= new reply since forum marked as read
As can be seen from the Swiss example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland , a higher rate of gun ownership amongst the people is not the issue. The solution utilised by the Swiss militia lies in the requirement of education in responsibility of ownership of such weapons.
The worst of these gun-massacres may have been prevented simply by the weapons being securely kept out of the reach of the perpetrators such as Danza. Just how did a young man with an alleged history of disturbance in his personal life, come to be in possession of such a weapon - answer: apparently from his mother, the gun's owner. This indicates the real cause is a serious failure in the responsibility of the gun's owner to keep their weapons secure from the possession of those other than owner, or those untrained in the associated responsibilities.
Targeting the constitutional right to bear arms doesn't clear-up the problem, and is a red-herring, as can be seen from recent and continuing history of terrible gun-massacres in places where gun control is historically extremely tight, such as the UK, Australia, et al.
The problem isn't the right to bear arms (by which means the people reserve to be sufficiently armed to protect themselves against the unlawful USE OF DEADLY FORCE by any authority, inc. "government"
. The only time to get rid of guns, is if everyone gets rid of guns, including the so-called "authorities", who's historical and recent catalogue of deadly error and abuses of power are not to be ignored, much less be used as grounds for trusting the authorities to carry weapons, but not the people.
The Swiss seem to have it got it right - high rates of personal gun ownership with proper training in the associated responsibilities = neglible gun crime.
Indeed, it may be argued that if the right to carry arms were more openly and keenly supported, with appropriate training in responsible ownership and use (as in the Swiss example), it is conceivable to imagine a similar situation where, instead of as this aweful massacre, Danza was stopped in his tracks before he could fire a single shot, stopped by a bullet from the gun of a teacher, a gun the teacher was accustomed to legitimately carrying in her handbag, because responsible gun-ownership was promoted and encouraged (as in the Swiss example).
But lets suppose the right to bear arms has been removed from law-abiding, right-minded folk who believe in the vision and principles enshrined by the founding fathers in the specific terms of The Constitution for the People. Are we then going to remove the right to travel by car, because those who are driven to commit these atrocities, must seek an alternative method and so resort to hijacking cars/buses/trucks and driving them into groups of children as they pour out of school at the end of the day?
Clearly, preventing the access to guns isn't going to prevent murderous individuals from doing what murderous individuals do.
If knee-jerk, baseless reactions is your thing, you might find it more profitable to investigate if there's any truth to allegations of a connection between such massacres, and high-ranking paedophile groups who are desparate to cover their tracks, as has been alleged in the Dunblane massacre (in the UK, where most people only get to see a gun when they're watching television, or at the picturehouse).
Or, perhaps it is simply more rational to realise, that guns are not the problem, but rather, it is the lack training in responsible ownership - Danza should not have been able to have access to his mother's arsenal.
Removing peoples' right to bear arms is no more a solution than removing peoples' right to use a car after someone has murderously driven through a crowd of kinder-garten attendees standing at the roadside.
I can't help but wonder - "would the children still be alive today, if his mother had kept the guns in a secure-locker for which only she knew the combination? Or, if at least one those poor teachers had been more accustomed to carrying a weapon because society at large, as in the Swiss example, encouraged and promoted RESPONSIBLE gun ownership?
But mostly, I wonder if weapons would even have been around in a world where society at large adopted values which prizes and expounds the principles of social responsibility, inclusiveness, compassion, love, consideration, understanding, and welcome, instead of encouraging the politics of the "Self", "acquisitiveness", "consumerism", and "greed". Would weapons be necessary in a world where where those whose appearance or manner may not immediately place them at the front of the pack in the "popularity-stakes" are not progressively excluded or victimised. Or, if every child were guided in the principles of compassion sufficiently to really understand what it means to say "to care for another, is to care for oneself, and to harm oneself is to harm another".
History has proved that gun control only serves as a weapon in the hands of those who demand gun control, but who themselves do not give up their own guns = totalitarian government. And in these days of burgeoning Orwellian authoritarianism in the name of "The War Against Terror", with the systematic dismantling of civil liberties and wide-spread reduction in the checks and limitations upon government authority at a rate and level not seen in the West since Hitler's Germany, I'd be very concerned to give up the right to defend myself against any deranged person who might still be able to put a gun to my head if I don't like that they want to inject my child with toxin-filled vaccinations, or with liver-destroying cancer drugs.
