So, in the aftermath of the Georgia shooting, we find that the shooter:

Was 14 (so having a gun was already a problem)
Stopped shooting when he was engaged by a resource officer

The unknown is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the gun control argument in this matter. It is not known how the kid got the weapon, but the logical assumption is that he stole it from his parents. This has not been confirmed. What -has- been confirmed however is that he stopped after he was shot at, that other forms of “physical security” like locks and cameras do not actually deal with the threat and “run, hide, fight” doesn’t do so either.

But of course, those of us who don’t need a gun ban to appear to be a panacea know how this works.

Violence, for all the mystique the left tries to put on it, is nothing more or less than the first law of motion with moral implications. An object in motion, will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater force. I’ve said all this before, but it bears repeating. The gun control argument hasn’t changed in my soon-to-be 35 years, and consists of three fundamental tenets

Point 1: All things are viewed at a surface level. There is no distinction between two things of the same type. For example, violence is violence and is a universal evil. There is no self-defense. What people CALL self-defense is merely a fight between two equally guilty parties who just couldn’t be civilized about it. If a woman shoots her physically abusive husband, she is just as morally culpable as the husband is (NOT my belief, at all. It is the implication of the anti-self-defense worldview.).

This view on violence has recently become negotiable as the left doesn’t seem to have a low view of political violence, but we’re dealing with secularists and therefore, people who have no transcendent foundation for their morality anyway.

In the same way, all forms of “physical security” are identical. If you look at various stories after shootings on college campuses or malls, “physical security” always refers to yet more locked doors and cameras, and MAYBE a token security guard who looks like a 15-year-old can take him down in a street fight, whether by the guard’s fragility or obvious lack of cardio. At this point, it appears to be deliberate lack of distinction; something we can’t acknowledge because it stops the ideology’s “logic” cold. As long as we can say “physical security” didn’t work, it seems the only obvious solution is the sacred gun ban. The one that didn’t stop Columbine.

We even have this comment from Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts that laments how the kid was able to get a gun on campus despite there being one officer in the building. As if the officer had either the ability or the right to search every single student walking into the building. The gun ban is the only conclusion, logic and reason must serve this purpose. Thankfully, they do not.

Also, the adding of -actual- physical security is treated in a reactionary way as the end-all solution to a shooter. For the gun control advocate, it needs to be held to a perfect standard, for the gun ban is chief among all beliefs and the only thing that will lead to peace in our time in this regard. The gun-rights advocate meanwhile is in the uncomfortable position of living in the real world and accepting that evil is insidious. It will ALWAYS strike first. It will always claim at least one victim. There is no “pre-emptive self-defense” for example.

Lastly, one resource officer stopping this kid does not mean one officer is all you need in every place. Again, an equal or -greater- force. And in the case of protecting people, “greater” force is always preferable.

In the same way there is no distinction between forms of violence and forms of physical security. There is no distinction between cultures or nations either. A gun ban in America will work, even if you discount the massive illegal gun trade, how gun control is going in Chicago, STL and California (which, again, you have to, because there is no distinction, there is only the reality of the party) because a gun ban worked in Australia. This makes sense because America and Australia are both countries

Point 3: All things point to a gun ban. If a thing DOESN’T point to a gun ban, it is wrong. This is a product of the deliberately simplistic view of both a given situation and issue itself. It is an argument that survives on being selectively ignorant, willfully simplistic and extremely proud, if delusional, about being the big brain in the room

The gun rights position, by stark contrast, is more nuanced but has its own flaws. For one thing, self-defense is a legitimate reason for owning a weapon because people are not inherently good. On the other, the line a vocal minority are willing to draw for justified use of force is “he looked at me funny”.

Regarding guards and metal detectors: Gun rights advocates have to accept that it isn’t really a good look to have armed guards walking around a middle school. But that is the world we live in. Oddly, this wasn’t a problem until about 30 years ago. The AR-15 was not invented in 1995. Home ownership of firearms has been around since the beginning. There is a cultural problem this country is not addressing in its kids.

The gun rights advocate needs to deal with situations that do arise when firearms are part of a society to the point where they cannot, nor should be excised. The gun control advocate can live in the world of theory and say “if we ban the guns, we will all be safe, because it worked in Australia and Australia is a country, and so are we.”

To be a gun control advocate who lives happily within his worldview, one needs a puddle-deep understanding of each incident, logistics, human nature, evil, physics, security and policy. He is ideologically prohibited from deep, complex thought. The fact that he is not INCAPABLE of such thought should create a conflict in the mind, but given the prevalence of the gun control argument, it doesn’t seem to be doing that.