Gun owners have no one else to blame except other gun owners when it comes to the threat of gun control legislation.

Gun advocates point to the fact that the killer in this most recent attack used his mother’s guns. It begs the question: why did she need the guns?

The guns she thought would save her killed her, and many others.

Maybe the guns should’ve been locked up. If they were locked up, then they wouldn’t have helped her in the case of a home invasion, and they obviously weren’t safe enough where they were.

Her guns didn’t protect her – they did more harm than good.

There must be hundreds of thousands of people who don’t own guns and whose mentally ill child can’t steal a gun from them, because they don’t own a gun.

That’s the kind of thing that helps families and strangers to be safe – not owning a gun.

Fervent gun owners cite the fact that more people are murdered by weapons other than a gun. My response to that thoughtless argument is that unpremeditated, spur-of-the-moment, murders happen when the killer goes nuts and grabs the first likely implement to kill with; they don’t choose a bat over a gun because they’re against guns, but because they didn’t have a gun in their hand at the time.

…and if they run upstairs to unlock and load the gun, then their victim might escape.

Premeditated murders and suicides generally utilize guns due to their efficiency.

Guns are personally unaffiliated. They’re loyal to the one who holds it, and that person’s mental state can change in an instant.

Without a gun in the house, you stand a greater chance of not being shot by a gun. Similarly, if you don’t stand on the edge of a cliff, then you probably won’t die from falling off a cliff.

Using the argument that ‘just by dint of having a gun you’ll stop anyone else with a gun from committing a crime’, then everyone a Christmas dinner should be packing heat, because you never know when a drunk uncle is going to start a scene, and if he knows everyone at the table is armed, he might think twice before causing that scene.

I have never heard of a situation where a gunman was stopped because other gun carrying citizens took matters into their own hands.

So, back to the fact that it’s the crazy gun owners, or their crazy children, who prompt gun control discussions by massacring innocent people, it’s not the non-gun-owners.

Non-gun-owners only speak up after a gun-owner kills non-gun-owning-people, because non-gun-owning-people don’t want to be shot at random while going about their business.

It’s a gun owner thing; it’s their problem; it’s their people, other gun owners, who cause the strife, and if they can’t keep their fellow gun loving owners from shooting up the place and killing innocent non-gun-carrying-people, then too bad for them if gun legislation is instituted, because the rest of us will have to do something if gun-owners refuse to police their own.

The responsibility is on gun owners. They must devise methods and licensing to keep a lid on the nut jobs, or it will soon be over for them and their guns in general.

Gun owners think they can sit back and argue as to why they need their guns, as scores of people continue to die all around us, but if they want to protect their current status, then they have to act first. Just like many commercial industries often self-regulate, so should the gun-owner demographic.

Parents are responsible for the crimes of their underage children, and perhaps they should continue to be responsible forever if their child ends up killing innocent bystanders with a gun, and maybe then parents would raise their child to be cool, and if they can’t do that, and if they know there’s something ‘wrong’ with their kid, then they have to put their kid on the National ‘do no sell guns to’ list, and sell their own guns to prevent their child from stealing their guns and killing anyway.