I stand by the statement that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Whether that good guy is on the spot as the shooting starts or is nearby, that is the only way the shooter could be stopped. It was asked about the Fort Hood mass shooting. Well, that shooter did kill 13 people but it could have been worse but for him being engaged and shot by responding police officers. I simply do not see any way around the proposition that lethal force of the mass shooting variety can only be stopped by lethal force.

I respect that some of you do not understand the desire or need to own guns and choose not to or associate with people who do. That is certainly your right and it doesn't make me like or respect you any less. I would say though, that one third of American households disagree with you and for whatever reason, choose to own firearms. Bear in mind that "firearms" can mean anything from a .22 caliber target pistol to a 12 gauge duck hunting shotgun to a so-called "assault weapon". I have my reasons and they are really of no consequence to the discussion. The simple fact is that the majority of Americans do understand gun ownership and do so lawfully.

It was also mentioned that there is "ease of access". I think this is notion created by the media. As I stated, there are almost always some procedures in order to buy a gun. Where someone like Adam Lanza kills the owner and steals them or the burglar who steals one during a burglary is not "ease of access" but I do think that gun owners have a responsibility to maintain their firearms in a safe way. To me, that means my guns are locked away in a 600 pound safe. I have always done that even before having a child and before California mandated gun locks or gun safes.

Perhaps that is something that should be implemented nationwide: Require gun owners to store firearms in approved locking devices. That could prevent the owner's child from getting the gun or help prevent burglars from stealing them. That could reduce the "ease of access". To me, that is just smart and just makes sense. I would not want any of my guns stolen much less stolen and then used in a crime. So, I take great pains to safeguard my firearms. I even keep my ammunition and magazines in another large safe. If people were required to lock up their guns, fewer guns would fall into criminal hands. That, I think is common sense and would work. Reducing the number of guns that could be stolen is not realistic. The idea of taking or confiscating guns from law abiding people is offensive to me. (Yes, innocent people being killed is offensive to me too.)

As for the Second Amendment, people like to point to the age of the amendment and the time period in which it was drafted but the United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the Second Amendment in a couple of recent decision so as of 2012 the Second Amendment still stands for the proposition that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

JCL is correct that the issue is polarized. Every political issue in the United States is polarized these days. He is also correct that there is talk of gun control. Again, as I stated earlier, I agree with effective controls. There is though also a ban being talked about and that is a ban on a certain class of weapon, a class of weapon that has been used in the recent mass shootings. I think it is the talk of this ban and the perception that it is an erosion of the Second Amendment and a start of a slippery slope that causes the strong reaction.

__________________