[SKINNYPIG]

I think I just answered that question very clearly. But to expand it further... there is nothing coward about a man with a gun, intent on killing as many people as possible and then killing himself. just as theres nothing coward about a terrorists with an ak47, engaging the patrol I pointed out above. Stupid? Yes. Loser? Absolutely. Coward? Thats dependent upon your definition. He owned 13 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition. The "gun free zone" school you mentioned likely wasn't picked because it was gun free... it was HIS SCHOOL. The english class he did 99% of his damage, was HIS english class. We will never know why he picked the school and classroom he did, but its fairly safe to say that it didn't influence him that it was a gunfree zone. As the article pointed out, if you read it, multiple military vets and students had guns that day. They just chose not to use them.

I had this conversation the other day with my girlfriend. Having a gun, and using it.. 2 very different things. Using a gun, and using it effectively... even more different. She wants a gun for protection. Yet, she stops in the road to escort turtles across, and cries when she sees a baby deer without its mom nearby. She has never been in a fight. Never fired a gun. And when asked, didn't know what "safety", clips, rounds, or holsters were. Give her a gun, and she's likely a bigger threat than the gunmen was.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have concealed weapons. I think we should.
I'm not saying that we don't need armed guards. We should.
I'm not even saying that teachers shouldn't be armed. They should if they choose to be.

I'm just saying, more concealed weapons and less gunfree zone schools will not stop this kind of action. Listen, this guy was booted out of the military in 5 weeks of basic training for "failing to conform". He had attempted suicide. Better Mental healthcare and an asylum would have accomplished what the concealed carry's on campus could have if they would have acted. Both could have stopped it.

The rule of thumb is ---- to never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. And never shoot at something you don't intend to kill. The vast majority of American's aren't ready or properly equipped mentally to do either. The legal system isn't properly configured to defend those who defend others either.

There is a solution. But yours... isn't it.

Didn't realize I offered a solution. My "point" was that predators usually take the path of least resistance. The Oregon killer may not have, but I'm almost certain that if most of these guys wanted some crappie, they'd prefer to shoot them in a barrel than to buy a boat and go fishing.

Nothing will stop this kind of action. Psychiatric evaluations for all won't, Just as every citizen packing heat wouldn't. Some of both "might" save a life or two.

We must be very careful when agreeing to some kind of evaluation determining whether or not our second amendment right is stripped. Who can we trust to do that?

I disagree on the cowardice of these individuals. I believe anyone that shoots defenseless people and then takes his own life to avoid the consequences (on earth) is a coward. Just my opinion.