Why does tragedy have to prompt such stupidity?

What happened last Friday in Aurora CO was just that... a tragedy of epic proportions. A madman comes into a crowded theater armed to the teeth, and kills and wounds 70 people and terrorizes hundreds more. The inevitable result of such news is for the rest of society to ask "Why?" Rational people wonder at the causes for such awful actions, weep and pray for the victims, and hope that it never repeats again.

Then you hear the irrational people pipe up...

Those that would advocate a ban or confiscation of all firearms in this country use this latest tragedy as an example of why their way is the right way to stop the problem. Obviously, if the man didn't have access to guns, he couldn't have done what he did, right? Groups such as those that authored the 1993 Brady Bill (signed into law by Clinton and openly supported by Ronald Reagan) and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (also signed by Clinton and openly supported by Reagan) now say that since both laws have come off the books, the problem is "back". Add to this the problem that the alleged killer purchased 6,000 rounds of ammo via the internet without having to pass a background check, and their case seems air-tight to many.

At no point in modern American history was it "legal" to manufacture, distribute or use heroine, cocaine or marijuana... at least, without a prescription... yet the drug problem in this country is as bad as it has ever been. There has been a "War on Drugs" for more than 25 years, the entire arsenal of the US military and Federal law enforcement machine has been employed to end the problem... yet it still exists. If we can't excise the cancer that is drug abuse in this country, when such drugs have no rational "need" to be used, retained or manufactured... what hope is there to stop the specter of violent crimes committed with guns?

Tougher legislation towards limiting who can or cannot own firearms, then?

Colorado has some of the tougher laws on the books right now. The accused killer passed all the Federal, State and local background checks and purchased four perfectly legal guns in a perfectly legal manner. The fact that the rifle he bought looks like an assault rifle has no bearing whatsoever on the actual fact that the rifle was a semi-auto .223 caliber carbine which can be legally owned in all fifty States of the Union. It is no more deadly than any other .223 semi-auto rifle, and is far less deadly than an actual assault rifle, which IS illegal to own without a Federal license.

Tougher access to ammunition or a return to the ban on extended clips and cartridge holders?

Even if such clips and ammunition holders were "illegal" right now, there are literally hundreds of thousands of them already in circulation, and changing even a standard ten-round clip (legal under the 1994 ban) takes less than 2 seconds to someone with a little practice behind them. As for the ammo, and requiring background checks for that purchase? He passed all the checks to buy the guns... what would make anyone think he'd fail another to buy ammo?

Countries in Europe and the rest of the world where guns laws are tougher, or ownership is illegal, don't have this problem, so the cause MUST be the guns.

In the last ten years, Europe has seen AT LEAST four such events... two in Germany, one in Finland and the most recent in Norway. Germany has seen two school massacres that took a total of 41 lives since 2008. All committed with guns that the government said they couldn't own, possess or utilize legally. Since 1990, there have been 11 school massacres around the world, and less than half happened in the US. So, I'd say that the "rest of the world" has just as much of a problem with this as the US does.

Have to get ready for work, but I have more to say here, and will continue as soon as I can.