Would banning more guns really have stopped the killing?

As the world has watched in horror, grief, and disbelief at the sad news. A lone gunman, armed with two pistols and a lot of rage, guns down 33 people before taking his life. Before the blood from victims (may they rest in peace, and may their families find some as well) dried, the debate turned to gun control. As usual it wasn't our side that shot off their mouths first, it was the Brady Campaign, the New York Times (which lines my bird cage to help saturate it with more of its shit), and every liberal hippie out there.

Their demands for more gun control are amusing. After all, if criminals don't have guns, they won't commit crimes! After the UK banned private citizens from owning arms as one of their fundamental rights, their crime rate is non-existent, right?

WRONG!!!!

England has a pretty bad crime rate, not to mention their version of Justice is anything but. Defend yourself from thugs, hooligans, and punks, go to jail. Like this old woman who barely touched a 15-year-old punk. Self-Defense is definitely not a part of the "progressive" British culture. But hey, they have a better solution than all those icky gross guns, after all jumping up and down will take a bite out of crime!

Honestly people, do you really think banning guns is going to prevent crime? No one remembers the event about 5 years ago in Virginia where a gunman was subdued by armed law-abiding citizens? It's amusing because the media leaves out the "minor" detail about the people having their firearms and merely tackling an armed man. RIIIIIIIGGGHTTT!!! It's an easy mistake when you hate guns and freedom.

It is a sad event that went down, it's horrible people are dead from such a senseless act. It should not happen, but it does. The real way to prevent it is to allow people to carry concealed with no licenses and no restrictions. I will guarantee that crime rates will plummet quite noticeably. If not, I will personally destroy my collection and become a Brady whore.