I agree. Intent is not the key issue. Guns are more deadly than voodoo dolls even if the madman sticking pins into the voodoo dolls intends the same result. In China, several were injured but none were killed. That's not a mere nuance to be brushed aside as irrelevant.
If there had been a way to prevent the killer from acquiring the guns he used to massacre children, I think we all agree that would have been a good outcome. The ultimate question is whether there could have been such a way, or whether gun advocates are right when they tell us that gun control would not keep weapons out of the hands of determined criminals or psychopaths.
My own sense is that gun control could indeed make a difference. Not every criminal or psychopath patiently prepares in advance and therefore would somehow be able to acquire a gun. Some, I suspect, go off on a psychopathic episode and grab a weapon because it is handy. In Connecticut, the fellow took his mother's legal guns (and killed her as well). Had the mother not kept guns, perhaps his psychopathic break would have passed before he could have found an alternative. Widely and easily available guns just make things too easy when the mood for violence strikes.
Gun advocates argue that everyone would be safer if everyone carried a gun to defend himself. There is very little evidence for that. After all, the murder rate was pretty high in the Wild West where everyone carried. But one thing is certain. There are millions of people who feel anxious and less safe every day because of the prevalence of guns. This sense of anxiety is a factor as well. Is it fair to demand the right to make millions of people fearful and insecure? A lot of people find guns scary. I don't think it's a good thing to scare people.
|