After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?
Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.
Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.
The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.
And what about Naomi --?
Well, she got admitted to Princeton, met the guy of her dreams, and they lived happily ever in a suburban home and with 2.5 kids.
The weapon of choice (gun, bomb, chemical) is NOT the problem. You live in one of the more violent societies of the world. Take off those rose colored glasses and smell the coffee. The dude was intelligent (working on his PHD), a legal firearm owner, and deliberate in his actions. Laws and legislation would not or could not prevent this type of tragedy. Just like the guy here in Arkansas, Ronald Gene Simmons, who systematically executed his entire family and relatives during the Christmas season over the period of several days. Live in a cocoon or accept the reality of life in America.
If thats life in America ( in your opinion ) then I am glad to be no part of it.
Of course violence is human nature. That is understood.
I feel any society with the right to bare arms, is doomed to destroy it self and people who want to own guns have something inherently wrong with them.
My sympathies go out to the families affected.
"I feel any society with the right to bare arms, is doomed to destroy it self..."
Well, that explains why Rome fell, I guess.
So I type, "etc." correctly 99.9999% of the time, and the one time I hit the wrong key in my haste, and type, "ect." and you're all over it, and yet you let all of these references to "bare arms" go by without a shot?
How about, "I have bare arms because it's summertime!"? But no!
Does no one out there know that it's the right to bear arms (as in carry - having no reference to a biological anomaly, such as an eagle beak or a turkey neck --)?
I was taking him literally, that societies where they don't wear long sleeve shirts are doomed. Wasn't that what was meant?
I was too preoccupied with imagining your bear arms, pigeon toes, turkey neck, ect.
And yes, it was deliberate --
Does 'baring arms', have anything to do with the fall of Rome? Oh well, one more empire to study when I have time and interest...
The pragmatist in me, wants to make sure that I do not throw an option away too soon. And the idealist in me, wants to be done with the whole twisted history of war and violence. I caught myself engaging in violence when I was much younger, but it felt that something more needs to be available.
@James Cox, it was a joke directed at the poster who kept using "bare" when he meant "bear". If you ever look at ancient Roman statues or pictures you will see that the people typically had ... bare arms. :)
And the Roman Empire did eventually collapse, but I really doubt it had anything to do with their fashion sense.