At the risk of engaging a moron in debate, I'll nonetheless answer the question: so that there can be no venue in which a person with evil intent can murder school children without surviving a challenge from a heoric armed defender... who might at least buy enough time to save lives.
> Obviously the law is not a barrier to these acts (virtually every perp involved in a mass shooting has broken multiple laws already on the books - even before the law of murder was broken).
> Obviously resources are not a barrier (many shooters have broken their bank to obtain the means to do their deeds)
> Obviously the idea of the shooter being killed during the rampage is expected as part of the heinous acts, so there's no deterrent there. These people are checking out and trying to take as many with him as possible - so that his name becomes known on shows like this one.
So tell me, Mr. Scarborough (et al), how do you expect to legislate an end to this problem? Or do you wish to add to the list of victims in target-rich, arms-free public environments by assuming that having a gun in hand makes a person evil by association.
(rant over)
Somebody please remind these ninnies what our response to 9/11 was:
> Guns were already banned on commercial flights
> Guns were not used during those high-jackings
Despite these facts, we installed armed sky marshals aboard commercial planes. See any parallels??