Proud to be a tax and spend leftist.
Proud supporter of the real Second Amendment.
Guns are equally capable of stopping someone "disturbed" from killing others (also done in this case, although self inflicted and done too late in the process). The very reason that police have guns issued to them (in addition to non-lethal tools) is that they have proven to be very effective in stopping persons that have "reached the critical point" from claiming more victims.
The idea that anyone, much less the gov't, can accurately predict who will (someday) reach the critical point is virtually impossible and thus the ban (reasonably restrict?) the killing tool idea deprives not only perps but their victims of using that "killing tool". Note that (in this case) the gun was owned by the parent - should guns no longer be available to parents?
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
But hey. Keep dancing on the graves of kids. We all know you hate the NRA and that is why this is about guns to you. It isn't about helping anyone. If it was...you would be asking questions like...what is it about our society that has reduced people's ability to cope with the simplest problems?
The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.
"The underpinnings of the classical liberal belief in an armed people are obscure to us because we are not accustomed to thinking about political issues in criminological terms. But the classical liberal worldview was criminological, for lack of a better word. It held that good citizens must always be prepared to defend themselves and their society against criminal usurpation - a characterization no less applicable to tyrannical ministers or pillaging foreign or domestic soldiery (who were, in point of fact, largely composed of criminals inducted from gaols  ) than to apolitical outlaws.
To natural law philosophers, self-defense was "the primary law of nature", the primary reason for man entering society.  Indeed, it was viewed as not just a right but a positive duty: God gives Man both life and the means to defend it; the refusal to do so reviles God's gift; in effect it is a Judeo- Christian form of hubris. Indicative of the intellectual gulf between that era and our own is that Montesquieu could rhetorically ask a question that today might be seriously posed, "Who does not see that self-protection is a duty superior to every precept?" "
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville