Thinking the unthinkable

Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver.

There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?)

Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler:

”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler

"They want most people paying in to need little or nothing from them."

Exactly. I'm not conveying my thoughts very well. The way it is setup would allow people to treat the autism diagnosis exam as preventative care. If they know they don't have autism or suspect they don't, they can go get the exam done and insurance will cover it, even though there may have never been a valid reason for that person to take the exam. Granted, this isn't going to be something that many people (if anybody) would do for fun or to make the insurance company suffer, but it is an option the way they have it setup. I hope that makes more sense on my end.

This is not just a sad kid and this is not just about pants. Did you ever grab a knife and threaten to kill your mom in front of your 7 and 9 year old siblings?

The insurance company is well aware that few people will seek such an exam unless they have reason to suspect they have a problem. It is similar to the idea that you don't want to sell insurance specifically and only to cover pregnancy. Any woman looking to sign up for such coverage is extremely likely to be planning on getting pregnant.

Insurance is about risk management. In order to have "risk" there has to be chance. A lot of human behaviors are a choice, not a random roll of the dice. The insurance company is well acquainted with that fact.

I understand your framing, but, no, it doesn't really work that way. You just aren't going to have enough people who are sure they do not have autism decide to get tested for it for it to be a serious risk for the company. Their current policy covers their ass: if you get tested to confirm your diagnosis, you get to pay for the test and, apparently, volunteer to pay out of pocket for any further treatment related to your new diagnosis. They can merrily claim to cover the test if you do not need it because, in practice, the odds are really poor you won't get it if you do not need it.

I hope that is a little clearer from my end.

>You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack.

I suspect you could if they attacked 5 year olds in a kindergarten class room.

>"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)?

I'm not referring to this person as crazy beforehand, or as something we could have somehow prevented. I'm suggesting that the behavior of killing 26 5 year olds is indeed crazy, and there is little we could do to stop this from happening. I'd start though, with armed security / principals etc in the schools (i know of schools in my area (rich white suburbs) that have guns in the schools and I think it's a great idea.

That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to. I have no idea why people think they should restrict my access to guns because of this incident. This is a personal responsibility problem. There simply no way we (we as in America) could keep him from having a gun without restricting my freedom and liberty. On the other hand, his mom easily could have, and that wouldn't have effected me at all.

>Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high.

4 shotgun shells in a crowded area is going to do huge amounts of damage, so I think that's a bit silly. They also aren't terribly difficult to reload. I don't think the town center comparison holds though. Driving 70 through the middle of town very clearly endangers other people, whereas my owning guns does not make you less safe, and very arguably makes you more safe if you happen to be near me while someone tries to harm you. This person having a gun made these people less safe obviously, but he didn't own a gun. He stole them from his mother. He could have also stolen them from someone else, though maybe that's at least a bit less likely. I assume if he's willing to kill 26 people though, he's also willing to break into his neighbors house or the local gun shop.

His mother should have tried harder to prevent him from having access, but there is virtually no law that could have fixed this.