Indeed that is a waste. Though I'm not sure where you were coming from posting this.
If it was to highlight suicide with a gun as a problem, there are plenty of other methods that young woman could have used that would have been just as effective in taking her own life. Would have been somehow less tragic if she took a whole bottle of a relative's blood pressure medication?? The gun did make it relatively easy, unfortunately, but other methods that are even more readily available these days are much easier since they require even less mindful action on the part of the individual. That's not to mention the fact that some of those methods often end up simply putting one into sleep from which they don't wake up. That certainly seems like a more peaceful way to go than a traumatic injury caused by a high velocity projectile (which could also leave someone severely maimed instead of dead).
If you were trying to infer the guilt she felt was for not being able to stop the parkland shooting from at least being as serious as it was, you need to consider a major factor. The overwhelming majority of law abiding gun owners are just that, law abiding. Survivor's guilt is unfortunately something a survivor often has to deal with. Considering there are laws against students from carrying firearms (even if they are legally eligible under their state/local laws outside of school), she would have had to break the law at either a very specific and serendipitous time, or more likely every day, in order to have had a weapon that could have assisted her in trying to stop the shooter. The likelihood of an otherwise law abiding gun owner actually breaking the law and carrying a firearm into a "gun-free zone" (once again, if she was even eligible to carry it outside of the school) with that frequency or at that specific moment are slim to none.
Either way, it seems a bit underhanded to bring that situation up as an example of responsible citizens being armed not preventing someone from being harmed.
Regardless of the reasons why some people want to harm themselves and/or others, or even if there truly is a lack of willingness to address what may be the real cause of this type of behavior, the fact is these people exist. Until we get past these tendencies these will always be tragic situations that lead to loss of life because of a crazed or psychotic individual. I myself would rather not need to rely on others to stop an immediate threat. If you feel better relying on others, that's your decision. There's absolutely no logical argument against any living beings "God given" or "natural" right (take your choice) to defend themselves within their best abilities. It just so happens that humans have proven to be very adept at building and using tools (which is all a gun happens to be). As such, I'll err on the side of caution and make sure I have the best tool available to defend one's self besides a functioning mind (which I tend to have with me at most times anyway), a gun.
Sent via the android pony express
If it was to highlight suicide with a gun as a problem, there are plenty of other methods that young woman could have used that would have been just as effective in taking her own life. Would have been somehow less tragic if she took a whole bottle of a relative's blood pressure medication?? The gun did make it relatively easy, unfortunately, but other methods that are even more readily available these days are much easier since they require even less mindful action on the part of the individual. That's not to mention the fact that some of those methods often end up simply putting one into sleep from which they don't wake up. That certainly seems like a more peaceful way to go than a traumatic injury caused by a high velocity projectile (which could also leave someone severely maimed instead of dead).
If you were trying to infer the guilt she felt was for not being able to stop the parkland shooting from at least being as serious as it was, you need to consider a major factor. The overwhelming majority of law abiding gun owners are just that, law abiding. Survivor's guilt is unfortunately something a survivor often has to deal with. Considering there are laws against students from carrying firearms (even if they are legally eligible under their state/local laws outside of school), she would have had to break the law at either a very specific and serendipitous time, or more likely every day, in order to have had a weapon that could have assisted her in trying to stop the shooter. The likelihood of an otherwise law abiding gun owner actually breaking the law and carrying a firearm into a "gun-free zone" (once again, if she was even eligible to carry it outside of the school) with that frequency or at that specific moment are slim to none.
Either way, it seems a bit underhanded to bring that situation up as an example of responsible citizens being armed not preventing someone from being harmed.
Regardless of the reasons why some people want to harm themselves and/or others, or even if there truly is a lack of willingness to address what may be the real cause of this type of behavior, the fact is these people exist. Until we get past these tendencies these will always be tragic situations that lead to loss of life because of a crazed or psychotic individual. I myself would rather not need to rely on others to stop an immediate threat. If you feel better relying on others, that's your decision. There's absolutely no logical argument against any living beings "God given" or "natural" right (take your choice) to defend themselves within their best abilities. It just so happens that humans have proven to be very adept at building and using tools (which is all a gun happens to be). As such, I'll err on the side of caution and make sure I have the best tool available to defend one's self besides a functioning mind (which I tend to have with me at most times anyway), a gun.
Sent via the android pony express
