Like suggesting somebody could or would put forth the idea of shooting mentally retarded folks. That's always a good way to foster intelligent discussion. Present the absurd then try suggest that is what somebody else could or would claim.
I didn't pipe earlier because I thought in extremely poor taste to do so earlier, plus I wanted to avoid knee jerk type of over-reaction.
First off there is no law that could ever be passed or approved that would prevent such a tragedy. Folks who are intent on killing will find a way. The only thing that would stop this type of thing would be a 100% ban across the nation of any fire arm and even that would not stop it. It might decrease it but when there is a will there is a way. And just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that is a good idea, a plausible idea or a reasonable idea so while some might like to suggest any person who supports gun regulation is also for banning them...think again.
Second, as for "biased" individuals, isn't that what we base our opinions on? I'll confess my biases. I have two kids who I would do anything to insure they are safe. As some might recall my son who at the time was 11 was shot by another 11 year old. Fortunately nothing severe but certainly enough that it helped to form those so called bias. As many recall, one of my son's lacrosse teammates accidentily blew his head off with his gun. Nothing like the funeral for a 13 year old kid to help form a bias. My daughter attends college that recently made national news due to a gunman being reported on campus. Again, another factor in my bias. Additionally I attended an inner city/urban high school (Central for those in the Louisville area) where while not an everyday occurrence, it was not uncommon to encounter "guns". In fact on "Sr cut day" one of my buddies had his class ring stolen at gunpoint on campus property. Since the last gun thread my home situation has changed. We now have a tenant who resides in our guest room who owns a gun (my daughters boyfriend who's family moved north so he moved in with us to attend school). He owns a pistol (no idea make or model) but it is registered and he is licensed. When Tommy moved in he was told to keep it in a safe since we have a 14 year old in the house. He has been "slow" to take care of that so for Xmas he is getting a gun safe. If I had a gun issue or wanted a gun ban, I would kick him out of my home. Additionally my daughter also has a concealed carry weapons permit although she does not own a gun. I have no problem with any 21 year old owning a gun.
What can actually be done to minimize such event? Above it was suggested that we eliminate "gun free zones". Yeah because the idea that people in elementary, middle and high schools need to be armed is a good one
Personally I agree with a zero tolerance policy (note: my son was expelled 2 years ago for having a knife at school. School didn't hear a peep from me about how he should not be punished even though it was just a pocket knife. Knife, gun, etc... any weapon should not be allowed on a school campus, period.). To me the best solution would be an armed LEO in every school, not some security guy who is a wanna be police man but a real honest to goodness trained law enforcement officer assigned to the school whenever the doors are opened. At my kids elementary school they had an officer there most days but I'm talking 100% of the time. Consider that number of people confined into the area, is there a better use of resources? Imagine if an armed police officer had been in the school at that time, would it have made a difference? I believe so.
Others have suggested enforcing the laws on the books. No law on the books prevents a loon from entering a school (or theater or mall) and taking target practice. This is one of the more popular deflections by gun advocates. The other is getting rid of gun laws since with law "only criminals have guns". Huge straw man since that argument could be used for any crime. The laws allow for punishment when the law is violated. That is one of the purposes of laws.
Back on page 1, it was asked for suggestions. Some of these I have presented in the past but will do again:
1) See above...armed law enforcement officer in every school any time the doors are unlocked.
2) Personally I believe any individual convicted of any crime that involves a weapon be forever prohibited from owning a weapon. Would that stop all of these type of incidents? Nope but IMO gun ownership should be for responsible people and it might prevent some.
3) Additionally I believe gun ownership and usage should be confined only to people of responsible age. We have determined that one must be 16 to drive an automobile, that one must be 21 to use alcohol, that one must be 18 to smoke (I think that is the age) legally yet pappa can legally put a 22 in the hands of a 5 yr old kid. These examples are analogies and so we can be clear, an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity. Despite what some want to believe, a gun is a dangerous instrument, just like a car in the hands of a 14 year old, or alcohol in the hands of a 17 year old or smokes on a 12 year old.
4) I believe if one elects to own a gun, then they bear responsibility when that gun does damage regardless of the circumstances. As an analogy, (an analogy isn't exactly the same but rather a similarity) I'd offer ownership of an aggressive dog. If I elect to own a pit bull and that dog gets out of my yard and maims or kills somebody, I'm going to be held responsible even if I didn't intentionally "sick" the dog on that person. I believe gun owners should bear the same standard. They have elected to own something "dangerous" and therefore are responsible for the damage that comes from its use, even when that use isn't of their doing.
5) Finally, I don't really see much benefit by limiting what is owned. A pistol will kill somebody just as dead as an assault rifle. A clip that holds 20 will kill you just as dead as a clip that holds 40. The problem isn't the size of the magazine but rather the individual that holds the gun. I do believe that if one elects to own an assault rifle they should be able to however IMO "special permits" and oversight should be enforce. IE required storage etc.... Again, as an analogy (similarity, not exact comparison), I'm required to store certain drugs in a very specific manner with records to account for that and allow federal or state inspectors to examine those at any time during business hours. Its not for all drugs, just "controlled" drugs. I certainly would not have an issue with a private individual being able to own assault, automatics, etc in a similar manner.
Most of my gun concerns are not towards this type of tragedy but rather the accidental shootings that occur but there is an attempt to look at some aspect logically.
Bookmarks