>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So far, nobody has indicated whether the three ba$tards that did this were white/black/Hispanic/hare Krishna/??.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I really don't care. I have plenty of room in the pasture to recycle them. Bring them here - preferably alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>UPDATE: Yes - My spelling stinks today
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meanwhile, in Germany armed man holds several people hostage.
>>>>>>Turns out the man was armed with a knife and a fake gun. In the US that guy would have had a much better choice of weapons. So personally I prefer gun control since it does prove to prevent the worst in quite a few instances.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does gun control have anything to do with this case? These savages would have picked up a baseball bat and used it to kill just as well. Would it be better in your opinion?
>>>>
>>>>What happened was that the police could easily overcome this person without harming any of the hostages. If he had a real weapon the danger of causing harm to one of his victims would have been much higher. I thought that was logic, they produce more effective weapons because they are more productive in killing people, not because they are more beautiful to look at.
>>>
>>>This thread is about 3 scum youth killing an innocent person. It has nothing to do with gun control. It has everything to do with the fact that there are savages among us.
>>
>>But the question did get raised how they got access to a gun at their age. Someone must have left a deadly weapon and ammunition where they got a hold on it. Savages are everywhere, the question is do they have the means and resources to get the tools to commit their crimes. If it would not be an issue, why don't they sell hand grenades in the supermarket.
>
>I am for gun control (reasonable). The savages will have means to kill, be it guns or other means. Obviously they are under age and could not have obtained the guns legally. So did the gun control help in this case? This case is about people who do not deserve to live in a civilized society. Not about guns. The Boston bombers killed with pressure cookers. Do you want to ban pressure cookers?

There are different aspects to look at. First of all, you are correct that gun control would not do any change in the US. It is not a law in itself that is the problem, but it is the way how a society deals with firearms altogether. For instance if you grow up in the US, it is very common for a person to deal with a gun in one way or another. While in other countries it is extremely uncommon for persons even to touch a gun once in their lives. I personally touched only once a gun in my lifetime, and it was a flare gun. The way how society deals with certain aspects is indirectly guided by laws that are in place for many years, so although the easy access to guns in the US can be blamed for certain crimes, a ruling against that freedom will not prevent those crimes either. But the argumentation for or against gun control is often wrong.

The other aspect is that terrorism is a completely different aspect. Whether pressure cookers or airplanes, any control of anything would not prevent terror attacks. So I would not worry too much about pressure cookers, but that is more of an intelligence thing how to trace and prevent those attacks in the first place.