It was an act of pure evil, no doubt.

But I always find people who say that it was "evil" use it as a cop out. By calling it evil, it allows those who have the ability to try and find a solution to the problem of gun violence to just shrug their shoulders and say, "you can't control evil".

The U.S. is the only civilized country in the world that have these things occur on a regular basis. Other countries confront it head on. We put our heads in the sand and say it was "evil".

We need to do better.

There is no doubt that it was an act of pure evil. 

What we need, however, is a national discussion of how to avoid this type of situation in the future. We all seem to go to our political corners and are unwilling to come to some sense of how to deal with it. It would be nice IF this is a catalyst, but I am not hopeful. 

I know (and I expect all of us do) that it is virtually impossible to prevent deaths totally from whatever weapon is chosen to undertake the carnage, but I also expect that we all know there ARE things more that can be done to limit the number of people whose innocent lives are taken. 


 

This comment will probably offend everyone--on both ends of the 2nd Amendment spectrum:

First, if the weapons used were automatics or modified semis, they were already illegal.  Existing laws did not prevent their acquisition and use.

Second, a person who is intent on committing suicide does not value his/her own life, much less the lives of others, and does feel even an ounce of deterrence from gun laws.

Third, even though I am vehemently opposed to gun-free zones, there is no way that anyone armed with a peashooter on the ground could have stopped an aerial assault originating from a barricaded position.   Only a special forces trained sniper with a long rifle and night vision would have had a remote chance at taking out the perp.

Tarnation wrote:

This comment will probably offend everyone--on both ends of the 2nd Amendment spectrum:

First, if the weapons used were automatics or modified semis, they were already illegal.  Existing laws did not prevent their acquisition and use.

Second, a person who is intent on committing suicide does not value his/her own life, much less the lives of others, and does feel even an ounce of deterrence from gun laws.

Third, even though I am vehemently opposed to gun-free zones, there is no way that anyone armed with a peashooter on the ground could have stopped an aerial assault originating from a barricaded position.   Only a special forces trained sniper with a long rifle and night vision would have had a remote chance at taking out the perp.

Sheesh. Flying airliners into buildings is "already illegal" as well.
That doesn't stop us from continuously working on new ways to prevent criminals from doing so.

Secondly, ISIS attackers are intent on committing suicide. They are not deterred by laws either.
Does that mean we should not try to stop them?

Anyway, the self described "greatest nation on earth " just sees 550 people machine gunned in one of its cities, and in less than 24 hours, throws up its hands and determines that there is just nothing to be done?
Oh well, shrug shoulders.
THAT is not a great nation.

You are correct. I AM offended.

Last edited by Goose (10/02/2017 4:24 pm)

Tarnation wrote:

The first and second points are not that we should cease trying to attempt stopping those intent on mass carnage by meeting them with  proportional force; rather, that passing new laws will do little or nothing to stop those who have no regard for our existing laws.

Meeting them with "proportional force"?
So, every concert, folk festival, Mall, movie theater, recital, high school football game, Fall fest, prom, graduation, car show, etc should be staffed with people toting machine guns?

This would be more practical than taking any additional steps to prevent people from having weapons of war in our civilian population?