This young man entered the school with several weapons, 1 of which was an AR-15 rifle, the others were 9mm semi auto handguns. All of the weapons were purchased by his mother then stolen from her and in fact, used to kill her.
What puzzles me is the focus of the gun issue seems to be on the semi auto "military style" weapon, and large capacity magazines.
It seems to me that if you were the type that wanted to "do harm" to large numbers of innocents, all of the above weapons would be a "poor choice". You don't hear of terrorists using hand guns, or even small arms, they use explosives or airplanes.
If that nutcase in Connecticut had had a purposefully equipped shot gun, one that could be easily obtained and modified, the body count would have been much higher, yet we don't see anyone discussing laws controlling same.
Could it be that our government is not concerned about protecting it's citizens against it's citizens as much as it is about disarming it's population?
I guess where I'm going with this is, this particular incident could not have been avoided and will not be prevented with the proposed gun control laws that I've heard of as of late.
Now granted, this is not the only incident over the past few years. But as I recall, all of the recent incidents where the perpetrator kills many, then kills himself, or the James Holmes (Denver) shootings, were at close range, not anywhere near the range the 5.56 cartridge was deigned to operate in. Yet our leaders tend to focus on this weapon when considering gun control.
This weapon is labeled unnecessary, or overkill. I hear people saying " I can't see how anyone would need an assault rifle".
My response is "Just because you can't see the need doesn't mean we aren't quickly approaching a place where it (the need) will become apparent".
Although this place doesn't concern me as much as it does some, furthermore I don't own an AR rifle, or any assault style rifle, or any military style weapons for that matter. But I do respect those who feel it's a good idea to have one or more in their collection and I believe that it is exactly what the second amendment was intended for.
I believe you have the right to protect yourself and your loved ones on your property.
There was a time in this country when you could form your own militia, and it was only a a couple of hundred years ago. Now we are expected to be totally dependent on the governments ( Local state and federal) for our protection. So look how far we've come and look where we are going....
What does concern me is, why there are those in our government who seem pre-occupied with getting these weapons to a place that is off limits to civilians. These weapons, the weapons used to defend a country.
If you think I'm "off the wall" here. I would answer by asking you to look into the sale of these "assault rifles" and the relevant ammo over the past ten years and over the past ten days.
Everybody's in fear of losing there gun rights, there going to take our guns away (Please) That will never happen and no body's saying any such thing. The thing is what is happening that there some stores Like Dick's Sporting Goods that have pulled all there assault rifles off the shelves and will no longer take part in selling those type of weapons and I think you'll find there will be others that will follow, they didn't need the Government to say there banned to take what they saw as the appropriate action.