But, as we’ve discussed in another thread, a gun is an effective force multiplier. There is no way that Lanza nutcase could have killed all those people if he’d been armed with a cricket bat. Guns make killing so much easier, both physically and psychologically, this is an indisputable fact that needs to be admitted openly.
Having said that, I’m not arguing that guns should be banned in the US, I don’t think that gun control is any kind of solution when it comes to the US. I know for sure that if I was living in America, I’d make damn sure I had a C&C license and I would campaign against ‘gun free zones’, which are stupid.
In Britain, its a bit different, we are an island, and its much harder to get hold of illegal weapons so gun control is a more practical option here (at least in the sense of stopping crazies going on rampages), whether it is a just and reasonable response to stop people being able to own guns just because some innocents are occasionally killed/injured by them is another matter, and its one I’m on the fence over in a British context. I certainly would miss Britain not being able to have an unarmed police force, especially in light of stories like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19979184
I think your positions are quite reasonable.
Too many US supporters of gun rights refuse to recognize the, to me, obvious fact that more guns = greater likelihood of a nutjob getting hold of one and doing something like this. Or that some guns make doing so a whole lot more efficient than other guns.
Does a widely armed populace increase or decrease crime in general? Don’t know, and I doubt anybody does.
But it certainly makes access to guns effective for spree killings easier.