Ahhhhh I get it, so this time one example of anecdotal evidence does prove your point — despite all the other evidence to the contrary about the effects of criminalization — and therefore we should infringe on some people’s civil rights just to protect a few allegedly law-abiding gun owners.

You’re essentially arguing that we shouldn’t do anything about gun laws because a small percentage of people are going to commit crimes anyway…and then saying that we should treat Americans like prisoners in their own land because of the small percentage of people who are going to commit crimes anyway…

Do you believe in forgiveness, progress, and free will; or do you believe in an authoritarian police state?

You realize there are ways—and data available!—to determine whether a policy has a positive or negative impact, even if that policy is not 100% flawless either way? How the hell do you think laws work?

By the way, you’re also conflating SCHOOL administrative responsibilities, and POLICE responsibilities, and FEDERAL responsibilities, in reporting Cruz’s previous behaviors. Those are different things, all of which can and should be examined and discussed. But in the end, it proves the case in point: regardless of what it says on paper, our country doesn’t actually deal with things like male violence in a way that would actually prevent further problems, because we’ve normalized it. Simply put, if no one chose to press charges against Cruz for his previous assaults—or if they occurred when he was still a juvenile—then the system did work exactly as designed, because you can’t arrest a person and rob them of their rights before they’ve committed a crime.