As usual, after someone goes on the rampage with a firearm in the USA, the liberal progressive reactionaries call en masse for more gun controls as if this was the answer. Clearly, from the UK example, it isn't and never will be.
The belief that imposing tighter and more restrictive gun control will prevent mass murder has been demonstrated to be false on many occasions. People hell bent on killing other people will find a way as we have seen all over the world - in Beslan, Madrid, London, Canada, Thailand, Indonesia and Iraq.
To suggest that just because one gun owner has abused the privilege to go and kill on a mass scale is a just reason to ban gun ownership is specious. There are millions of gun owning Americans who have no intention of ever using their firearm to kill fellow human beings, but because one does is a reason to prevent them from having a gun?
The young man who went into Virgina Tech to slaughter his fellow students was an immigrant. If anyone uses the argument that gun ownership should be banned as a result of this then, by the same reasoning, you could reasonably argue that even though there are millions of immigrants in America with no intention of following this example, banning immigration will solve the problem. Of course it will not and it is ridiculous to think so.
Even so, the idiotarian brigade have reacted in their usual knee jerk way. They know it won't make any difference, but it fits in with their amoral world view. Guns are bad. What they forget is that it is not guns that are bad, people are. People who have lost touch with the boundaries between right and wrong, moral and immoral. They've lost touch because the boundaries have been blurred over the years by liberal progressive moral equivalence - where anything goes as long as you're cool about it.
The fact is, this sort of thing happens not because people own guns, but because we've created a society which enables this sort of thing to happen. And this society is a product of progressive liberalism. This is what they wanted - nations without a moral baseline, people with no shared beliefs. When everyones morality is equivalent then no morality is wrong - even immorality.
This is what they wanted and they got it.