If the Left would be intellectually honest for once, they would admit that only gun control law that would have any chance to prevent tragic situations like that in Connecticut (and the one that they ultimately want) is very simple:
"No person, citizen or non-citizen, living in the United States who is not active-duty military, employed in law enforcement, or employed by a federal agency, may own or possess any firearm."
Unemotional logic and reasoning (which I recognize are concepts foreign to statist/leftists) will prove this point. Let's start with a brief analysis of the Connecticut situation. The Connecticut killer LIKELY violated the following laws (with my assumptions noted):
Three counts of theft. (Assuming mom didn't lend him the two pistols and rifle.)
Three counts of possessing a weapon on school grounds.
Two counts of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver. (Assuming he was “convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense,” which is a logical assumption based upon reports that he had a “checkered past” and had been a “troubled youth for most of his life.”)
Two counts of illegal possession of handguns. (Concealed-carry permits aren't granted to anyone in Connecticut under the age of 21.)
So that's at least four laws, and with a total of 10 violations. The killer broke several other laws as well, including homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, and trespassing. Those "counts" are incalculable today. If those laws had prevention as their purpose they failed miserably. None of those laws, including those that relate to guns, had any preventive effect. Laws like those Connecticut has on the books today can only punish violations in retrospect - i.e., after the violation has occurred. The killer's cowardly suicide precludes all enforcement options and renders these laws useless.
Gun control advocates are screaming in the mainstream media and on social networks that SOMETHING must be done to prevent such awful situations. To these well-meaning (giving them the benefit of the doubt), yet emotional and illogical individuals I ask: "What additional gun laws would have PREVENTED this situation and other recent mass killings? Why don't you propose them and then we can start the debate?"
Any law designed with prevention as its objective must involve an outright ban on the item or the activity, along with the enforcement mechanisms to detect violations. And even those typically fail miserably because of the persistence of criminals. Current drugs bans and our historic experiment with alcohol prohibition are prime examples.
So, let's have that "national discussion" about gun control. But let's insist that both sides are intellectually honest about the ultimate ends they are trying to achieve. How about this approach: Let's open up debate for a complete and total repeal of the Second Amendment through the Constitutional process and see where that takes us. OK?
[DISCLAIMER: This is based on the "facts" about the situation being currently reported. These "facts" are fluid, and would affect the following analysis.]
