Father Of Columbine Victim Attends NRA Event
A father of one of the children killed in the Columbine school shootings attended an NRA event to advocate for the assault weapons ban.
From The Associated Press:
Is banning assault weapons really going to end the problem of violence in our society? Would it even make much of a difference?
I wonder why Mr. Mauser is choosing to single out an inanimate object as the reason for his son's death? Why wouldn't Mauser ask why the the parents of the kids shooting the guns hadn't noticed the troubles their children were having? Why not ask where the parents were when the shooters were collecting their weapons and planning the shooting? Why isn't Mr. Mauser asking why the shooter's teachers and school counselors didn't notice any problems?
Assault weapons weren't the problem in Columbine, they were simply a means to an end. The problem in Columbine lays solely with the two kids who decided to shoot their school up, not with the guns they used to do it.
People will say that the shooters at Columbine wouldn't have had the body count they did if they hadn't had access to assault weapons. That's probably true. But also remember that these kids had created bombs out of propane tanks too. Those bombs malfunctioned, but what if they had worked like they were intended to? The body count would have been significantly higher.
What if the kids couldn't get the assault-stlye firearms they used so decided to just go with the propane bombs.
Would we then be calling for a ban on propane tanks?
From The Associated Press:
A man whose son was killed in the Columbine High School shootings literally walked in his child's shoes to the National Rifle Association convention, where he hoped Vice President Dick Cheney would address the federal assault weapons ban set to expire in September.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed with an assault weapon in the Littleton, Colo., killings five years ago Tuesday, said continuing the ban is common sense.
Assault weapons "are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," Mauser said before his three-block march to the convention, which runs through Sunday. "It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."
Is banning assault weapons really going to end the problem of violence in our society? Would it even make much of a difference?
I wonder why Mr. Mauser is choosing to single out an inanimate object as the reason for his son's death? Why wouldn't Mauser ask why the the parents of the kids shooting the guns hadn't noticed the troubles their children were having? Why not ask where the parents were when the shooters were collecting their weapons and planning the shooting? Why isn't Mr. Mauser asking why the shooter's teachers and school counselors didn't notice any problems?
Assault weapons weren't the problem in Columbine, they were simply a means to an end. The problem in Columbine lays solely with the two kids who decided to shoot their school up, not with the guns they used to do it.
People will say that the shooters at Columbine wouldn't have had the body count they did if they hadn't had access to assault weapons. That's probably true. But also remember that these kids had created bombs out of propane tanks too. Those bombs malfunctioned, but what if they had worked like they were intended to? The body count would have been significantly higher.
What if the kids couldn't get the assault-stlye firearms they used so decided to just go with the propane bombs.
Would we then be calling for a ban on propane tanks?
Wing Chun Geologist
RebTex
Puzzlefeet
Sparkie Arbuckle
Hairy Polemic
Hoss
The Whistler
Rob
