M-Quigley wrote:The sad fact about almost all mass shootings, whether they're at a school, church, etc, is every time most people ask the wrong questions when it comes to limiting the carnage. The important question isn't how did the killer get his guns, what kind of guns he had, how many magazines he had, how come warning signs were missed, why doesn't Congress or the president enact gun control, etc. The most important question to limit the carnage
if it occurs, (and it
will occur again, somewhere), is was how many of the victims in the area of the killer had the ability to shoot back.
The question crying talk show hosts, celebrities, and some politicians should be asking is, Instead of having praise and funerals for coaches or other staff for shielding students after a massacre, how about giving select staff the ability to defend the students in a better way?
Banning this turkey from being on school grounds with a backpack was only a start. They should have banned him completely, with written notice to him and copied to the local police. They also should have hardened the target, limiting ingress locations with the armed resource officers at those locations, ready to respond to problems elsewhere by closing the ingress via locked gates or otherwise. Allowing armed staff would have been a good move as well if local law permitted.
Now, had they done all that, the guy still might have gotten in and done his thing, but he would have had to work harder at it and there might have been early warning.
Limiting sites of ingress also does not mean that egress also has to be limited as one way doors or gates would help in that situation.
However, if someone wants to do this stuff, he will find a way to do it.
Regarding the mental health issue, just because someone does something like this does not make him mentally ill. Mentally aberrant yes, but not necessarily mentally ill. Some people are just bad people.