Seems like every few months there is some new mass shooting in the U.S and the stories get more and more tragic.
I really haven't followed the latest Newtown shooting story as in depth as some of the other past ones. Maybe its a bit like I'm shocked but somehow not really surprised anymore because it seems like no where is safe these days anywhere.
On another hand though while waiting to get a definitive answer as to why a young man would want to kill a bunch of 6 and 7 year olds, I feel a close kinship with the parents of the lost ones because my son is a first grader and I'm just wondering the type of rage and sadness I'd feel if something like that happened at his school.
Rather scary really. At 6 and 7, kids are still for the most part rather innocent at heart. I can imagine those poor children waking up excited to go to school, looking forward to the impending end of the school year and the upcoming Christmas, helping their parents to trim Christmas trees or sitting in the laps of mall Santas asking for their Christmas wishes to come through, just days or perhaps hours before this event unfolded. And then to having their glowing lights be so summarily snuffed out all for really no reason given will be adequate.
Anyway as usual after one of these mass shootings, the experts and the common man weighs in and we debate gun control. I'm always surprised when certain "experts" argue that instead of stopping the spread and proliferation of handguns that the opposite is needed and maybe if the folk in say a crowded cinema or the teachers at a elementary school were also packing weapons these types of incidents wouldn't occur.
Don't know about you but I really would feel the opposite of much safer if my child's elementary teachers were "packing heat".
Don't remember what the actual argument is called for more guns but I think it has something to do with Mutually Assured Destruction. And that's sort of what gets me.
The U.S in its international dealings with of course much larger and deadlier weapons argue that certain states should not be allowed to have WMDs because with the proliferation of such weapons at some point some rogue nation or some crazy headed leader will pull or push the button and then boom, we all got to go i.e Mutually Assured Destruction. So hence those weapons should be limited in number.
So if that logic applies to the big boy weapons why don't they apply to small arms? Don't they see the hypocrisy and the irony here? For small arms instead the opposite logic is applied. There, they argue that having small arms readily available will limit the shootings and the mass murders etc cause well if we all have guns we will all be afraid to pull them out cause we know that pulling them out means someone else will pull theirs out and retaliate. Plus you hear some of the more cynical amongst the experts argue its not like the criminals will hand in their guns anyway so best to have ease of access to legal guns and everyone have a weapon than for weapons to be in sparse supply.
See what I mean? That's the opposite logic of what is applied on a global scale. And while one could argue that there would be at least a few sane voices who could stop Mutually Assured Destruction on a global scale when we deal with a deranged individual with easy access to handguns and assault rifles who could give a damn about someone retaliating against him cause he is all prepared to give up and in most cases take his own life then having ease of access to guns makes absolutely no sense.
Ease of access to guns is not a deterrent if the individual doesn't give a damn about the consequences to himself at the end of the rampage. And the logic applied for the proliferation of small arms makes no sense if the individuals we are dealing with do not think logically like most of the population.
I know Americans pride themselves on their constitution and its amendments but shouldn't the debate be reopened on whether the second amendment and its right to bear arms still makes perfect sense in the world we live in?