After all, Danza may himself have been one such child whose brain/body-chemistry was irrevocably altered by an adverse reaction to toxins in vaccinations administered as a child. Such cases are well documented, but the efforts of families to bring this into the public arena have been violently resisted by government, so there is as yet no official research that can state conclusively that such toxin-induced chemical imbalances have no part to play in the psychological make-up of such deranged characters as Danza.
Don't own a gun if you don't want to. I don't own one. But until I am able to live in a world where I don't need to protect myself or my loved ones from attack by deranged individuals, then I'll be happier knowing that I may have access to any means which will allow me, or my children's guardian at the time, to stop any deranged individual in her/his tracks, but BEFORE the damage is done.
The sane solution is to direct focus upon the real problem, and not upon red-herrings designed to strip people of their rights to defend themselves against armed oppression/aggression.
[It has been said that the main reason Hitler never invaded Switzerland, is that every Swiss man was required to own a gun and was trained in its use - to this day, the Swiss still have one of the lowest gun crime-rates but with one of the highest rates of gun-ownership in the world. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ ]
The real problem is not the prevalence of guns - if you think it is, just ask the families of the children slaughtered in Dunblane, a place where gun control is one of the strictest in the world.
In a society ("USA" which breeds more than its fair share of murderous killers, the real solution should be how to address that problem - perhaps an omni-lateral programme of a positively led return to values which are centred upon local community cohesiveness, social-inclusiveness, civic responsibility, and a sense of pride in one's civic duty, and a whole-sale departure from the "business-as-usual" politics of greed, materialism, kickbacks, selfishness, the bottomline, and the latest "me-Phone".
Simply blaming the rightful, safe and lawful use of guns by law-abiding, sane people isn't going to stop society in USA from cultivating it's annual crop of murderous killers, nor will it stop those killers from killing (again, I remind you to ask the Dunblane victims whether the strict gun controls in Britain, did anything to help them).
Opportune, reflex murderers like the Danzas of this world can be stopped, so long as weapons are securely stored with access only by the proper owners, who are responsible (as in the Swiss example, see above link) for the secure storage of fire-arms to prevent access by someone who is not the owner (as in Danza's case).
And equally importantly, there's the problem of reducing the astronomically high percentage of murderous killers "Born in the USA" - perhaps a start can be made by addressing the de-humanising effects upon those not naturally equipped to prosper in a society where social-acceptance is measured by the individual's talent for competing in the popularity stakes, or by whether they possess a geometrically balanced facial bone-structure, etc..?
Our favorite libertarian...
Time "magazine" says "
Swiss have high rates of gun ownership, open-carry, and have almost negligible gun-crime)...
read it...
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
even Hitler didn't invade Switzerland, because every man was required to possess a rifle, and be trained in its use.
It is not the right to bear arms that does the harm. No law-abiding gun-owner ever massacred anyone. It is only the criminal who commits gun-crime, not the millions of law-abiding people peacefully exercising their right to bear arms.
The real problem is the extent of the derangement of the pathological, criminal psyche incubated in a culture which has long-since abandoned the fight against the debasement of moral, social and community values. It is a problem which, if left uncorrected, will continue to inflict such atrocities as Newtown, Utoeya, Dunblane, long after the right to bear arms has been removed from those who will still need to protect themselves from such criminals pathologues. (Gun crime is radically on the rise in Britain, where it is almost impossible to get a gun licence: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100014837/police-patrols-will-confront-gun-crime-not-labours-red-tape/).
Address the real problem. Don't be manipulated into expounding the NWO agenda of disarming the people by exploiting the terrible deaths of these innocents as a means to engineer a society where only criminals on both sides of the law may continue unchecked to use deadly force, but while leaving the innocent and peaceful completely unarmed and defenseless in a country where the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government owes no duty of care to protect the people.
People who obey the law are already of no threat to society, whether or not they have a right to bear arms. Conversely, criminals do not obey gun-laws, and only laugh when law-abiding people vote to remove their own right to bear arms - see: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all "faithful" card-carrying "socialists" (read: "hard-line democrats" http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag
