The Amendment did not kill those children. A person did. A mentally unstable person who took access of a weapon. Rewind this to a no gun existing and the headline may of read, "XYZ number of children bludgeon to death by baseball bat."
@Iwillwait The difference is that a baseball bat is manufactured to play baseball. An assault weapon is manufactured to kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible.
@Iwillwait Gun fetishist fallacy, indeed he could have used another weapon to kill, but he would have been apprehended or shot before he could kill so many. An automatic weapon is the fastest way for one individual to kill many, the cops were there within 3 minutes, he killed 19 children and one adult in 3 minutes... 😖
@Iwillwait Knives also have beneficial uses and are made for cutting. Had the assailant been armed with one, he would not have committed a similar level of mass carnage.
@windinhishair "Beneficial-Use?" Does a fire arm possess such beneficial use? Perhaps.
I think in today's society we have so much information at our fingertips that anyone could train to be a Soldier in their bedroom, and emerging out into society a tactically trained killer. So, the next peel of the onion gets tugged at, "Our accessibility to information, Patriot Act, Mind Police," this will always be the next "Thing," that so many will resist against.
Once our shores are attacked by another Country that said "Rifle," will be very welcomed amongst all of our society. (Provided the local police and military have not be Defunded)
@Iwillwait An assault weapon serves no beneficial use other than to kill expediently and massively. You may consider dead children acceptable collateral damage to be able to possess one. I do not.
@windinhishair No, I don't think any life ended by murder is ok. It's tragic. The assault rifle could have been a Mossberger pump shot gun, it could have been a deer rifle , it could have been a knife, a baseball bat, this kid arrrived to school with the intent to kill.
@Iwillwait And had he been armed with most of those, the carnage would have been significantly reduced. And that is the point. We cannot prevent every evil act, but we do have some control over potential access to weapons that exacerbate the evil.
@Iwillwait Not sure I understand your point here? Yes, the police ultimately killed him but in the mean time, he killed 19 children and 2 adults. You'd better believe I'm upset, I'm furious that we allow this to happen again and again. The weapon he used is very relevant in that it allowed him to cause the most damage in the shortest period of time, few other weapons would have enabled him to do that. Of course he wasn't going to be prevented from killing some of them, no matter the weapon he had, but it more than likely would only have been 2 or 3 before the police got to him...
