The big thing in the news the past week or so has been the horrifying shooting that took place at the movie theater in Aurora, Colo. It's the kind of event - like a school shooting - that shakes the whole nation and prompts a lot of questions about what could have been done to prevent it, or what can be done to stop future tragedies.
One line of thought is always focused on gun control. Certainly, it doesn't seem to make sense why someone can get a 100-round clip for a rifle. Then again, several 30-round clips could wreak just as much havoc. Taken further:?Several revolvers can do a lot of damage too. So, as a fundamental argument, some people suggest banning guns, or certain guns. Would that matter?
A gun is an invention. If someone knows how to make a gun and can sell it, he will. If another person - a criminal or desperate maniac - wants a gun, he is not going to let a law stop him. After all, that person is intent on breaking the law anyway. The only people who suffer when guns are banned are law-abiding citizens, who become disarmed.
Here is a strong dose of reality: What matters in a mass shooting is the length of time it takes for a second gun to arrive on the scene - to stop the shooter. It's that simple. While police can respond pretty quickly, they cannot reach a scene immediately. A trained citizen who can fire one well-aimed shot would save countless more lives than those - like some in the Aurora theater - who used their bodies to shield others from bullets. When life comes down to you facing some nut wielding a gun, the only thing that matters is whether you are armed and capable of defending yourself.