Clearly the legality of a device is irrelevant to its use.
I was pointing out you gaining nothing by saying, "Look! A banned item killed more people than a non-banned item!"
The kind of people that would do a school shooting are also the kind that would be willing to go to extremes to do it.
If he was willing to go to extremes to do it, he would have gone to those extremes (such as bombing). If he did not have access to a gun, then he most likely would not have killed as many people as he did. People have a sense of power when they have a gun because it is so easy to kill somebody with it. At Columbine, if those boys only had access to knives, do you think for a second they would try going on a rampage at their school? They could have tried stabbing people, but they would have failed, or at the very least far less people would have been hurt.
The point is that the person, not the gun, is killing people. There is no real way to stop the person. Like you said, Englsh, we can't ban oxygen, but you seem to be trying to ban the next best thing. Ultimately you're doing what you seem to think is ridiculous in the first place.
Yes, the person is killing, but it the they tool that allows them to bring so much destruction. If grenades and C4 were allowed to be bought at a gun store, he would have killed even more people. Hence those sorts of items are not allowed to be sold to civilians, because their primary use is to harm other people. The primary use of a gun is to harm another person. That is it. It doesn't matter if you have found other recreational uses for them.
If ballistic missiles were legal to buy at a store, and it was on the news that some guy shot one into a movie theatre, would you be saying "Ballistic missiles should still be legal, it was the man the killed them, not the missile!" along with other arguments such as "I should be allowed to own missiles. I just like shooting them in the range!"
Poll