At 12/14/12 07:54 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:
As I've been saying to people around me almost all day, banning guns outright will not help, and may in fact do a lot more harm than most people realize. If the right person was outside the classroom, such as an armed guard or cop, just as this was going on, his or her gun could have been used for the better in effect by killing the shooter early and saving many lives. It all comes down to, again, blaming the perp and not the gun since guns don't have minds of their own.
Still, it's far too early to know whether any significant changes in gun legislation will come up as a result of this. You have countries like Japan with strict gun laws and very low homicide rates every year, but then you have other countries like Mexico, which like Japan, also has strict gun laws but way more murders and overall crime.
Culture plays a very important role here. And sadly, no matter what we do, even if we illegalize guns by way of repealing the 2nd Amendment, we're still going to have to deal with tragedies close to this or even worse. Major cultural shifts where most people would move away from being inclined to engage in mass shooting sprees take a LONG time, if ever. In any case, there's no good reason why this piece of human filth did what he did, and the best decision he ever made in his miserable life was ending it.
I understand where you're coming from when you tell me that a gun can't make the decision to kill. But guns can't really be compared to tools or anything else that possesses an ambiguous function. Guns are designed primarily to kill, be it animals or people. And I don't believe that it's necessary to potentially allow dangerous people to possess these weapons in the first place.
I still believe that we should give hunting rifles and such the same kind of availability, but limit the owning of semi-automatic rifles purely because of the danger they pose to society. The use of a hunting rifle can be argued, you can claim that you want to hunt, which is a perfectly logical argument. But with semi-automatic rifles, there is no other function, these are weapons that are designed to kill, and we're just giving them to anyone. We cannot give so many people the responsibility of using one of these weapons, they're fast, automatic, and easy to use, in the wrong hands, these weapons can kill vast amounts of people in a short time. Another thing is, we're not stripping anyone of any special rights here when we inhibit the use of such firearms, you can't argue that you use an AR-15 to hunt deer, nor can you say that it's logical to go duck hunting with an M16. No, the only fairly valid reason for owning these weapons (other than taking another person's life) is either a) collection b) shooting inanimate objects. And yet, these two reasons are not valid enough to favor the continued legalization of such guns. To take away someone's right to shoot watermelon in their backyard with an M16 isn't really all that bad, you're not infringing on an inherent human right, and in a way, you're saving someone from losing the one right that is universal to all; the right to live.
So I do agree with you in some aspects. Yes, it is people that are causing these shootings in the first place, but had they possessed an alternate weapon because semi-automatic rifles were not available to them, then perhaps the number of deaths would have been much lower. This is why I believe that banning such rifles is the best course of action concerning these kinds of killings.