The idea that gun control will prevent such things is a myth.
No kidding. No one is stating that gun control will put a complete halt to such acts of violence.
Tell that to the frantic folks running around demanding that we must pass draconian gun control laws in response to such shootings then. I mean, isn't this why we're having this conversation?
Doesn't it strike you as odd though that we have some of the most liberal gun laws and highest gun violence in the developed world?
Not when you think in terms of "violence" as opposed to "gun violence" (cause that's circular) and when you stop trying to ignore geography and instead speak of "developed" countries. What you really mean is why does the US, which is right next to one of the highest violent crime regions in the world, have so much higher violent crime rates than other developed nations which have like 8 or 10 borders between them and the nearest violent region in the world. Get back to me when Norway moves itself into Central Africa and tries to maintain its low crime and violence statistics. Then follow that up with how wonderfully open their border policies are.
The US has a 4.8/100k homicide rate. It's right next to Mexico, which has a 22.7/100k homicide rate. Why does Canada have such a lower murder rate (1.6)? It's not because of its moderately stricter gun control, but because it has over 1000 miles of buffer between it and any nation with an abnormally high violent crime rate. When you look at a map of such rates, you'll notice that it doesn't form a patchwork with nations having significantly lower or higher rates because of some legal differences, but that it forms into regions on the globe, which tend to cross national borders.
Brazil is "developed" right? It's got 21/100k murder rate. How about that civilized bastion of socialism Venezuela? 45.1. Guess Chavez needs to do some more work on his workers paradise, right? What about Cuba? I mean, they've got a better health care system than the US, right? 5.0. Not bad at all, really. But still worse than the US. And they're on a damned Island. When people make that whole "The US has more gun violence than any other developed country" bit, I honestly feel like whacking them over the head with the ol' cluex4. You're making the most idiotic and contrived argument possible when you do that.
If his gun had been more easily/quickly accessible, he might have saved more people than he did.
"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we all would have a merry christmas"
A Christmas that some kids might have lived to see. Way to ruin Christmas.
You do realize there is also the chance he would have gotten himself killed. Or killed someone else. Or have zero impact on anything at all. Working in the land of hypothetical is fun and all but is practically useless outside of abstract ideas.
Yes. And a giant meteor could have fallen from the sky and killed them all. So what? He could have gotten himself killed by intervening as he did. Yet, he didn't, and he got the shooter to surrender without any other deaths. So why assume that he could not have done that if he'd gotten there sooner? Sure, maybe he wouldn't have changed anything. Maybe things would have been worse. But maybe they would have been better. I happen to think the odds of an armed person opposing a mass shooter producing a better outcome than if he wasn't there is more than worth the risk that he might make things worse. And I don't think consigning children in schools to be helpless victims until the police arrive is a great alternative. Why not allow someone the chance to intervene? Why not give those people the best chance possible of successfully intervening?
The odds of more death if no one intervenes is high. The odds of an armed person intervening resulting in more victim fatalities is low.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 6:29pm by gbaji