Constraining power to defend has had consequences in past
Gun control is in the news. The President, some Pulitzer prize winners, shout for CONTROL.
It is a public safety matter, not one of gun CONTROL. About 20 percent of personnel in a school should carry a weapon to defend children, they would be required to have police requirements and training.
In event of an attack, the attacker is immediately out-numbered. A gun, keyed to the fingerprint of the teacher who owns it, can prevent the gun firing from someone who over-powered them.
Do you want a terrified young teacher trying in vein to cover the body of your loved one? Would you sooner he or she be armed standing in defense of that child? Do you think a smaller magazine will stop violence?
The urge to commit mass murder is perpetuated by violence in movies and video games. The handsome and beautiful people who play in movies are rich from this, wrongly idolized by many, including our politicians.
These people should be required to speak publicly about their movies; special effects are not reality, movie behavior should not enter the real world. Each movie DVD should have that little speech of reality in it from these people. Do leaders value movie dollars more than children’s lives?
Gun control existed in Nazi Germany. There was a reason Switzerland was not attacked at that time; its citizens were required to be armed.
We need to more closely screen those with mental issues. Constraining the power of a civilian population to defend itself has historically had disastrous consequences.