Political assassination is nothing new in America, neither are nut jobs with guns killing for their peculiar reasons. Mass murderers are not new either, except there are more today because their weapons of choice can kill more people, faster. It's just a simple fact that a guy with a knife trying to kill as many people as he can in a crowd will be stopped before he kills 60 people, whereas, a guy with a rapid fire gun can do it, not moving and from far away making it 100 times harder to stop him.
In the 1960's assassination by gun was the chosen method to eliminate leaders of all kinds of ideologies. Whether it was the president of the United States, the leader of the Civil Rights movement, a leader of Muslims, a racist ex-Governor, a presidential candidate, and many other kinds of leaders. I grew up knowing this was just an ugly part of the American character and certainly our history was full of murder and violence. Some of which (Native Americans) we claim is part of our growth that made us a great country.
There have always been nut jobs like Richard Speck, Charles Manson, Mark Chapman, and countless other killers. Speck of course, used a knife to kill eight nurses, but he is an exception, most killers choose a gun to do their killing. A gun is a quicker, more efficient weapon for killing, but some killers like Speck get off on the hands on bloody violence.
It's impossible to stop crime, that's why we need and will always need police and laws to protect us. Making laws to try and keep people safe is governments goal and responsibility. The fact that that effort is never 100% effective does not relieve us from the duty and responsibility to try and to make new laws to deter crime with preventative measures. It does become a balance between individual rights, freedom, and restraints on individual behavior for the good of the public's safety.
Of course it's politics. Political decisions made everyday cost, or save lives. We use to have a ban (AWB) on certain guns, then we did not. Cuts on Medicare can kill. Threatening nuclear war will kill, even if that war never happens. Lowering highway speed limits saved lives, that's just a fact. Making stiffer penalties for drinking alcohol while driving did change people's habits and saved lives, that's just a fact.
Where is the concern for public safety, or even common sense when we allow people who have multiple convictions for drunk driving, to still drive? Why does the Republican majority allow people with proven mental problems have guns? Is it an infringement of a persons constitutional right to put a limit on the number of guns a person can own? Or to have background checks? Or to ban certain gun accessories? NO, it's not and the Supreme Court has already ruled on those questions, but the question should be will any law help prevent crime and/or deaths.
Common sense and the public's safety tells us we need more restrictions on guns; and today's society and behavior, is not comparable to the society and behavior of 250 years ago. Technology always brings with it new problems to deal with. Those who claim the founders would be shocked if we amended the 2nd amendment have to explain why the founders gave the constitution the process to be amended as part of the constitution.
I was convinced after the sniper at a Texas school campus killed at will and JFK was assassinated. I thought for sure 50 years later when 20 grade school kids were killed and these killings became common the American people would have had enough, I was wrong.
Maybe we can never stop a nut job like the guy in Las Vegas, but we can certainly give him less to kill with and save lives. Besides, he is not an example of the major gun problem in America. We can certainly save lives and that is our duty and responsibility.
