Domestic Terrorists: Gun Control or Gun Rights?

In the recent time, we have experienced yet another tragedy, where there was a single person on a shooting spree that has killed several people, including children, mothers, friends, and more. Now there are heated debates on how to settle these types of tragedies. On one side, there are those who say that we ought to encourage more gun ownership. Really? It did the mother a lot of good, when the very guns she had in her own home was used against her.

I do have to wonder, though, is what would happen? So, teachers bring guns to school. For what purpose? Escalate the violence? And what about the safety of the children, should they get their hands on it? If the teachers lock it up, what good is it for when the next attacker comes in to shoot up the school? And if that never happens, why are we paranoid for the "just in case"? Stop and think about it... this is NOT a logical answer because it's your last minute knee jerk reaction, and it makes little sense. It strikes me as weird, when many of our conservatives say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure. True, only to a point. Some methods are better than others. In a recent attack in China, there was a man who ran into a school with a large knife, and stabbed 27 people. All of them survived. Yet all of the shooting victims died. 

Obviously, the gun played a large part in how the people died vs. lived. On the other hand, we talk about gun control. Seriously, what, exactly is gun control? To regulate the ownership and sales? Okay, so... we make more laws about how to sign up and get one, and keep closer track of who has one and who doesn't. Then what? So we make it more difficult for honest people to get them? Then what? The burglars and the black market still have their stash, and it's not going to slow down any time too soon. That's such a delayed reaction, it's NOT funny. In a more realistic way, we need to ensure that we are paying closer attention at WHO is getting their hands on these weapons. 

Sure, we could try to take them away from "gang-bangers". But, if you noticed, the shooter at the Connecticut school was NOT a gangster. The shooter at the Brookfield Spa in Milwaukee was not a gangster. The shooter at the Sikh Temple, while a white supremacist, wasn't exactly what you'd call a gangster. The shooter at the Colorado movie theater was not a gangster. Neither was the shooter in Minneapolis. Nor Columbine.  

Here are some scary statistics about who is the guilty party of these mass shootings. This talks about how there is usually a lone shooter, and more than 4 victims died. About half are work related, though the other half is public. Most are white male, though there was one woman. It's very scary that most of these people obtained the guns LEGALLY. And 68 were semiautomatic, and another 35 were assault weapons. 20 revolvers, and 19 shotguns... so, I would say that it would make more sense if we controlled what types of guns were legal for private use. If you think about it, semiautomatics are also pretty common in the military, and assault weapons are made for one thing, and one thing only. It's to hurt people. Nothing more. So, why not keep the revolvers and shotguns, and keep the rest under lock and key? And stop coming after us honest people for our weapons, we are not the problem. 

We need to figure out a way to make rules about certain things w/o discriminating. So, let's say someone is autistic. Excuse me, but, never have I read that autistic people are naturally violent. On the other hand, SOME - who are schizophrenic, may be violent. Depression isn't necessarily a marker either. I just wonder sometimes whether or not we are covering mental illnesses in the appropriate manner. There is still a stigma of being mentally ill, to where we want to sweep it under the carpet if we may be ill. Insurance also covers mental illness at a much lower rate and less often than a physical ailment. Why is that? Answers, anyone? It's important that we are able to access the health care that we need. 

Take a look at the most recent CN mass shooting, and the hurt that is left behind. Yet, aside from vigils and prayer chains, what is being done to help those who are still feeling the sting of an aftermath? It's nice to do fundraisers to help cover funeral costs for those who can't afford it, but who is paying for the bereavement counseling and the grief support groups, and other mental health issues that the survivors may be experiencing?

 Maybe it would be nice, since Christmas is almost here, to go ahead and send gifts. That would be heartwarming for the survivors.  

On the other hand, we must still ensure that the wrong people don't get their hands on firearms? Do we tell parents of these mentally ill that they are not allowed to own a gun? That's discriminatory. Maybe make it mandatory that since we HAVE to register as a gun owner, when we sell or give away that gun, it's mandatory to notify who and where it was sold/given to. How about with every gun, there needs to be a test bullet sent to a mainframe and keep records similar to a weapon version of CODIS? I don't know. But, to push for more rights sounds just as ridiculous as buying back honest people's guns. Neither is a good solution, because it's still a knee jerk reaction in haste. So, what do you think? Are there answers? Any common sense approaches? The more we TALK, not argue, the better solutions we have.