Comment Re:Would never happen to him (Score 1) 2987
Let me start by saying that I believe you are as upset about what happened as anyone else. I also believe that you are trying to be reasonable about this. However...
More guns == more violence. Plain and simple. If you arm more people, more people will be involved in gun violence. This is not a conclusion, but rather a fundamental premise for any argument that involves "if only someone had been armed, they could have stopped this". In other words, the only way for me to be safe from guns is to carry a gun myself. Hence the reductio ad absurdum critique.
If you asked people to decide between no one having a gun and everyone having one, I think most non-gun owners would instantly say: no guns. Gun owners on the other hand would provide a wide array of excuses for their fetish. (His mother was an avowed "gun enthusiast", by the way)
Some will point to boogie men like FEMA or the UN. Others would offer what appears on the face of it to be a reasonable answer, saying that guns were a fact of life for pre-modern societies who lacked sophisticated law enforcement or local fried chicken joints, and therefore it would somehow be unfair if they cant go out and shoot some deer on the weekends because its "part of our history".
All of these reasons are ridiculous. An AR-15 you buy at Walmart is not going to stop a fantasy FEMA tank and no one uses a Glock 9mm to hunt. So ultimately they all fall back on "its in the constitution", as if it was something Jesus said. And oh yeah, there's my new favorite: guys like this will just blow up the school instead. It is now extremely difficult to acquire the necessary chemicals to pull off such a task precisely because reasonable and very effective laws were passed after the OKC bombing. Just ask the idiot who tried it in Times Square earlier this year.
We don't need guns to be safe. They are in fact the reason we dont feel safe in the first place.