Originally Posted by
Latrinsorm
Suppose you wanted to cut down a tree. You could eventually get the job done with a chainsaw, a hack saw, or a sledge hammer, but surely a chainsaw would be your top choice of those three. Doesn't it stand to reason that if you were 51/49 about cutting down the tree, not having a chainsaw would push you towards the 49?
If you were going to kill someone, what would be your first choice out of a knife, a crowbar, a ball peen hammer, and a gun? If you were similarly near the fence about killing someone, doesn't it stand to reason that not having an ideal option available would push you away from doing it? Don't be so quick to dismiss acts of violence as "go[ing] crazy" and therefore no logic applies, it is as dangerous as supposing that atrocities are committed by "monsters" rather than the actual culprits: human beings, fundamentally the same as you and me.
If you are not interested in hypotheticals, would it interest you to learn that empirically speaking the rates of suicide are higher in states with more access to guns?Fixé, vous omelette du fromage.