Has anyone noticed that the area where this shooting occurred was an area in which guns were completely banned?
It would seem that spreading such a ban to a wider area, which is what gun control is all about, would just widen the area where perpetrators of violence could go and commit violent crime without any fear of resistance?
Criminals are cowards. Violence on this scale mainly happens in areas where the population is concentrated and disarmed – schools, malls, churches, etc.
We can’t control criminals and their access to guns any more than we have been able to limit their access to cocaine – which, by the way, is completely illegal, but criminals get their hands on it anyway – strangely enough, they don’t care to follow the laws we pass for ourselves!
A big part of the second amendment dealt with a society protecting itself from its government. “The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other “non-citizens.”” Always remember to disarm the people before you impose your will upon them – whether you’re a government or a criminal.
Criminals are lazy. They don’t want to disarm their victims, they hope the government to do that for them.
I hate violence and I hope for peace, but in these cases, peace is not our choice – violence is imposed upon us by jerks like this and so we must ask ourselves if we want to put down our weapons in the name of peace when criminals (and governments) are unwilling to do likewise – in fact, they hope we put our weapons down so their job will be easier. We can’t disarm criminals through gun control laws and so this is the choice before us – disarm and die or remain armed and fight back?
I also believe we should find out why people commit violent crimes and try to fix the problem at the root, but even doing that won’t prevent all violent crime. Background checks seem ok when it comes to making it harder for criminals to get weapons legally, but they don’t always get their arms legally and if the government became wicked to the point of disarming us to overtake us, background checks would seem to defeat the purpose as only those who agree with the government would be able to get a gun.
Let’s take a moment to pray for and mourn for the victims of this senseless tragedy.
Cronk 
I agree completely. This is not a gun control issue at all. It irritating that the media is striving so hard to push this as an issue for gun control. The headlining Reuters article ended with this bit of “news”:
“More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year in the United States and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country. A powerful gun lobby and grass-roots support for gun ownership rights have largely thwarted attempts to tighten controls. ”
it’s unbelievable that they don’t put two and two together, and instead decide to pass some of the blame onto the gun lobby and grass roots supporters. Wat they say isn’t even the truth, yet after an incident like this, people are willing to believe what they read. Instead they need to understand that the shooter was going to kill regardless of the law (hence the fact he had a gun in a gun free zone, as you said). Further limitations would not have prevented this tragedy.
Instead of looking at the gun control element, people need to start looking at the human element.
“Instead of looking at the gun control element, people need to start looking at the human element.”
Wouldn’t the true logical conclusion suggest to look at both? Why does your latter claim (to look at social problems) eliminate the need to look at the problems and the danger that guns create?
Guns will always be available. Last time I checked drugs were still illegal yet there is a tabloid showing Lindsey Lohan snorting concaine so it’s clear that just by making something illegal doesn’t mean it will go away. Guns should be available to everyone pending waiting periods and background checks. Responsible gun use is not the problem, it’s people with guns. And the fact of the matter is no matter what we do the people that want the guns the most will find them.
Last time I checked there was a huge logical and psychological difference between putting drugs in your own body and putting a bullet into someone else’s body. This is just a cliche argument your side hides behind that is bare of any persuasive and logival force.
cerebraljetsam – cool screen name.
I think you missed the point of the comparison. The point of it is that making something illegal just takes it out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It doesn’t take it out of the hands of criminals.
Therefore the slaughter we just witnessed is the perfect example of what gun control causes: innocent people with no guns mixed with criminals with guns who kill them. Even if there were stricter gun control that made it impossible for this killer to get a gun legally, he would have, just as other criminals and killers have, obtained one illegally.
It’s a powerful logical argument that has as its result 33 bodies on the ground. Disarm the “good guys” and invite slaughter. It’s so simple and now it’s even more solidly proven with yet another example of a criminal being enabled by gun control.
@ rcronk:
If this really were the case (and I am sure you know how many statistics exist that prove the opposite, that it will simply become harder to obtain a weapon in order to kill people and hence will avoid maybe not a massacre that was planned for months, but crimes of passion, etc.), why are we so intent on taking away Iran’s nuclear technology? Should we not beef up our own and provide it to all neighboring states of Iran? Has the Cold War not shown how flawed this logic is? Then why do we seem so hesitant to apply something we agree with on the global level to the local level?
I’ve seen statistics both ways and I don’t think the statistics alone can capture the whole story.
Nukes are all or nothing. Guns kill people one at a time. If the killer had a nuke, it wouldn’t matter if the class members had nukes – they’re all dead no matter what. If the killer has a gun, a student or professor could kill the killer without killing anyone else.
Most rational governments understand that there’s no point to nuking someone who has nukes because everyone ends up dead in the end.
Irrational governments are like suicidal terrorists who don’t care if everyone ends up dead in the end and so they have no problem with “wiping Isreal off the face of the earth” with a nuke because those 72 virgins will be awaiting them in heaven after the rest of the world nukes them back.
The cold war actually proved that this logic works. No nukes were launched – it worked! But it only worked because the governments involved were somewhat rational. Iran’s government doesn’t seem very rational.
When someone’s suicidal, you have to kill or disarm them as soon as possible to minimize the loss of life. This sounds warmongering, but it isn’t. It’s a defensive position that keeps the largest number of people alive in the end. Nobody wants to do it, but if forced into it by a killer, everyone can lay down and die or fight back and live.
No offense cerebraljetsam but I can make a simple gun from scratch, and there are tens of thousands of other people with metal working machinery could do a lot better job, and that’s if there were no black market to buy them from. Do you know why Palestinian suicide bombers use bombs now instead of guns like they used to? Has anyone noticed a difference in crime rates in Australia following severe gun control laws? Did it ever occur to you that America defeated the British with guns owned and wielded by civilians? Are we going to ban rat poison because it can kill people, or cars, or second story windows because you can fall out of those? I could go on all day. Creating new laws and new regulations for every substance or item that could hurt you is a joke especially when we’re talking about guns. I for one will not be handing my right to bear arms over to politicians, police, or armies (our own or otherwise). I’ll gladly die defending that right. Suppose some free thinker would have disobeyed the law and had been carrying a gun on that campus and shot that crazed glock toting idiot dead, would he have been arrested and treated like a criminal for doing so, or would he have been hailed a hero?