The inverse: it’s worth having innocent dead people in order to maintain fewer laws.

I wonder if your opinion would be the same if were close to those effected. Sometime’s it’s these “rare” events that shed light to a long standing problems in society, and all it takes is one person, motivated enough to start the change.

Or, implement a designated shooter system. If people get their jollies by getting their gun off, let them do it in a controlled environment. I said private gun ownership should be banned if it saves a single life.

Then you’ll have all those deaths from infected paper cuts caused by handling all those stamps unsafely. Maybe you would like to ban those too.

Sure, if there’s an easier way to mail letters, and if you can provide substantial data that stamps kill. My point is, private gun ownership has a little upside (a bunch of rednecks get to shoot at animals) and a huge potential downside.

These type of shootings are rare and its not like Cho is part of some greater fascist or communist movement with access to WMDs that may threaten our freedom and thus trigger a debate about reasonable restrictions to our civil liberties.

My heart goes out to the victims, but the overblown coverage masks the fact that in the whole sceme of things, this was no big deal.

A few saved lives are not worth more laws.

1. Let’s prevent people from going crazy.

2. Let’s find people that are going crazy, and get them help, and if needed, put them away till they’re better.

3. Let’s keep guns from crazy people (implementation needs some thought)

4. Let’s bring back good manners, and promote acceptance – not just tolerance, of difference, so there’s one less reason for people to go crazy.

5. Let’s also work on getting every willing and able person fulfilling and reasonably well-paying work, while we are at 1-4.

Sure, while we’re about it, let’s bring back prohibition too, will save all those lives killed in drunken crashes on the freeway… Oh wait, they already tried prohibition I think.

Society changing, misunderstood rural folk, or even stereotyping, evil moustache-twisting, ivy-league educated, urban dwelling, hunters can do without their hobby of shooting up animals if it means a single human life is spared. Go collect stamps or something.

Then you’ll have all those deaths from infected paper cuts caused by handling all those stamps unsafely. Maybe you would like to ban those too.

Society changing, misunderstood rural folk, or even stereotyping, evil moustache-twisting, ivy-league educated, urban dwelling, hunters can do without their hobby of shooting up animals if it means a single human life is spared. Go collect stamps or something.

Are you sure about that ? From wikipedia’s page on the subject : The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. [20] Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[21] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. link

The UK gun crime rate is still 55% higher today than it was in 1998/99.

An excerpt from one of the cited articles[20] in the Wikipedia article:

INTERNATIONAL FIREARMS SAFETY SEMINAR NEW ZEALAND FEBRUARY 2006 THE BRITISH HANDGUN BAN LOGIC, POLITICS AND EFFECT COLIN GREENWOOD [edited] 64. The longer term trends show that the both homicide and robbery have increased steadily and frighteningly over a twenty-four year period. Robbery in particular has increased from 15,000 to 101, 000 cases per year. Within those figures the use of pistols has increase from 500 to 2,700 cases per year. In the six years from 1980, pistols were used in an average of 1,051 robberies. In the six years before the handgun ban they were used in an average of 2,886 cases and in the six years since the ban they have been used in an average of 2,841 cases. 65. Over the same period, homicide has risen from around 600 cases per year to over 800. On average in the six years form 1980 pistols were used in 10.8 murders, in the six years before the ban they were used on average in 29.3 cases per year and after the ban they were used in 32.6 case per year. link

And as regards the idea that gun bans help decrease crime rate, how would you then explain the U.S Dept Of Justice’s statistics of dramatic declines in most crimes over the past decade without any sweeping gun bans (including gun related crime)link: ?

After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988.

Compare the US crime rate decline with the rise in crime in the UK with the bans. Interesting.

Banning guns is not quite the panacea for the ills of society as many people seem to think.