Your reasoning serves to violently strip the right of self-defense (not to mention property ownership) for all people because a small fraction might
violate the rights of others with similar tools.
Violently suppressing rights hasn't worked with the drugs, it has caused exponentially more harm. I can't imagine the numbers of lives that would be lost resulting from a confiscation of semi-automatic weapons in this country, let alone an expansion into all weapons.
And it's interesting that you want to restrict the rights of individuals in terms of what forms of self-defense they can have, but seem to have no complaints about leaving those weapons and worse in the hands of the greatest mass murderers and gangs that exist.
The founders comparison is always specious because you were expected to be able to own military arms. The government didn't generally own/hold the weapons and cannons and there was no standing army. Really, there's no reason to not restore those rights to the citizens instead of leaving them monopolized within an unaccountable entity.
shadowgrin wrote:You don't need to be Batman or an investigator to figure it out. He didn't know his brother killed himself or was the shooter because the police wrongfully identified the killer, him. Since a giant news organization just fucked up their information, it's easy to dismiss or continue denying that your mom is among the casualties until you find out for yourself like calling her which he wasn't able to do at first because he was at work.
In other words he didn't know anything that his family was involved at that point and only knew that an international news source is accusing him of killing children.
It wasn't just one news source. The police gave the wrong name to everyone.