by DGFone » December 15th, 2012, 6:48 am
TBH, I personally don't think that the children were the targets. I think the shooter had something against his mother, and if he was already going to her school to kill her, might as well shoot some kids as well before the police arrive. Sounds sick, I know, but I won't be surprised if that's what it will end up being as what happened.
And another thing that I know many people here will disagree with: this only makes me think that we need to increase gun ownership, not lessen it. Here are my reasons: The guy clearly came in to kill. No laws would have stopped him acquiring a gun. He went into a school to kill people. You really think some laws saying that he can't have a gun will stop him?
And now here is what really makes me feel bad: while in the school, the gunman had free reign. Before the police arrived, he had no one to oppose him. So if one teacher, trained and authorized to use firearms, would have put up an even half-hearted attempt to stop him, his free reign in the school would have been several limited, and I easily could see this to translating as a lesser death tole. It's not the kind of weapon that kills people, but the person using it:
Give a madman an old single-shot flint-lock, and he will still do more damage than a sane man with a nuke. Give other sane people guns to defend themselves, and the insane man will at least think twice before going all out. And when he does, his abilities will be severely limited.
What needs to be controlled is the quality of the human owning a gun, not the quality of the gun.
