Reason First: Gunman in Milwaukee Kills Five, Self

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine if all Americans from the youngest crawling to oldest walking possessed a gun. Consider the fact that each one of them received ample training in the art of firearms handling. Contemplate not free health care, but free guns. If the streets became flooded with boomsticks, what would happen to neighborhoods? If guns proliferated school buildings, churches, office buildings, movie theaters, and other businesses, what would the landscape of the United States look like?

Besides all of the bloodshed and increase in murder and attempted murder rates as well as suicides, the messy, bloody outcome would only highlight how there exist the right people who own firearms. Who are these Americans? They are gun-toting, range-practicing, shooters who employ the usage of guns for sport and self-defense. That is where the thoughts should be placed, not on some disgruntled former worker of the Molson Coors Beverage Company. This coward had no business possessing access to firearms. For his role in this vicious display, he should be made an example of what it means to be a flagrant rights violator.

The Second Amendment is there for rational, life-loving adults and children who know their way around shotguns, pistols and rifles. It protects these gun owners from the government from exercising an overbearing sense of force. Now, this does not mean that the general populace should have access to M4 Sherman Tanks or nuclear warheads. And it also does not mean that the Second Amendment is all that important as compared to the First Amendment, either. Guns ought to be used only to retaliate against force and specific, serious threats to individuals. There still remain those confident, collected, and dedicated gun people who would never lift their firearm out of whims and feelings. It is the mind that drives the gun owner who knows that he or she has the power of death and injury in the palm of their hands.

It should be these heroes who know what to do with a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. This recent shooter was a scared little boy too uncomfortable with reality so he chose to end the realities of other people. Such has been the case for decades. It’s another classic tale, sadly. An upset former employee airs out the workplace as a way of instilling fear in the workers of offices all over the nation and the world. His actions out to serve as textbook examples of what happens when an angry ex-worker picks up pistols and charges into his former worksite.

Mental illness, past records of the start of force, and especially the philosophy of law ought to hold sway in these cases. It is philosophy that governs the thoughts and actions of an individual. As it is applied, the philosophy of law should be seen as the the final arbiter in these cases of mass shootings. We must remember that the shooter was not a drug lord out to silence his competitors. He was someone who had grown tired of reason and living and decided to exact revenge for his dismissal. No gangland activity popped onto the scene during this mass shooting. It was just a lone gunman with the fear and loathing that reached a boiling point in his brain.

So, for all of the talk about “gun control” we should rather hold a discourse on how a proper philosophy will prevent all of these shootings. We mustn't blame the guns. There are but tools. We should shed light on the minds of people in the United States and understand ideas. This should be private and comprehensive. And here’s another thought experiment: Take away all guns from the individuals of the country. See how far that goes.