– [post-date] –

On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza walked into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown CT and murdered 26 people with firearms that he reportedly took from his mother. Twenty of his victims were little children and six were adults. When the police arrived he committed suicide rather than face life in prison for his heinous crimes. On the same day of the shooting, and in the days to follow, the next despicable thing to happen was the way anti-gun members of our society reacted, by blaming gun owners for the slayings at Sandy Hook. This resulted in a flame war between gun and non-gun owning members of society.

Right after the news of the Sandy Hook shooting was dispatched on all of the major news networks, people were calling for tighter gun laws and some were even blaming the National Rifle Association (NRA) for this horrible event. Message boards on the Internet and talk shows on television began to reflect the pro-gun anti-gun debate that has polarized our nation for some time. The anti-gun argument called for comprehensive gun regulations and bans, while the pro-gun argument was defensive in an effort to protect the guns that many own, which the anti’s are suggesting the government confiscate.

Another pro-gun response to the proposed gun bans was to buy massive amounts of ammunition and firearms from gun shops just in case some bans were to go into effect. Currently, Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to push a bill which would ban 157 types of weapons and any magazine which holds more than 10 rounds. This legislation would not ban all firearms; it will leave many types of weapons available for the general population’s use. The ultimate goal of course is to ban them all. Senator Diane Feinstein said on 60 Minutes over 10 years ago, that if she had the votes in the Senate she would ask Mr. and Mrs. America to give up all of their guns. She claimed she would take guns away from private citizens. With this track record, why should gun owners trust her lukewarm common sense gun control measure?

The response to the Sandy Hook massacre is reminiscent of the way many anti-gun members of our society responded to the events that happened on Sept. 11, 2001; when terrorists crashed jumbo jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Within a short time, some anti-gun pundits favored banning .50 caliber rifles because they were afraid that terrorists were going to use these high powered rifles to shoot down the next batch of jumbo jets. The 9-11 terrorists reportedly used box cutter knives to disable the pilots of the planes they hijacked, not .50 caliber rifles. If this would have gone into effect, it would have left .408 caliber rifles on the shelf for the general population to purchase. Arguably, .408 caliber rifles could be just as deadly as .50 caliber rifles if used against humans or air planes. Ironically, box cutter knives are still legal and since 9-11 no one has proposed banning them from the hands of the general population.

One week after the Sandy Hook shooting Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice-President of the NRA said that we need to put police officers at our schools to help protect our children. Mr. LaPierre also blamed violent video games like Kindergarten Killers, Grand Theft Auto and blood soaked films like Natural Born Killers which portray murder as a way of life; a form of entertainment which causes our violent national mindset. Mr. LaPierre asked the audience “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?” He claimed that the media and its “race to the bottom” for bringing this material into our homes for children to see act as silent enablers to this violent mind set, yet the same media will not blame its own moral failure, instead it chooses to “demonize gun owners.” Several people disrupted the conference and blamed the NRA for the violence that we are plagued with. One woman who was removed from the conference called for a ban on assault weapons.

So on one hand we are left with gun bans and on the other, calls for police protection as a remedy to the problem of school massacres caused by demented psychopaths with firearms. Although the effects of violent entertainment on the general population are debatable, its effects on demented minds may be less debatable. No matter how much a violent product may influence a deranged person, how do you keep “violent entertainment” out of the hands of demented minds?

Should violent movies and video games be banned? Considering our freedom loving culture, this option is hardly feasible. Diane Feinstein’s ultimate goal is to ban all firearms; however, considering that same freedom loving culture is unlikely to let that idea succeed. Feinstein’s middle of the road gun ban still leaves the country with millions of guns, of which some percentage can fall into the hands of psychopaths. This leaves us with the question, “Does a psychopath need an assault weapon or semi-auto weapons to kill children?” Considering the range of powerful revolvers and shotguns on the market, guns that would be unaffected by Feinstein’s forbidden list are more than capable of facilitating a mass homicide if used by someone who is intent on committing such an act. Gun bans, or magazine restrictions are remedies which fail on the drawing board.

As the debate rages on, our nation plays global policeman to the tune of trillions of dollars. Our military is all over the globe yet we do not seem able to provide police protection against this trend in school massacres. Those who keep repeating the idiotic slogan “more guns in our schools are not the answer” are at a loss to explain how they would stop an armed assailant from performing a mass homicide. Their suggested gun bans realistically will not get past 60-80 million gun owners, the NRA, a multi-billion dollar gun industry and many in Congress who are pro-gun. It is more realistic and feasible to implement a comprehensive school security program to protect children from gun wielding criminals.

Although our children deserve it, considering the way the anti-gun movement has reacted to Columbine (which happened during the Clinton assault weapon ban era, 1994-2004), Virginia Tech, NIU and Sandy Hook, it is not likely that any significant solutions will be implemented on a national scale. Some schools like Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU) have armed police and Utah allows people with concealed carry permits to carry on campus. A few states are talking about training and arming teachers to provide security.

In the grand scheme of things, the next school slaughter will not be prevented by an armed presence because the anti-gun movement insists on futile anti-gun legislation. Such legislation has virtually no chance of becoming law much less stopping psychopaths with firearms even if it passes. Anti-gun ideas and name calling will only continue to divide the gun and non-gun owning population, resulting in our children remaining unprotected and easy prey for homicidal degenerates.