Deleted Comment
This time, it was he that fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.
(The rifle used isn't known yet, but only one shot was fired)
Yes, military investments have paid off in new technologies (e.g., Arpanet) but as a whole only reward the owners of the Military Industrial Complex.
Tariffs and protectionism tilt the favor closer to attack. In the extreme, a nation that completely refuses to trade can't offer nor take anything beyond spoils of war.
Sure, but if your biggest export is your country's particular flavor of monopoly money, is it actually in your counterparty's best interests to trade with you?
Certainly Iraq pre-invasion made them look like a pushover!
That's not to say that invading would be painless, but let's not pretend that Canada would have a chance.
I merely remarked that someone else considered preventable gun deaths an acceptable cost to what he considered as sacrosanct. Well, tragic as his death is, I'm not the one who considered it an acceptable cost.
My response was meant to illustrate that this was essentially not a "preventable gun death", or at least not preventable by any level of gun control ever implemented in a Western country. Similarly, the assassination of Shinzo Abe using a homemade pistol/blunderbuss was not a preventable gun death.