I ran across this op/ed this morning...
No one will rise up to defend a man who walks into an Amish school, lines young girls up against a blackboard, ties up their feet, and then kills them before killing himself. But a surprising number of people will inevitably rise up to defend his guns, to call the man guilty but his weapons innocent.
When Charles Roberts snapped, the tools lay ready to hand. It is not clear what led him to seek out a quiet country school in Lancaster County, Pa., but it is possible he chose it because he knew that it belonged to a trusting, insular community, where there would be no one to stop him from entering with a shotgun, a rifle and an automatic pistol.
This is the third school shooting in a week. What will stick in almost everyone's minds is the gross disparity between Mr. Roberts's murderous intentions and the bucolic peacefulness of an Amish school in early October. But this killing is no different from the ones that took place in Wisconsin and Colorado recently.
The weapons were the same, and so was the conflict between the hideous assault of a damaged mind and the atmosphere of openness and trust that makes education possible. There are no simple solutions to this conflict. It is neither possible nor tolerable to secure every school or guard every child. Nor is it possible or politically tolerable to keep tabs on every gun. But in these killings we see an open society threatened by the ubiquity of its weapons, in which one kind of freedom is allowed to trump all others. Most gun owners are respectable, law-abiding citizens. But that is no reason to acquit the guns.
Three school shootings in the same week is horrible but it's not the fault of guns, nor even the fault of the availability of guns, any more than Mark Foley's dirty e-mails can be blamed on the ubiquity of computers. Each and every time it's the fault of the shooter and nothing else. Predictably, sniveling liberals will use these recent shootings to once again call for gun control legislation. I wonder if the victims had their throats cut would liberals call for a ban on steak knives? If the victims had been garotted with cord would liberals call for a ban on clothes-lines?
"But Ed", you naively point out, "knives and cord have other uses that are not violent, guns are for only one thing...killing."
Silly reader...try protecting a school full of children from an armed maniac with some clothes line or a steak knife. In the hands of the law abiding citizen, guns are no more dangerous than knives or rope, but much more useful in an emergency.
Let me ask this question: what if a teacher in each school were allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Or even all teachers? I wonder how far these killers would get before they were dropped "dead" in their tracks. Extend that logic to communities. What if there were conceal/carry laws in every community? How many violent crimes would not even commence because the criminals would not know who had a weapon and who didn't?
Don't let sympathy and knee-jerk emotion cause you to allow the liberals to use this tragedy to push through legislation that further restricts your access to fire-arms for the protection of you and your family.