Here is a good question thought, is it going to stop the next person that wants to be the next Erick and Dylan? I highly doubt that, because their motive is not revenge, its revenge on steroids.
Ok, so you've identified a root cause. According to your 'root cause analysis,' it's revenge (on steroids) which motivates killers like Dylan and Erick of Columbine Infamy. Maybe they wanted to be like the Luby's shooter before them, or the Postal shooter prior to that. Fine. Now let's say, that as someone in the aviation field, I wanted to find a root cause as to why planes crash. By applying similar logic as you have, I deduce that gravity is to blame. Therefore, I ask the manufacturers to design an anti-gravity device. Then, I'll see about getting ejection seats installed in all passenger seats. You see where I'm going with this? It's obviously impossible to address this root cause directly. So, you do it indirectly, by devising cockpit procedures, checklists, technology, and legal penalties enforced by the FAA if these procedures are not complied with. It won't eliminate crashes altogether, but will mitigate them. Air safety stats over the last 30 years bear that out.
Look at the Watchtower abuse issues. There are certainly root causes there, but the Royal Commission can't just walk inside the headquarters in New York and push a button to make things right. They have to force change indirectly, from the OUTSIDE, by way of finacial penalties, and law enforcement.
Now, back to Dylan and Erick. Their motivation was revenge. On steroids, as you say. Fine. Now, what solution do you propose? Now that you've identified a cause. Do you want to develop a device that flies around and measures peoples' 'motivation for revenge?' Should we come up with 'thought police' as in "1984." Hmmm, a bit impractical as I see it.
You want to blame sensationalist media? Then I assume you're ok with trashing the First Amendment.
Earlier in this thread, someone with extensive military and security experience pointed out how guns & rifles were tools. Tools which obviously make the job of killing much easier, than say...a club, or knife. In Australia, some 650,000 of these 'tools' were bought up in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre of 1996. Prior to this massacre, there had been others, though not as large. Since the buyback program, there have been no such massacres at all, in Aussie land since '96. NONE. Now, keep in mind, that there have likely been people there, who were 'motivated by revenge on steroids.' But it's a but hard to act out these motivations if you have no, or at least restricted access to the tools that make this possible. And please, spare us the nonsense about how..."they can use a machete." Or, " they can get a can of gasoline and start a fire." Yes, there have been very isolated incidents like this here and there, but you can't even BEGIN to equate that with the chronic mass shooting problem as it exists in the US.
Mr Gardner says if he was barred from getting a gun, Flanagan could have killed with a knife or machete.
Of course. No disagreement there. If you saw the video, it's obvious that Mr. Flanagan had his gun drawn, as he was walking towards the young lady, Ms. Parker. She was focused on her broadcast, and completely unaware of what was coming. So yes, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, due to his close range and element of surprise, Mr. Flanagan could have successfully thrust a knife blade into her, if he were so determined. Here's one problem I have with that, however. A knife thrust like that requires some skill and knowledge. A Navy SEAL, for example, could no doubt execute such a kill with speed and precision. He'd know exactly how to plant the blade so as to avoid bone, and sever vital arteries/organs. Compare that with the virtually brainless act of squeezing the trigger on the very lightweight 9mm Glock, at close range. Chances are, that a knife attack might have resulted in a nasty stab wound, but no loss of life. Also, the camera man would've had time to distance himself from the attacker, had he only used a knife, possibly bashing Flanagan in his skull with the large camera. As pilots, we cover a lot of 'what ifs' in our training, as it relates to hijacking. Believe me, edged weapons, in general, are much easier to defend against, or evade, than rifles/shotguns/handguns. I've never heard of a drive-by stabbing anyway. Have you?
Ok. Now for solutions. We have an idea of the causes. What do you do about it? I say
A) Imitate the Australian example. Which is heavy restriction to gun access. Part of the reason this has worked in Australia is geography. It's more difficult to smuggle illegal weapons onto an island. Hence, US borders would need some major beefing up.
or
B) Follow the Swiss example. Which is an expansion of regulation, over not just guns, but ammo as well. Perhaps expand the idea of National Guard, or IRR (ready reserves) to allow for assault weapons to be kept at home, but with strict rules on training, procedures, and weapon securing. Also include strict penalties for non-compmiance. So, your kid gets hold of your weapon, and shoots up his school, then your irresponsible ass is going to Leavenworth for a looong time.
Besides the mental health aspect, that we've talked to death, and that the NRA likes to include in it's brain-dead talking points...do YOU have a solution?
