Again....But it's never the guns!

[David Sims]

Who wants to take bets on how long it's gonna be before we hear some gun-nut tell us how this never would have happened if the victims were armed, too?

Predicting the inevitable counter-argument, in a way that suggests you've heard it all before and have disproved it already, is the sort of thing the religious people do to atheists. It's a pejorative tactic intended to intimidate those who disagree with you with the prospect of ridicule. In other words, it isn't an argument at all and does not deserve even the status of fallacy.

How, exactly, are you going to prohibit murderers from getting guns? Will you pass a law against gun ownership? If murderers already intend to break a law, the penalty for which is lifetime imprisonment or execution, then what penalty will you attach to unlawful gun possession that will convince a murderer that he had better not touch a gun?

Do you know how long civilizations have been trying to control markets through laws, only to be frustrated by black markets to which criminals have privileged access?

It is a fact that legal jurisdictions having strong gun control usually have higher per capita rates for serious crimes than do jurisdictions having little or no gun control.

The vulnerability of schools to murder-minded predators exists mostly because schools are zones in which the lawful possession of guns is restricted, meaning that the on-site logical defenders of school children are themselves unarmed.

Arming the teachers would provide schools with a depth-of-defense greater than that which can be found by assigning a single police officer to permanent duty on school grounds. And for less cost to the taxpayer. And without the difficulties that might arise because some cops are over-zealous, ego-maniacal, spiteful, paranoid, or corrupt. And this sarcastic talk about "arming the children" is merely so much dishonest distraction.