Every time there’s a deadly shooting event, the same argument gets trotted out: “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I understand the sentiment; if there wasn’t a person to pull the trigger, the gun wouldn’t shoot. What I don’t understand is why we’re not talking about this — if a violent person intent on harm didn’t have a gun, but only a knife, or a club, or something else, how many victims would they be able to kill — one or two?
If he didn’t have a rapid-fire gun with a high-capacity magazine, how many kids would have died in Texas? Maybe none? With only a knife, the teachers would have had a better chance to stop him before anyone got hurt. How about Buffalo? Would anyone have died? That massacre in Las Vegas at the concert certainly wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t have an arsenal of powerful guns.
Remember, too, the Second Amendment has two parts; the first is “A well-regulated militia being necessary … .” When are we going to get the “well regulated”? I’m sick and tired of having my heart broken over and over again because a bunch of politicians worship guns more than they care about our children.
Anna Carter
Peterborough