People don't see a gun and decide to use it.
They decide to hurt someone, then look for a weapon. If it's not a gun, it will be a knife, or acid, or poison, or fists, or a vehicle...
They decide to hurt someone, then look for a weapon. If it's not a gun, it will be a knife, or acid, or poison, or fists, or a vehicle...
That is, they don’t see a gun and decide to use it; they decide to use something and see a gun
It's a lot harder to kill people with things that aren't guns. If it was as easy then soldiers would primarily equipped with "knife, or acid, or poison, or fists". The army chooses guns as the primary weapon are they are clearly much more effective at killing.
Remember the outrage when Syria did use poison?
I'm saying that if the army shared the goal of mass shooters - to kill as many people as possible indiscriminately - guns would absolutely not be their weapon of choice; and if the army switched weapons from guns to poison, the magnitude of violence would be amplified, not reduced.
Fortunately that means they use guns instead of more dangerous weapons.
Then when you trial date comes up it all goes on again - so these people see the fame that others have gotten - and how people have loathed them and feared them, and their shots are heard around the world.
Not so much the case when someone mixes bleach and windex.
Imagine if that psychopath who attacked Glasgow airport in ‘07 had access firearms instead of a home brew “bomb” that only succeeds in lighting him on fire? Bombs are hard, knives require strength and skill, an AR-15 in a crowd is too easy.
In addition to bombs and knives, here are some other alternative weapons people have used to kill far more people than Jared Lee Laughner did:
Gasoline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire (192 killed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire (87 killed)
A truck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack (86 killed and 458 wounded)
Poison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_H%C3%B6gel (over 100 killed)
A cord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway (at least 49 killed)
First, ban guns. Then, ban knives. Then, ban vehicles. Where does it end?
Honestly, I think banning guns won't work, especially in a country like the US. However, it seems like an easy solution to a difficult problem, hence the relatively widespread support.
To find solutions, we need to look at the problem from as many angles as we can. What I see is:
- gang violence - lack of jobs, profitability in illegal industries like drugs and prostitution, poor high school graduation rate - mass murders - mental health issues, anger at "society" (desperation or desire to right some wrong), intolerance - murders - jealousy, revenge, etc, without a better outlet - covering for another crime - robbery, burglary, drugs, etc
So, now we look at solutions, which will be some mix of:
- gangs - better job availability, better eduction, access to capital for self employment - mass murder - better mental health care access, more informed public - murder - more social interaction/feeling of community, access to counselors, better HR departments - other crime - similar solutions as gang violence
We can't eliminate all violent crime, but there are more solutions than taking away the tool. Honestly, I think more people should be familiar with guns, not fewer, so part of my solution would be to encourage people to get basic training with them, which should help people appreciate their destructive power more.
However, spit balling solutions like this isn't particularly helpful, just like attacking guns isn't helpful. Let's look at what the causes to the problems are, look at possible solutions, and look at how much those solutions will cost and estimate an ROI for each solution. I'm a fan of generally removing restrictions where those restrictions are big causes of crime (e.g. legalize marijuana, which will likely reduce drug crime; legalize prostitution, which will decrease sex trafficking and organized crime), but I want to look at the numbers before deciding which changes to make. We need more studies and policy proposals based on those studies, not populist crap to get reelected.