At Dunblane it was the nut who had the guns ( couple of Browning 9mms and 200 rounds) and he had killed five (out of a total of 14) 11 year old children as he walked through the school playground in about the first 30 seconds and before anybody could intervene or realise what was happening.
Would have thought it is better to stop the 'nuts' having access to guns.
But the gun control crowd wants to prevent everyone from having access to guns not just nuts and criminals.
The truth is that the kid could just as easily go on the internet and easily make a rudimentary bomb that would blow up the entire school, perhaps killing dozens or even hundreds, easier than he could hide a gun to bring in. Just ask the ghost of any young suicide bomber.
Whe it comes to kids, because they have so few years behind them, it's much more difficult to identify which ones are weird enough to do such a thing.
Life ain't perfect.
"Would have thought it is better to stop the 'nuts' having access to guns."
That would seem reasonable but there is a small problem. How do you define 'nuts'?
I am reminded of a conversation where one person stated that all who wanted to own a gun should have to pass a rigorous psychological investigation. That too seem reasonable but there was another small problem. According to this person, any one who wanted to own a gun obviously had psychological problems that should disqualify them from owning a gun.
While the author of this article was not as clear as the conversation I recounted, the author shares that basic assumption with my friend that there is no legitimate reason to own a gun.