Adam Lanza Proves No Gun Control Measure Will Ever Stop Mass Shootings

There is nothing on this earth more important than our children. When someone like Adam Lanza threatens them, action must be taken. The sixty-four dollar question concerns what we should, nay, must do.

In a fit of shared grief, fear, and anger the most common reaction has been to call for increased gun control. It sounds logical on the surface. It seems to be common sense to assume that less guns equals less violence. A simple Google search will draw thousands of references that support and/or refute this "common sense."

I oppose gun control based on a literal reading of the Second Amendment. I also oppose it because many places with stringent gun control still appear to have high rates of gun related killings. When it comes to gun control, the surveys are all over the map. To be honest, I believe that more people should openly carry weapons. I think society as a whole would be a lot more polite.

There are no gun control measures that will stop mass shootings. The problems are the shooter and the locations of the shootings. Two things immediately become obvious. The shooter cannot be considered sane and the locations must be secured against the insane.

There are reports that the Batman shooter was known to be troubled. There are reports that the Columbine killers exhibited open and obvious signs hinting at their intentions. And obviously these signs were ignored. That has to stop.

Mental health concerns must be addressed. Those with issues must be helped without the stigma normally attached. Most of all, those who are dangerous must be hospitalized until they are no longer a danger in any form. If someone is assumed to be trusted so long as they are medicated, that isn't good enough. If you cannot trust that they won't "go off their meds," then they must remain hospitalized.

It wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit that I'm not a mental health expert. Like those with wrong headed notions of gun control, I advance this idea because on the surface it makes sense to me.

The other avenue of approach would be to ensure that those places choosing to ban guns such as schools, shopping malls, churches, government buildings, and bars must be liable for anything that happens. If you, as a private property owner, wish to ban weapons that is your right. But, with that right comes the responsibility to defend those you wish to disarm.

There should be metal detectors at every entrance to those sort of places. There should be professional security forces on site to handle anyone trying to enter in violation of policy. And those forces must be explicitly authorized to use deadly force in defense of those who cannot defend themselves.

If all the above fails and another theater gets shot up, then sue them. Sue them for disarming you and then exposing you to danger. Sue them because they assumed responsibility for your life when they chose to take your protections away. I would guess that facing the potential multi-billion dollar lawsuit would cause many to rethink the whole "gun free zone" concept.

There are too many law abiding, safe, and responsible gun owners to unfairly punish by additional gun controls. Our health care system needs to aggressively and conclusively identify those with dangerous mental health issues. And, those places we designate as "gun free" must be made that way or punished for their failure.