Carl Spackler wrote:Yet, as dad notes, violent people and sadly violent children are murdering other children or are killing themselves, on school grounds at an alarming rate. Therefore until we can ferret out the violent/crazy/depressed/murderers we had better protect our children while at school. This requred armed guards because you can't fight an enemy with your fists when they bring a firearm, legally purchased, stolen, illegally purchased or manufactured out of thin air. It makes no difference, the violent child is there to kill no manner the tool used. Take away their firearms (which you can't do as they will acquire one or more on the street if their desire to murder is great enough or use another tool). I understand you can inquire as to the method and manner as to build a bomb on the INTERNET SO should we ban the Internet? Shut it down? Because miscreants misuse it? IT's the same argument in my thinking. Of course not but some will misuse it to kill, the 911 terrorists communicated over the Internet for years prior to murdering nearly 3000 Americans.
We do not agree on a lot with respect to this issue and that is ok, but I take particular umbrage with this point: if something isn't 100% effective then it isn't useful? I don't get why we try to apply this standard to gun violence where we wouldn't accept it elsewhere.
Seatbelts and airbags aren't 100% effective in ending driving deaths, but they mitigate a lot of them, so they are a valuable tool.
Why we can't have a similar approach to gun control, with respect to semi-automatic rifles and other sensible restrictions on the 2nd amendment blows my mind. Why can't we make it tougher for people like this to get a gun? Why can't we remove this type of weapon from the marketplace? Does that mean we shouldn't apply resources towards trying to identify these types of people? Of course not. But we seem to ignore this unimpeachable fact: without access to a weapon like this, this man would not have been able to level the type of havoc that he did. The immediate responses to this are "he could have used a car, he could have used a knife, he could have used a <insert any other violent method here>". That just doesn't hold water. If these are all comparably devastating ways to inflict death, why is it that we keep seeing people use the same tool (i.e. AR-15)?
There are a lot of moving parts to things like this, but the fact that a portion of the population refuses to identify that the proliferation of semi-automatic rifles, the ease with which they are attained, and the devastating nature of their deployment isn't the single most obvious common factor, is, well, mind blowing.
This kid had some sort of clear mental defect that made him want to try to kill as many people as possible. The rifle he was able to buy facilitated that mass murder. Obviously we should seek to identify people who are a threat to society, but to me, it is his access to the weapon that seems the most logical thing to address.