In the wake of the recent shooting tragedies, there have been a rash of statements by pundits, stating that such-and-such is the cause of the shootings; it is the media’s fault, it is video games, there are too many guns, there are too few guns, it is crazy people that kill and not guns, and guns are not the only weapons that kills lots of people. Frankly, I don’t think there is a simple solution. We like to think that “If we just do this one thing, then it would be solved.” I don’t think that there is a one solution that that will solve this problem. Life is complex. Any one or none of these things could be contributing factors to violence and certainly not the only thing.

I think there are two things with which we can agree:

1. It is the individual that becomes violent.

2. Guns are designed to kill people.

Movies, news media or video games do not make a person violent and a killer. With the popularity of violent video games and movies and this was true, there should be millions of killers in the US. This is the same argument that gun owners give for the reason why guns are not the problem; the number of guns owned greatly outnumber the number of killings by guns. Of course, violent video games and movies may be a contributing factor for acting violently, if the person is already on their way to being violent, and having a gun available would be giving them the instrument to act out that violence.

If gun owners can argue that less guns is not the answer to gun violence, then, certainly, more guns is not the answer either. I would be worried, if my son’s school was armed and the teachers were toting concealed weapons. More weapons at schools, especially among younger children, would lead most likely to an increase of accidental shootings. Even with an armed security officer, we have an incident where an armed BART officer shot and killed someone when intending to pull out his taser.

I, also, think that comparing guns to homemade bombs, such as fertilizer bombs, is a bit unfair. How may times have fertilizer bombs been used to kill people in the US? I would think that the number of people killed by fertilizer bombs are greatly dwarfed by the number of deaths by guns. The main reason for this is that guns are designed to kill people and fertilizer is not. Using homemade bombs is just not a convient way to kill people, guns are.

Guns are designed for killing. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with that. Non-hunting guns are designed for killing other people. Semiautomatic and automatic weapons are designed for killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time.

I do not own a gun, because I have no use for its designed purpose. I do not want to kill, under any circumstance. I recognized this as my personal preference and choice. I also recognize that others may desire to own guns for various reasons including self-defense. Even though my preference is different, I recognize their right and feel that they should have the right to own a gun.

However, I do not think that all guns should be treated equally. Just as an individual can’t own any weapon they choose to own, individuals should not be allowed to own any gun they choose to own. Just because one shoots bullets instead of grenades or missiles, shouldn’t be the criteria for it being legal to own. Semiautomatic and automatic weapons are designed for getting as many rounds off as possible in a short period of time. There are different caliber and types of bullets. I am by no means a weapons expert or even pretend to even have a superficial knowledge on the subject, but I do believe that there are firearms and ammunition that an individual should not own.

Just as individuals cannot own grenade launchers, individuals should not be allowed to own assault weapons. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. I would think that most reasonably minded people would agree that America should have some sort of federal law banning assault weapons. These are weapons of war. Their purpose is to kill lots of people. There is no reason a US citizen should own an assault weapon. I know the 2nd amendment people are crying that they need to own assault weapons in order to overthrow the government, if it becomes too oppressive. Really? That wouldn’t even be possible against the weaponry of the US armed forces. Besides, how many times has there been a need to overthrow the government and how many times have crazies mowed down people with assault weapons? In order to protect your right to own an assault weapon for a hypothetical, impossible scenario, you would allow a possibly unstable person own a weapon that has the capabilities to kill lots of people? Also, we have an army to protect the state from invasion. Individual citizens do not need to do this. Not only should certain weapons be banned, but certain ammunition should be banned as well, such as armor-piercing or explosive tip ammunition. This puts law enforcement officers in jeopardy when they respond to such situations.

If no guns, is not an option, then owning any weapon of your choice is not an option, too. There must be compromise on both sides. The NRA is scaring the public into thinking that the government wants to take away all their guns. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Obama Administration has done little to nothing on gun control issues. We don’t even have a federal assault weapons ban. What does that tell you? Stop listening to the NRA and listen to reason. For the safety of the public and law enforcement personnel, we need to have a federal ban on certain firearms and ammunition. Doing so won’t eliminate all shootings, but it will limit the tools available to the crazies.