With all due respect, that's like saying "Making drugs illegal is bad because people can possibly get drugs, so we should let everyone take any drug they want". No law is 100% restrictive and solves 100% of all cases, every law will basically have someone breaking it, but by making a law you create a deterrence and less people will have guns. This is very easily seen from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country it is clearly seen that the countries with the most guns are those that have very loose gun restriction laws with the US having more guns per capita than any other country on earth, almost twice as much as serbia or more than Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined.
As for gun fatalities, there is no clear correlation between counties with banned guns and countries with not banned guns. It depends more on the control scheme of guns and who is and isn't allowed guns, as well as appropriate training for guns, that gives the highest factor in terms of correlating gun deaths. But having less guns does not cause MORE gun fatalities because "criminals can kill people easier", you can see there isn't really a correlation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate note the US is 18th in the homicide category having more gun related homicides than any other first world country (as all the countries above US are not necessarily considered developed countries).
So the idea that "Someone can make a gun while others can't, therefore the country becomes more dangerous" is bogus and doesn't correlate with the statistics. Laws can be broken, which is why we have a whole judicial and policing system to avoid it. What I was saying about the lethal means is that justice cannot be served by fatally killing someone with a gun without a trial or any sort of hearing. Sometimes it's necessary but justice can never be served this way, so it should only be a last resort.
Topic: GOING CRAZY. Ferguson Missouri (Read 2367 times)