Having a gun collection did not inspire the young shooter to peace either. Guns within reach of a young mind like that could possibly lead to all kinds of fantasies about being feared and respected. The ulimate wish to "show them all" would have been unattainable if his mom was not such a gun nut mayhap. It is giving kids the wrong idea....things can be solved by violent actions.
There will ALWAYS be defective people out there. It is something we have no control over. They can pop up anywhere and do horrible things. What we do have the power to do is limit how effective they will be when they snap. A criminal or crazy person armed with a knife is going to inflict a lower body count than one with a gun. Outside of B-rated horror movies, when was the last time you heard about a killing rampage that claimed a dozen or more people wherein the murderer was armed only with a melee weapon?
Guns are very efficient tools. They turn a normal human being into a super predator. There are times when that is appropriate, but most of the time it is not. We require police officers a massive amount of training before we let them run around with it "hanging on their hip." We require them all sorts of identification, regulation, and tracking. If we require that of them, it seems to me that it should be required of anyone else too. The gun doesn't get any less dangerous in the hands of a civilian does it? Do you see where I'm going with this?
I'm not against guns or gun ownership. I believe in the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution is crystal clear about them being REGULATED too. I think commonsense dictates that it should be more difficult for me to get and carry a lethal weapon (or at least as difficult) as it is for me to drive a car... or get married even. I also think that reasonable restrictions on what I can get are also valid. I'm not allowed to drive formula one race cars (not street legal) off the racetrack. There are good reasons for this.
From the Huffington Post:
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."
Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:
Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy. After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.
LaPierre said having armed security on the scene is necessary so someone is there to shoot back. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away -- or a minute away?"
But in chaotic situations, it's often impossible to identify the "bad guy," as Smoker said in his account of Columbine: "There was an unknown inside a school. We didn't know who the 'bad guy' was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who 'they' were."
And you're suggesting that the solution is adding several armed guards in the more is obviously better theory that seems to be prevalent with most of the hard-line gun rights advocates. Yes, we need more but not guns...we need more in the way of safer buildings, we need more in the way of help for the mentally ill, we need more in the way of background checks, we need more regulations on what types of guns and ammunition that should be available to the general public, we need more in the way of teaching conflict resolution, we need more in the way of dealing with drugs, gangs, poverty, etc. I do not at all disagree that we need to do more to protect not just our children but all of our citizens but I absolutely disagree with your methods for how that gets accomplished. What you're suggesting is just more of the same that has done little to prevent another situation from happening.
You note we are “regularly shown stories of teachers, security guards, police officers, and all sorts of other positions of authority abusing said power. Are you suggesting teachers can't be mentally ill? “ Do you not think, outside of our immediate families, that our kids are probably safest in the oversight of police officers and teachers? Or is it only with talk of a gun in hand that they go off the deep end? If you were in desperate need of police assistance, would you turn down the assistance of a trained and capable reserve officer, or would you say “let me die because you aren’t a real police officer?”
We already know making assault weapons illegal to purchase, and limiting the amount of cartridges magazines can hold, will do nothing to protect our kids from such events as Sandy Hook. It is my belief that what I support is the most feasible and relatively safe method of protecting our kids from such tragedies available today, if we choose not to home-school them.
Should we just let the kids continue to be easy targets for the sake of ideology? Or do you have something better that is reasonable, immediate, cost effective and will also equally help to ensure the safety of the kids, as what I support?
And if you received proper training, and proved capable, you could drive a race car on the track, right? No one is saying give them a gun and tell them to go at it.