It is appropriate that I take a moment during the furor over the shootings in Oregon to note, once again, that "controlling" guns – keeping law abiding citizens from having and carrying them – would have done nothing to prevent what happened.
For one simple reason.
A person who wants to shoot people will find a gun, or guns with which to do so. It is much like the fact that certain drugs like heroin and crack are illegal and you can't legally buy or possess them, and we all know how well that is working out.
It is unfortunate that someone who was licensed to carry did not have the opportunity to shoot the killer in Oregon. Everyone had to wait for the police to arrive. The school had decided not to have an armed security guard, not that it would have mattered. It could have, but odds are that it would not have. The administration decided that having an armed security force would be detrimental to their "culture".
I'm sorry, but violence in the world (check the daily news reports for other shootings, hackings, beheadings, gays being flung off rooftops to their deaths, assaults, bombings,... well you get the idea) is here, has always been here and shows no sign of slacking off. Just the opposite.
So, please, save your outrage for something that will do some good, not more irrational, emotional pleas to "get rid of guns".
I'm, of course, not the only one to say this. Most interestingly, Mr. Sam Harris, noted atheist, liberal, neuro-scientist, father and author wrote one of the most pro-gun articles I have ever read. You should read it too: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
Be sure to reference it when the next anti-gun person wants to argue with you.