What's the Answer?

It didn't seem as if there were very many mass shootings, especially in schools and churches, when I was growing up. I don't know if that was because there weren't any, or because they didn't have the “24-hour news cycle” like they have now. I do know there weren't nearly as many news outlets then as there are now. But the main question today is, “what's the answer to stopping it?” Not only mass shootings, but gun attacks in general. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know what they're doing is NOT the answer. Taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding people is NOT the answer to gun violence. You don't defend yourself by DISARMING yourself. I remember that a major reason why the Japanese didn't attack the American mainland during WWII is that they figured “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass and pointing out of every window.” To me, that spells PREPAREDNESS as security.

Translated to personal security, that means someone bent on a massacre should not be able to believe there will be NO guns there to oppose him. The only church shooting I can remember that didn't work out the way the shooter wished was in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the would-be shooter walked into bullets fired from a gun held by a small female parishioner who had been asked to ACT as “security” while there. That tells me it isn't the gun that's at fault in such cases, it's what's in the mind of the HOLDER of the gun. I know liberals hate the whole idea of arming law-abiding people, because they don't trust them to contain themselves if they have “heat” on their hip. But nonetheless, I think that ARMING honest people IS the answer—at least in individual cases. If a would-be shooter comes in to kill people and is, himself killed by someone there with a gun, maybe other would-be mass killers will think again about what they have in mind. Nobody wants to die for nothing, and being killed before you can carry out your plans to kill others stops you from being successful. (Just common sense)