In all the current debates going on here over what are "reasonable" gun restrictions and "reasonable" safety measures, both sides are missing an important point.
Many people have pointed out that if someone is intent on mass murder, simply taking guns away will not stop him.
Masses of people have been killed at once with explosions, fires and airlines attacks. If some maniac decides he wants to end his life and take as many with him as he can, a gun is not the only tool to do so. A gun is not even the BEST tool to do so.
As such, the best case scenario when someone is intent on killing himself and others before he finishes himself is to stop him before he can start. However, to do so would mean subjecting people to psychological screenings and other egregious breaches of the bill of rights (though this doesn't seem to stop people wanting to breach the second amendment.)
The second best scenario (and the most realistic) is to stop these people once they have indicated their desire to murder numerous people and then kill themselves.
As such, I prefer that these maniacs have access to guns. Why? With a gun, the maniac can only kill one person at a time. He may be able to kill a few before people can react, but he is very limited in the "mass" part of his shootings. Now obviously, if this is a "gun-free" zone, it will be longer until he can be stopped. With a gun, though, the opportunity exists to stop him before he kills large numbers of people once he has made his intentions known.
Now, take away access to guns. This does not remove the desire to murder and create fame (infamy, rather) for the maniac. Instead, if he doesn't have access to guns, he may chose other ways: fire, explosives, vehicle into a crowd of people.
In every one of these substitutes for guns, once the criminal has made his intentions clear, it is too late: the fire is started, the bomb has gone off, the people are run down.
Keep in mind those who argue about "safe gun storage" or "reasonable restrictions" that you do not remove the desire to kill. You only remove ONE MEANS of carrying out their plans.
Look to what happened in Isreal, the Israelis found ways of stopping mass shootings by an armed populace. As a result, the maniacs attacking them started blowing themselves up to kill large numbers of people.
If you actually succeeded in preventing all mass killers from gaining access to guns (which will never happen to begin with), the carnage from mass killings would INCREASE as you have now shifted these killers from the use of guns to the next easiest substitute (explosives, but more likely fire) which would increase the death toll at each incident.
As bad as mass shootings are, I prefer them to bombs or arson.
Many people have pointed out that if someone is intent on mass murder, simply taking guns away will not stop him.
Masses of people have been killed at once with explosions, fires and airlines attacks. If some maniac decides he wants to end his life and take as many with him as he can, a gun is not the only tool to do so. A gun is not even the BEST tool to do so.
As such, the best case scenario when someone is intent on killing himself and others before he finishes himself is to stop him before he can start. However, to do so would mean subjecting people to psychological screenings and other egregious breaches of the bill of rights (though this doesn't seem to stop people wanting to breach the second amendment.)
The second best scenario (and the most realistic) is to stop these people once they have indicated their desire to murder numerous people and then kill themselves.
As such, I prefer that these maniacs have access to guns. Why? With a gun, the maniac can only kill one person at a time. He may be able to kill a few before people can react, but he is very limited in the "mass" part of his shootings. Now obviously, if this is a "gun-free" zone, it will be longer until he can be stopped. With a gun, though, the opportunity exists to stop him before he kills large numbers of people once he has made his intentions known.
Now, take away access to guns. This does not remove the desire to murder and create fame (infamy, rather) for the maniac. Instead, if he doesn't have access to guns, he may chose other ways: fire, explosives, vehicle into a crowd of people.
In every one of these substitutes for guns, once the criminal has made his intentions clear, it is too late: the fire is started, the bomb has gone off, the people are run down.
Keep in mind those who argue about "safe gun storage" or "reasonable restrictions" that you do not remove the desire to kill. You only remove ONE MEANS of carrying out their plans.
Look to what happened in Isreal, the Israelis found ways of stopping mass shootings by an armed populace. As a result, the maniacs attacking them started blowing themselves up to kill large numbers of people.
If you actually succeeded in preventing all mass killers from gaining access to guns (which will never happen to begin with), the carnage from mass killings would INCREASE as you have now shifted these killers from the use of guns to the next easiest substitute (explosives, but more likely fire) which would increase the death toll at each incident.
As bad as mass shootings are, I prefer them to bombs or arson.
