To me, the real question is one that represents one of my fundamental differences with the publicity-seeking political classes. Basically, when we read about these atrocities, we want to find a simple solution, but we don't want to use any logic in getting there. Rupert Murdock is just another attention hog looking for an "intiutive" solution that makes no sense.In the Sandy Hook case, the school had increased internal security dramatically by simply locking the door from the inside during the school day. And yet, one nutcase armed with a rifle shot out a window and still got in to commit this atrocity.
Is the presence of the rifle the problem? Or is the presence of the nutcase the problem?
If we really want a solution, why focus on the rifle and not the nutcase? Look at the de-institutionalization since the 1960s. Heck, I can see evidence of it just by going out into the downtown of any major metro area. Why is the gun the problem?
The only real problem for which there is a simple solution is the availability of large-capacity magazines, as I discussed above. We've gone from limiting our madman (and, rarely, madwoman) killers to 6 victims without reloading to giving them a virtually unlimited number of victims without reloading.