"On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat "

Proof positive the gun isn't the issue here. Rather a disturbed individual. Regardless of the tool used, the results are the same. Is killing ten in cold blood really that much more horrific than killing a single individual the same way ?

This argument never even sees the light of day had he:

1) Ran over a group of them in his vehicle
2) Set off an IED ( or several ) in a crowded area of the school
3) Poisoned / contaminated the food / water
4) Burned the entire facility to the ground
5) Introduce some chemical ( aerosol form ) to the AC air intakes
6) Insert your own creative Improvised WMD here . . . . .

Any one of which would easily kill multitudes of people yet, somehow, we're still trying to blame the gun :|

Eventually, you realize the firearm isn't the problem here. It's just an easy solution for the non-creative problem children that exist within civilized society. Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years and we've become pretty good at it. Take away the gun and our species will simply find another means to make it happen. It's what we have done since we started throwing rocks at each other. Hell, even the games we play are predicated upon killing each other.

Taking away the tool doesn't solve the underlying problem. You have to take it on at the source, which is far more difficult to do. Thus, do so many simply choose what they perceive to be the easy fix of trying to justify the banning of firearms.

The idea is ludicrous. Taking a potential weapon away from a psycho doesn't fix the damaged mind. It simply postpones the carnage until the psycho can find another tool for the job.

Until you start removing psychos from society, your efforts will be in vain I'm afraid.


Last edited by Daye; 03/18/12 07:44 PM.