inebriantiaMatthew
Take the Washington sniper for example. He'd never had been able to kill those all people with a knife.
Maybe, for thought, don't take this too seriously but….
Someone could have say stood on an overpass and used a high powered slingshot and shot a rock into the windshield of cars, causing them to wreck and cause a huge pill up, or simply hid somewhere and shot it at someone head killing them.
There is always some kind of projectile weapon, sure guns are far more dangerous, but there are other means of mass murder besides guns. If there were no guns people would just be more creative than they are now. That's why your true serial killers, mass murderers, are so infamous because most did not use guns to kill lots of people, they used creative methods.
The point is guns don't kill people, people kill people. Banning guns solves nothing, people would still get them somehow, they are always going to be here no matter how much we hate them, and how much saddness they cause the world. I hate guns, and like I stated before don't own, or have shot them. One of my best friends Matt Mussleman was shot and murdered by a gun just last Feb. on my g/f's birthday no less, but that does not mean I hate guns and they should be banned, because I see the good in them not the bad that people use them for. This topic can never be resolved, I suppose if we wanted to we could talk forever about this so this is my last comment on this…hopefully,lol.
Are you serious about the slingshot thing?
Sure serial killers would probably go on killing because they typicaly do not use guns, but the the typical every day drive bys and armed robberies would decrease.
I totally disagree with you that banning guns would solve nothing. The simple fact is that if the sale and ownership of guns were banned in the US, significantly less people would be murdered each year. It is proven that when you make a crime more difficult to commit for criminals, the overall average level of that crime decreases.