Re: firearms reality check
It's occurred to me that the two main bodies responsible for these mass killings are those enacting gun free zones (government, local or otherwise) and the media.
By creating a "Gun Free Zone" you are creating a pool of unarmed victims. By celebrating the shooter, calling him by his name on every media outlet for days/weeks, you are giving him the attention he craves.
Copycat killers will repeat this crime. Now imagine if the news sounded like this: "A lunatic killed 20 people at a school. Police killed him as soon as they responded." Or, better yet, "An idiot tried to shoot some children in a middle school and was shot dead by two of the faculty."
Most mass killers commit suicide, or suicide by cop. They want to go out in a blaze of 'glory' and be famous. Why do we enable this?
My problem with registration, or a restriction on type of firearm or who gets to own them, is who decides? I forget who said the famous line about 'the shoulder thing that goes up' but most of the people that want to ban firearms are not shooters and so have little knowledge of firearms. Witness the 1994 AWB, that banned the AR15 in many configurations yet exempted the Mini-14. As they are both box-magazine fed semi-auto .223 caliber weapons, the AWB was clearly saving us from black plastic stocks.
I think we've compromised enough. Gun free zones don't work, gun buybacks don't work, and the AWB was a failure. As first noticeably pointed out in "More Guns, Less Crime" (John R. Lott) an increase in guns in the hands of law abiding citizens tends to reduce crime. We need <span style="font-weight: bold">more</span> guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, not less.
Let's not forget the intent of the Second Amendment. Fresh from combat with the British, the Framers of the Constitution specifically meant to enable future Americans to throw off a tyrannical government. The Amendment was written to guarantee civilians the right to own firearms sufficient to defend themselves against a military force. It's not about hunting, it's about freedom.
To see, right here in the USA, where further registration gets gun owners, look at California. The state several years ago told all SKS and AK type rifle owners that they would have to register these weapons with the state, "Just so we can find out how many there are."
This was followed in a couple of years by, "Alright, we know you have them. Turn them in, or face the consequences." So, many gun owners turned them in. At least, the law-abiding ones did. Criminals didn't, because criminals do not obey laws.
A disarmed society would be gladiatorial. The strong will take from the weak, by force, and with impunity. An excellent example is Britain, where gun owners are a minority, hemmed in with restrictions. And where violent home invasions are common. How helpless would a man feel, watching his family members hurt, raped, killed.... and being absolutely powerless to prevent it.
No, my friends, we are past compromise.
1911fan