When Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns and when all law-abiding citizens are disarmed they shall be at the mercy of those that have guns whenever and wherever those gun owners choose to violate society's RIGHTS under the law.
Quite right. And if more people used explosives to kill innocents then
everyone should be issued with explosives, since prolonging the problem clearly makes more sense than attempting to resolve it.
Since the birth of this great nation, the people of the United States have been overwhelmingly active is assisting other countries, at their request or evidence of their dire straits
..or, indeed, after having sat back and done f**k-all to help, for over a year, while a war raged across many 'allied' countries. Joining in only once they were attacked themselves.
with the use of arms against their allies' attackers or oppressors who were also using arms to attack and oppress. Many of the beneficiaries of this assistance have forgotten or ignore the facts and consciously chose to ignore that their lives would be very different today had not the US aided in those countries' struggles of the past... And they criticize the US and look down their noses at its people, forgetting that the RIGHTS they have today that allow them to do so are in large part thanks to the aid received from their benefactor in time of their most desperate need
Indeed, we should thank Japan more often, since if it weren't for them the 'great' US might have sat back and done nothing for the entire course of WWII, as opposed to just the first quarter of it.
Had other students been armed, would he have so easily overpowered them? This question has been raised as well. Shouldn’t more people/teachers/students be required to and taught to responsibly handle handguns and be allowed to carry them by permit? Faced with the possibility of being shot for taking another’s life, would that have acted as a deterrent to the gunman?
Probably not - as you observed, he was mentally deranged.
The Rifle Club members on the VT campus have expressed this sentiment and stated that in the very least they would have not have felt so helpless. And had they encountered the gunman themselves they would not have let the rampage continue had they had their own weapon to defend themselves with.
And if more people used explosives to kill innocents then
everyone should be issued with explosives, etc. etc.
The truth is: neither guns, nor their availability are to blame; the path this young man chose was his own, he had other paths to choose but did not. He shunned outside influences of any sort and isolated himself until he began to exist only within the paranoia that overwhelmed him and pushed him forward to his own destruction and the destruction of 33 others.
No, but the number might have been significantly lower if he'd been killing by hand.
