Last Friday, a man entered a school armed with a knife and injured 22 young children and one adult. It happened in Henan province in China. Nobody lost their lives (including the attacker). Now, imagine if instead of a knife, he had a gun.
It was only a few months ago I indicated my outrage that in the US, nobody is willing to do anything about the ease with which people can get hold of guns, quoting the same old reasons. It’s okay for the US to intervene in other countries when they feel something needs to be done, and yet they just shrug their shoulders and say “well, nothing to be done” when such a serious issue is causing thousands to die every year.
I’ve made my views known. They are the views shared by almost everyone outside of the US and many Americans too. But not enough of them unfortunately. So events like the one that coincidentally happened in the US on the exact same day as the Henan school knife attack will continue to happen for the foreseeable future.
The facts are that this 20 year old “kid” took 3 guns kept by his mother for “self defense” purposes, killed her and then drove to the nearby school where he killed 20 six and seven year old kids, a few adults and himself, in the course of about 10 minutes. Can anyone argue that if he did not have a semi-automatic assault rifle with him, some of those people would still be alive?
My understanding is that assault rifles were banned by Clinton but that ban expired in 2004 and nobody has managed (or wanted) to get it re-instated since. My question – I can see how it would be convenient if you were about to embark on an offensive in Helmand province in Afghanistan, but how on earth could anyone justify needed a semi-automatic assault rifle to defend themselves at home?