And when has there been arson without an accelerant in the last 25 or 50 years? Should we just ban accelerants?
Guns are a tool. Like most tools, they can be used in ways that are right and ways that are wrong. The tools have no say in the matter and are not inherently bad or good. They just are. What people especially crazy people use the tools for is a whole 'mother matter.
Are you, perhaps, familiar with Prohibition? With prohibition a group of nutjobs that belogned to the Temperance Movement advocated that if only alcohol a vile and tempting mistress which seduced men against their will wasn't available then things would just be wonderful and the curse of booze (also awkward dancing and drunken sex with women who are ugly) would be listen and our society would no longer be burdened by it...
And you must know how wonderfully that turned our.
Interesting point, but what about this scenario (I know it's happened in America before)
A man gets pissed at his ex wife for child support, custody, alimony, etc. He really hates the wife's entire family for screwing him over and decides, in the heat of the moment to kill them all.
Now, the members of the family are not all in the same house, but at different houses around town, so he will have to drive different places to kill them. Would setting them on fire be simply another tool in his murder bag (if you will) at this point? Or doesn't a gun make it much easie for him to do this?
I imagine it would be difficult to get a person to stand still and set them on fire, so it would probably take some time to accomplish it. Maybe you would have to beat them into submission or tie them up. Anyway, by the time, let's say, the first two have been set on fire, wouldn't the others have time to be alerted and take precautionary measures?
In this instance, is fire an equal tool to the gun? Or does the gun offer advantages in the method of killing?