Don't let one tragedy beget another.

America is faced with yet another mass-shooting and yet again America looks for answers. As we face the horrific tragedy of a man intentionally murdering 20 children and 6 adults we search for answers, we ask why, we ask how nobody saw this coming and how we could protect against it; all valid questions. However most of these questions have no answer, no easy way out and no predictive capability. Sometimes people snap, sometimes the pressure of society and prior grievances turn themselves into an unpredictable rage. Sometimes there are clues, indicators and warning lights that come on letting you know a person could be mentally unstable over time. This is what needs to be thoroughly defined. There is a catastrophic risk in blaming equipment used for the act and resulting tragedy.

Again America finds small fractions saying that the tragedy would have been stopped if there simply wasn't a weapon. If there weren't guns, the children and adults would be alive - while particularly accurate for the specific situation - it is not in any way a universal truth, and makes an incredible level of assumptions. In America the citizens via the Bill of Rights have the capacity of own and operate a firearm. Under the same essence there are laws that Americans are to follow to be citizens of this Nation. One of these laws says that Murder of another is illegal. Ultimately, a person willing to murder someone as agreed to an illegal act, no amount of law or regulation stops that individual.

Should we do more stringent checks on firearm sales, as to the mental stability of the person? Possibly, but how? Anyone who purchased a firearm will tell you that there is extensive background check performed by the FBI to assure the purchaser does not have a criminal record. How do we track a persons mental health? What privilege or right would citizens like to relinquish for this capability? The concept of patient doctor confidentiality is gone, that is the only way to track personal attributes. Now, what if the person never seeks help, lives a secluded life or disengages from society? How would you track that individual? What if a person says another is unstable, without documented evidence, does that person still lack the right to have a firearm? Essentially, we need to remove the concept of privacy. If authorities could have access to all conversations, all health records, all group activities or affiliations, then maybe we could predict and limit who is allowed to have a firearm. Or, maybe, possibly, the correct answer is let law abiding citizens carry the weapons they've purchased. Let them qualify once a year or have a complete profile done on them, but allow them to opportunity to defend themselves. Take away the concept of "gun free zones" because they depend on a law abiding citizen to work.

By allowing current law abiding citizens to carry a firearm if they choose, will limit and deter and possibly stop murders and mass shootings with firearms. It was once quoted as "the great equalizer", and it is. If you think about it, you don't hear about mass-shooting as gun shows, gun stores, outdoor stores, NRA rallies - why is that? Because isn't that where all the crazy individuals with guns are located? They aren't shooting mass-amounts of people because there, in those locations, other citizens are armed. Mass-shootings occur almost 100% where the offending party knows that the target is unarmed, nearly always. This Nation was brought to its knees by a dozen men with box-cutters - the weapon is not the problem here.

America needs to thoroughly consider the alternative loss of privacy if it wishes to end the 2nd Amendement.