are a robbery deterrent among other things) than any trivial one would be reduced.
Any evidence for that? I suppose in a society already saturated with guns, they might be such a deterrent. But certainly, gun crime in general has continued to rise in the UK, thanks to the cultural problems at its root, and the ready availability of illegal guns. Like I say, I
agree with you in general. It's just these nutters that seem to acquire legal weapons and later use them in murders like this.
The solution: encouraging CCW licenses and sidearms being carried around schools is, along with armed security, how to solve the problem.
Maybe. I'd want conclusive evidence (trial areas?) of this before adding more weapons to the equation. In any case, it would be a uniquely American solution to a uniquely American problem. Most countries don't have the cultural attachment nor the sheer number of weapons that the US has.
Disarming the populace isn't, it's simply flatly uneducated and idiotic.
Thing is, in the UK, guns were never held for home defence, and the courts would take a dim view of anyone using what at one time would be disproportionate force against an intruder who, most likely, wouldn't even have access to a gun. Times have changed, illegal guns have increased exponentially, but your typical home invader is still not armed with a firearm - this makes any sentence handed down MUCH bigger, and also gives the homeowner much more leeway to (if they can) beat the living hell out of them if they can. IOW armed
home robberies are the exception. Post Offices and banks, sure. Have some armed security. But the average home? I wouldn't trust more than about 20% of the UK population, given extensive training, with any kind of weapon, let alone a firearm. People are stupid, frightened, and lack judgement. Your average citizen having guns for home defence is another mainly US notion.
In the U.K you can't defend your home or person and the authorities don't even carry sidearms, only specialized units. Obtaining pistols, shotguns or assault rifles for illegal purposes is easy as obtaining drugs. What is the point of this being slightly difficult by preventing the population from safeguarding their communities?
As I said, home defence with firearms was
never a British thing. We just do things differently. And it's only the last 20 years or so that it's begun to fail us. Many would still challenge your assertion that widespread civil gun ownership is the solution.
Criminals don't obtain weapons through legal, traceable channels.
Rational criminals don't. People like Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Seung-Hui Cho and "NaturalSelector89"
do.
And this did absolutely nothing but potentially increase less sensational crime, when encouraging citizens to safeguard their communities and schools through public CCW permits and training were obvious solutions.
Erm, no. Not in my country. Exactly what crimes do you think the 40,000 legal shooters in the UK would have been able to affect? The government weren't legislating to reduce crime overall, just crimes with guns, these killings in particular. It rode a popular "never again" sentiment (understandable) as well as general prejudice against gun ownership and gun owners (clearly wrong).
Which is wonderful to know in reducing the apprehension of robbing someone's house in that country, isn't it?
We're quite happy as things stand, thanks very much. Burglars here (and in most of Europe) still don't arm themselves with guns; the gun crime problem here is intra-and extra-gang. Which means innocent civilians living in problem areas get killed too. All sides having guns doesn't help them very much.
