I think like a lot of people Guns are fine for lawful hunting and lawful limited self protection.
Apart for target shooting what is a guns purpose?
The concern of The Founders that spawned our RIGHT to "keep and bear" over here went faaaar beyond "lawful hunting and "limited (?!?!?!) self protection". If you'll read our "federalist papers" you'll see that their central motivation was to ensure we could defend ourselves against tyranny by our own govt - as well as against any foreign invasion.
(I would remind you that Japanese Adm. Yamamoto stated during WWII, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." And he was 100% right.) Like I said, our right to "keep and bear" involves far more than hunting.
We've had the police shoot a man dead for carrying a wrapped up chair leg.
And the police should have known it was a chair leg...because...? My guess is the man was told to drop the item and he refused - or he turned it in the direction of the police and that was that. We have an expression over here that probably applied in the incident you mentioned; "Suicide by cop."
A bullet does not discriminate against an innocent. Nor does a split descision.
While were are talking take the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw getto had a limit amount of rifles and submachine guns but they were up against tanks?
Would they have been better off in the end had they sat on their thumbs and done nothing?
In the UK guns are available to the criminals especially to outside cultures that have no problem using them i.e. Yardies from Jamacia and eastern european gangs. Would I want one????
What would you rather have to defend yourself against these people?
You say armed the teachers but not all individuals have the skills or mindset to shoot another human being even when attacked. They may freeze (soliders have done this in war) and have the weapon taken away from them and used against them. You would need armed trained guards at Schools and theres no guarentee of the outcome against a mental suicidial attacker? Would hardened criminals care they have no concious or morals a pyschopath has no apathy they are out for themselves.
The only defense against a perp with a gun that provides any hope at all that a potential victim might come away from the encounter whole is a gun in the hand of said intended victim. The police are usually too far away to change a thing.
Capital punishment is a two way sword it may deter some criminals for some others "the nothing to loose" syndrome applies. Its their mindsets that determine the severity of the weapon crime. How are you going to be vigilant or see or tell when someone is a rapist armed robber etc? They are mostly clever in hidding their intentions
Like you say its people that kill people But that means restricting access to any weapons and ammo. Is it stored and lock away in seperate locatations or not near each other in the US?
But allowing assault rifles that car fire 100 of rounds a minute is asking for trouble. I cannot see the point of a automatic weapon outside of the military.
In Britiain there have been guns here for ages but there on the criminal side. Maybe within American the availablity has gone too far over ther limited to be pulled back.
You say you have a right to bear arms. Your citzens have a right to life that is way above this.
And how do YOU propose to effectively defend that right to life in the face of an armed threat except by the use of another gun? The guns used to shoot those children were legally owned; but accessed easily by a psychpath. (...which is the exact reason some of us keep trying to pound home the point that L-A-W-S aren't going to protect the innocent. 'Never have. 'Never will. In the end, we all have to protect ourselves.
I have questions only and no solutions. But feel for the parents and families of those children.
Amen to that, Allan. Amen to that.
Allan
