Or maybe this is the real joke: "isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?"
So, our solution to a mass murder is to only have half the parents suffer the tragedy of losing their children? Killing 20 kids is bad, but killing 10 would be OK?
Or, as I said in my column for tomorrow -- is our goal just to make it take a little longer to kill people? It is rare that a shooting ends because the killer is confronted while he is still actively shooting. There is no indication that the shooter in Newtown ran out of time. But we know he had two guns he didn't even use, so even if they had been limited to 10 bullets each, that was 20 more people he could have killed at a moment's notice, even without any extra rifle magazines.
Studying the history of mass shootings, the number one way a killer has been stopped (as opposed to running out of victims, or deciding to end the massacre on their own) has been when they use high-capacity magazines and they get jammed. You might say that the less-capable high-capacity magazines actually save lives.
“So, our solution to a mass murder is to only have half the parents suffer the tragedy of losing their children? Killing 20 kids is bad, but killing 10 would be OK? “
Along these same lines, one commenter said If schools were protected by armed persons, then the shooters would go to other places, like malls.
So - we leave kids unprotected to save the malls????
Like you say, this is funny!