Responding to violence with violence is not the way. If someone else had a gun what would have happended is there would have been a major shoot out between the two and even more people would have died in the cross fire.
Definitely, cause that's why amerikkka has such a ridiculously hi death rate from guns now. amerikkka's in the grips of a death cult, it don't care about the lives of its own citizens & it really don't care about lives around the world -- that's why it kills 10s of 1000s of brown skinned people in the mideast in the vain hope for cheaper oil.
More guns means more deaths, & more Va. Techs just waiting to happen (Of course, some of us said this after Columbine, after Jonesboro, but & the same bullshit from the NRA criminal lobby pops up)
There are other factors that affect death rate by guns than simply the massive amount of guns flooding amerikkka's streets. But the prevalence of guns appears to be the greatest cause and the easiest thing we could do about our brothers and sisters dying.
That is,
IF amerikkka really cared about the life of its own citizens, of course. But that's a mighty big
IF.
Not that I really expect the facts to affect an ideologue in any case, but the general rule of thumb long held from a study in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that gun possession increased the risk of homicide victimization by a factor of 2.8. That means in a household w/ a gun, it is 2.8 times more likely for one of the family members to die from a gun shot than a household w/o a gun. But I'm sure y'all feel real safe w/ your piece.
a more recent study of US states & regions found:
In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1988
It looked at "high gun ownership" states in the US & "low gun ownership" states, of roughly equal populations (158-160 million in each category) and found a stark contrast in the # of gun related deaths:
Hi gun ownership states had 21,148 gun related deaths
Low gun ownership states had 7,266 gun related deaths
Hi gun ownership rates have
almost 3 times the number of deaths than low gun ownership states do
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1988/T3
The conclusion is simple: more guns means massively more deaths. Period.
Canada, Australia, England -- they all have somewhat more sensible gun control laws, all have MASSIVELY lower death rates by guns, yet all of them STILL allow hunting. But in amerikkka, even outlawing cop killer bullets & automatic weapons is considered "taking guns away from everyone."
If amerikkka really cared about life it could easily protect its citizens beside these things. Any automatic or semi-automatic weapon could be banned immediately; any magazine clips of multiple bullets could be outlawed. Handguns, if not completely banned, could be strictly controlled & regulated. None of these would affect anyone who really wants to hunt.
But a psycho couldn't walk into a store & buy a glock 9 mm on Monday and show up on campus in a bullet proof vest on Tuesday. This is your NRA at work, amerikkka.
But amerikkka doesn't like life. it leaves its youth available for slaughter. So, we will be having this discussion again when the next tragedy occurs on a school yard or at a McDonald's.