Interesting question. As much as I hate to see guns destroyed, this is, in the grand scheme of things, a very small number of guns, it's not like their destruction would impact the number of guns available in this country.
My personal preference is to leave the decision to the victims and their families. I understand that there are a variety of views among them, but in this case, perhaps it's best to run with the majority opinion. If that's to destroy them, if for no other reason than to help give some peace to those folks impacted directly by this, then so be it. If that's to sell them and put the sales into a victims fund, then that's great too. As others have said, guns are just tools, but to the victim of a crime, a gun, a knife, a pencil, can most certainly carry an emotional weight that may not be easily dismissed by simply saying "it's a tool". I would ultimately prefer to give the victims the final say and go from there.
I don't know if you folks remember the 2 girls that were kidnapped and murdered in Oregon City back in 2002 by a POS named Ward Weaver? It happened just a few miles from where I live and in a place I drove by almost every day. My wife and I went to school with the mother of one of the girls. While we weren't directly impacted by this, the whole event hit our town hard, as it was an event unlike anything that had happened there before. It felt personal to a lot of folks. When the time came to decide what to do with his house, which sat right on a main road, in clear view of everyone, the families decided they wanted it torn down. There was discussion of turning the house over to someone who could use it, or maybe make it into a shelter for abuse victims. But the pain of seeing that home was too much for them to bear, so they got rid of it. Maybe it didn't make a huge difference overall, but it brought a little peace and closure to the families.
So again, I say let the victims decide, whatever the majority of them choose. I don't see a moral dilemma here.
My personal preference is to leave the decision to the victims and their families. I understand that there are a variety of views among them, but in this case, perhaps it's best to run with the majority opinion. If that's to destroy them, if for no other reason than to help give some peace to those folks impacted directly by this, then so be it. If that's to sell them and put the sales into a victims fund, then that's great too. As others have said, guns are just tools, but to the victim of a crime, a gun, a knife, a pencil, can most certainly carry an emotional weight that may not be easily dismissed by simply saying "it's a tool". I would ultimately prefer to give the victims the final say and go from there.
I don't know if you folks remember the 2 girls that were kidnapped and murdered in Oregon City back in 2002 by a POS named Ward Weaver? It happened just a few miles from where I live and in a place I drove by almost every day. My wife and I went to school with the mother of one of the girls. While we weren't directly impacted by this, the whole event hit our town hard, as it was an event unlike anything that had happened there before. It felt personal to a lot of folks. When the time came to decide what to do with his house, which sat right on a main road, in clear view of everyone, the families decided they wanted it torn down. There was discussion of turning the house over to someone who could use it, or maybe make it into a shelter for abuse victims. But the pain of seeing that home was too much for them to bear, so they got rid of it. Maybe it didn't make a huge difference overall, but it brought a little peace and closure to the families.
So again, I say let the victims decide, whatever the majority of them choose. I don't see a moral dilemma here.
Turning the suite into a permanent memorial could also be an option, but I'm sure the hotel would rather not lose the revenue or it's admit any of it's own culpability.
