So why aren't these methods implemented in Europe? People still kill each other there, though typically not with such elaborate methods. Mass killings are likewise, much rarer without guns.
Same as above. Why isn't this apparently guaranteed method employed in countries without guns?
The right's already been changed, unless every gun owner is part of a well regulated militia. Plus, the Supreme Court has changed its stance on the interpretation before.
Also, of course people are questioning how legitimate a right is, when used properly is allows an activity of leisure to be enjoyed, and when abused innocent people end up dead.
I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.
Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century. They consider the population having that right as individuals as being what the Second Amendment means, not a militia governed by the state or federal government. A well armed populace is a freer one by our standards (maybe not by yours, but our mindset isn't yours. Different experiences and national outlook).
I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.
Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways. You're using the actions of a very very very small
group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?
None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?
Yes they are easy to get. STEAL a car or truck just before a concert or something and drive onto the sidewalk/into a building. Also thousands of innocents are killed by vehicles other people are driving -every year- in the US. More people are killed by cars and trucks than by guns, intentionally or accidentally. You can Goggle and made explosives and poison gasses out of some very common household cleaning products. A knife is easy to get. The hand grenade might be harder, but you would be astounded what military hardware is legal for US citizens to own. Everything from military rifles, to machine-guns, prop and jet planes, helicopters to tanks and probably artillery, RPGs and more. The American citizen can get an amazing amount of stuff for private/recreational use.