Indeed, the emphasis on hardware has always fascinated me. The idea that removing certain objects from peaceably armed citizens' hands will somehow keep violent criminals from plying their trade is monstrous. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law, and since they are preparing to commit morally reprehensible acts, disobeying a malum prohibidum law is hardly a consideration. The criminal, if he thinks of getting caught at all, would say "add it to my tab."
I recently read about sword hunts that took place in feudal Japan. Of course, the "nobles" (actually savage war lords and their soldiers, called samurai) made no bones about the reasons. They didn't try to persuade the people that is was for their own safety. They did it to get rid of any competition, as any good tyrant would do. Since the samurai had the swords, and peasants did not, the samurai went around meting out justice like feudal Judge Dredds. They didn't merely enforce the law, they WERE the law. Incidentally, a hat tip to the American Thinker for pointing out that Wikipedia site. What are the chances that Senator
The dishonesty of the "debate" on guns has also fascinated me. Katie Pavlich again: NYC Candidate: It's OK to Bully Gun Manufacturers with Government Power. Megan Kelly, who was interviewing Mr. De Blasio posed a question for the candidate: If a pro-life mayor came to power in New York, would it be alright to bully landlords into not renting to women who had had an abortion? The candidate would not concede the point. Kelly pointed out that 55 million unborn citizens had been aborted, so that the reasoning was the same. But Mr. De Blasio would not concede the point, or even consider it. This is the dishonesty of which I am speaking. The facts don't matter to these people. They are not negotiating in good faith.
Starting in 1934, with the National Firearms Act, which was supposed to make us safer, but didn't seem to have any affect on the criminals at the time, the gun grabbers have offered us compromises, which are not really compromises at all. Each time the gun rights movement gives up some of its rights for...well...nothing. Because each time the gun laws became tighter, crime increased. Crime only began to decrease when states began issuing "shall issue" permits. Suddenly, criminals did not know who might be armed at any time. And guess what? Criminals fear an armed citizen more than the police! Indeed, I bet some criminal types look upon the police as mere Keystone Kops.
Meanwhile, if you want to reduce school shootings, and who doesn't, let teachers and administrators who want to go armed do so. Yes, they will need special training above and beyond what an armed citizen needs, and to be included in drills with law enforcement. I understand some don't want to, but I bet at least one can be found for every school in the nation, and probably more than that. Let us finally get rid of the idea that "guns don't belong in our schools." The truth is guns in the hands of those who aim to protect belong anywhere an armed criminal is likely to show up to do harm. Unfortunately, as we have seen, that is just about anywhere.