Senseless

Since it's impossible to understand something that defies understanding, I have not even tried to comprehend what the VT shooter was thinking before and during his rampage. How can you make sense of something senseless?

So instead of trying to understand what may have been going through the mind of a person who was clearly disturbed, I've been trying to understand something that at least seems like it should be more concrete and understandable: Why was he allowed to buy guns?

I'm not in favor of disarming civilian America. Nor am I a gun-toting NRA looney. I fall somewhere in that vast grey area in between. I grew up with a few guns in the house, and my dad taught me to use them safely and responsibly. I have friends and family members who own guns, and who also use them safely and responsibly for hunting. I'm personally not really interested in hunting, but I don't really have a problem with those who do enjoy it; I think it's a perfectly respectable hobby (most of the time, anyway).

Here's what I don't understand about the whole gun thing: Why does anyone other than law enforcement or military personnel need a handgun? These weapons are made to be easily concealed. They are specifically designed for killing people. Why are people allowed to own them? They're not practical for hunting. Protection? Well, if handguns were illegal, you wouldn't really need one to protect yourself from someone else with a handgun.

Obviously making handguns illegal wouldn't completely solve the problem; someone who really wanted a handgun would still probably be able to get one, but at least it would be more difficult than just walking down the street to the nearest gun shop or pawn shop. I believe it would help. There is no legitimate reason for the general public to own handguns.

And you know, the same goes for assault rifles. And machine guns. There are certain firearms that make sense for in hunting or skeet shooting or marksmanship, and there are others that don't make sense for anything.

I'm not trying to take away anyone's Second Amendment rights (and so far as I can tell, the Second Amendment guarantees no specific types of arms, so regulating exactly what types of weapons a person may own would still not infringe on that person's right to bear arms). I'm simply suggesting that we protect and preserve everyone's right to live and prosper without the threat of violence by persons with handheld weapons of mass destruction.