Quote:
|
Originally Posted by crewsor
I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely.
|
The statement about restrictions is valid. The gun that he used belonged to his grandfather, who was a police officer. And this just continues to demonstrate the fact that regardless of the limitations put on law abiding citizens, a person that wants a gun is either going to obtain it illegally, or is going to hurt someone else to get it if their desire is that great. And once they have the guns, then what? How are the rest of us that gave up our rights under the control legislations supposed to protect ourselves from them. Give the teachers the guns, but also give them the education on the guns so that they have the necessary respect and skill to use them appropriately.
Host has some very valid concerns about placing guns into these situations as a reactionary measure, but I don't think that reaction is the right word, if this were a single instance that possibly, but the developing trend here requires a response, and the measures employed thus far are continually proving woefully ineffective.
I'll leave it there, because I don't think I could say anything else right now that SweetPea hasn't already said better.