In regard to the recent talk on the weapons and shootings... I want to first take this chance and point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy on the status quo between liberals and conservatives. It is [i]generally[/i] seen that the former favors personal and individual freedoms such as marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, the right to choose, etc...The latter tend to call for rigorous law enforcement and greater crackdowns on violations of law while using legal means to limit the personal liberties I mentioned through the former. Strange enough, when we enter the realm of guns these labels seem to be overtly [i]reversed[/i]. Whenever there is a violent gun shooting liberals seem to double down on their agitation for outlaws and more gun regulation. More easily put, the restriction and/or prohibition of private ownership of firearms, and the conservative seems to oppose the restriction on the grounds of individual liberty yet oppose prostitution, abortion, etc... I, as a libertarian, will appeal to this notion but remain consistent. I believe in freedom of choice, freedom to marry, to have an abortion, to sell a labor service, etc (not "to" in regard of a positive right rather no legal restrictions)... Following, you do have the right to employ violence to defend yourself and your property from any and all criminal aggressors. For whatever reasons liberals tend to deprive innocents of the means of defending yourself and your property from crime. Not to mention that the constitution says very strictly: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” the state has systematically destroyed this right. No physical objects is in itself aggressive, whether it be a gun, knife, stone, or stick can be used for violent crime, defense, or numerous other purposes that aren't connected with crime. It makes no sense to outlaw or restrict the purchase of firearms than it does to outlaw knives, stones, sticks, hatpins, etc...And if we are to outlaw all these mere objects, how is the prohibition to be enforced...? It would require a mass state gestapo spying on every individual enforcing their "objective moral code" on others as we watch the condition of freedom deteriorate. Another point, if guns are restricted or outlawed, there is no reason to expect that determined criminals will pay attention and follow the law. Criminals will always be able to purchase and carry firearms, the fact of the matter is this: it will be the [b]innocent[/b] victims of the criminals who will suffer from the solicitous liberalism imposing peaceful voluntary exchange. Just as drugs, pornography, prostitution, abortion, should have no legal opposition, so should guns. I should also note that those advocating gun outlaws and restriction aren't in favor of totally removing these weapons (this is naive in the first place) rather allowing the state to hold a monopoly on modern military control and weapons. It should also be known that many statists preach "we need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals." This is quite clearly a comical logical contradiction, as the state is the largest and most successful criminal organization of all. The state has captured means of robbery, appointed themselves the legal right to do so and threw the label "taxation" over it. As the state commits mass murder on a grand scale through all unjust and interstate wars leading to collateral damage and the death of millions of innocent individuals. When gun control advocates tell me this general quote above, this is what I hear: "All we want to do is keep guns out of the hands of criminals and allow the greatest criminal organization of all time hold a monopoly of modern firearms." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whenever there is a mass shooting, the media runs to point fingers and find out who to apply the blame to. Some will blame gun control or the lack thereof, some will blame mental illness, racism, ideology, etc..Generally as the fingers are pointed and blame is established, following will be a relentless call for changes in public policy: changes in gun control, healthcare spending, changes in education and social policy. All of these possible solution share a premise of indirect solutions correlated to social engineering that ignores the most accurate cause of these shootings. As I said above, changes in gun laws will not be of any effect to criminals and they will look to accomplish determined ends by using improvised weapons or illegal means. Mental illness policy would be assuming that all potential threats would be receiving treatment and that it actually works. The FBI and police agencies that hold compulsory economic monopolies are tasked to stop these types of tragedies and keep tabs on criminals have a poor record of doing so. Even if we can agree to implement these policies, leave it up to the inefficient state to work in these extremely broad and hard to enforce policies. Not to even mention these policies will bring large costs and limitation to civil liberties. Keeping tabs on all potential suspects and banning weapons (enforcing this ban) will come with immense costs. Then what do we do? It seems the most direct approach to stopping homicidal individuals from walking into schools with weapons is live security. It is quite simple, the key to keeping killers out of schools, [i]is to keep them out of schools.[/i] Generally when people hear of such direct security solutions they complain that schools will look like jails or it is too expensive. Well, first off, attendance to public school is compulsory, so they are already jails of the mass youth. I do agree that increased security measures would be expensive, but again this is a result of the state interference. Tax funded monopolies on law enforcement drive the little competition for property and person security while raising the cost. [url=https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/zoey-dimauro/study-half-all-school-employees-not-teachers-130-increase-1970]Since 1970 student population in schools has increased by 8% while the non teaching staff population has increased by 130%.[/url] Not to mention that the public school itself is a monopolized tax funded service isn't subject to the incentives that surround property of profit seeking entrepreneurs. Since no one can reap the profits of public property, no one has a properly aligned incentive to protect the property from damage or threats, surely it isn't in the interest of state bureaucrats.