Hi
The other countries don't have near the number of massacres we do... or homicides... or even suicides of young people.
Better check your facts. Britain and the US have nearly IDENTICAL suicide rates. The suicide rate spiked the reporting period AFTER 1997, too, when all of their guns were heavily controlled or confiscated. In 2005, the US had a slightly LOWER suicide rate than Britain.
I don't know about
ALL other countries, but Britain ALWAYS had lower overall crime rates, but even there, the crime rates are on the rise. If guns cause crimes, and fewer guns mean LESS crime, why is the british rate going up?
As for massacres: We invented it. We're better at it.
Again, why do you think that the death of 10 people in a clump more tragic than 10 people killed, spread all over the country?
You can't seriously believe that all gun victims would have died via chemical bombs or something.... Certainly not the kids mentioned in the OP... or the family killed by the son who got the gun his dad kept to protect his family (which wouldn't have worked to protect anyone in a chemical bomb attack, I might add.)
Then what's killing the Brits?
There was NO decline in homicide rates or suicide rates after they went all... as everyone in this country says, "draconian," only the anti-gun people say it like it's a GOOD thing.
Shouldn't there have been SOME effect?
The kid in the OP was almost an Eagle scout. That means that he had an axe and knew how to use it. Would it have been less tragic if he'd killed them with it?
I strongly suspect many of these guns are used because they're available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilization_behavior
I suspect so, too, but other things are available as well. Well- they apparently are in Britain, anyhow.
You don't see chemicals and think "gee, it would be so easy to make a chemical bomb..." People do see triggers and think, I wonder what would happen if I just pulled this. I can change everything... in an instant. I can kill myself and make a whole lot of other people suffer as well. And some do. Quit pretending that this kid would have used or done something else... that is really a stretch... but one that "gun enthusiasts" often seem to make.
Well - actually, I do. Your tax dollars at work.
I used to take bombs apart for the Army, and the training I received to that end have left me thinking a little differently than most people. Everywhere I go, I'm doing a risk analysis and escape plan. <<shrug>> Chemicals in the grocery store, culvert under the street, oncoming cars in traffic all get tallied up as I go along.
ANYHOW: Just because YOU see triggers and think, "I wonder what would happen if I just pulled this", doesn't mean everyone does. I see a trigger and immediately check which way the muzzle is pointed. I was trained with
THOSE, too.
A stretch to think that an Eagle scout could have used an axe? I almost guarantee there was one around the house, garage or tool shed, and he knew how to use it. A gun being around is an excuse too. Available is available, as the homicide rates form Britain have shown pretty well.
...and you still haven't answered how you know that the father in the OP didn't leave his firearm unloaded and locked.
Do you really think we'd have as many massacres and homicides were it not for the omnipresence of loaded weapons designed to kill people?
As for homicides, they do in Jolly Old. Give me one reason it should be different here.
As for massacres, again, American invention, and good ol' American expertise.
