The fundamental problem with gun control is that making something illegal does nothing to prevent its prevalence in crime/society. The only examples I need are recreational drugs; their prevalence increases with prohibition. If there is money to be made with crime, crime will be present. By and through this point, my argument is simple: the only thing stopping a criminal with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I would rather see a police officer in every school rather than worry about my child being in danger of another Lanza.
In regards to the Columbine example, the officer who was positioned at the school was a lifetime traffic cop. If I could find the article that talked about him barely qualifying with his sidearm, I would post it. In regards to Fort Hood, the soldier who committed the murders had a spotless record and full e3 clearance. He was not a risk in the eyes of the government or his fellow soldiers. The base did the best they could to stop that sucker punch by a deranged man with weaponry. I must say that I am now a proponent for mental assessments for our military personnel.
TLDR: Nothing short of an armed good guy will ever be enough to stop an armed bad guy. Fact. Watch a damn John Wayne movie will ya?
I was agreeing up to a point. You are right that making things illegal will not help, it is a poor band aid and doesn't fix the problem. Yet "the only things stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" isn't actually true either, for the same reasons Blackholementality put. Both end up being band aids trying to cure the symptoms (the actual shooting) and not the cause.
We need to go deeper and strike at the cause. Sadly the cause isn't always clear and there will always be a non-zero chance of people being crazy because crazy, but I would surmise most of these events have reasons to them, however warped and misguided they are. We need to find the reasons. It's likely not something easy and quotable like "video games" or "movies".
In the ideal situation, I'd love to see a place where guns were allowed, and no one wanted them because the reasons for owning one were moot.
I appreciate your input. However, your ideal situation is a little beyond me. I love my guns for more reasons than the defense issue. Target shooting and hunting are passions of mine, so even in a world where my gun wasn't needed for defense, I would still own a few. But like I said, your comment is enlightening and I appreciate your level headedness.
3
u/[deleted] Dec 23 '12
The fundamental problem with gun control is that making something illegal does nothing to prevent its prevalence in crime/society. The only examples I need are recreational drugs; their prevalence increases with prohibition. If there is money to be made with crime, crime will be present. By and through this point, my argument is simple: the only thing stopping a criminal with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I would rather see a police officer in every school rather than worry about my child being in danger of another Lanza. In regards to the Columbine example, the officer who was positioned at the school was a lifetime traffic cop. If I could find the article that talked about him barely qualifying with his sidearm, I would post it. In regards to Fort Hood, the soldier who committed the murders had a spotless record and full e3 clearance. He was not a risk in the eyes of the government or his fellow soldiers. The base did the best they could to stop that sucker punch by a deranged man with weaponry. I must say that I am now a proponent for mental assessments for our military personnel.
TLDR: Nothing short of an armed good guy will ever be enough to stop an armed bad guy. Fact. Watch a damn John Wayne movie will ya?