The CT shootings, unfortunately has brought up ALOT of dialogue on gun control. One thing I've been hearing alot of, is to ARM TEACHERS.  Don't get me wrong, I LOVE guns, but I feel this is a TERRIBLE idea.

Switzerland issues a Sig 550 assault rifle to discharged military to TAKE HOME

The Israeli Tavor is a common sight in the streets.  Granted with the threat of HAMAS and other terrorist groups, it's necessary to have their soldiers patrol out in the open as deterrence

Many people bring up Israel and Switzerland as examples.  They issue fully automatic REAL assault rifles for households. The reason this makes sense, is because they have MANDATORY MILITARY SERVICE for adults.  They have training.  They have experience.  But in the USA? I think its a horrible idea. I personally would not want my son going to school, and having a gunfight erupt between an unexperienced mass murderer, and an unexperienced teacher with a gun.  Granted, there are SOME teachers and former military-turned-teacher which I would feel comfortable to arm in a school, but for a majority, its a horrible idea. 

We need to focus on mental heath issues.  We need to NOT let the people suffering with mental health issues slip through the cracks.  Its only when something catastrophic happens they get brought to light.  They need help ALL the time, not only when there is a tragedy.  

If the NRA spent half of the money they spent on sending me crap about buying insurance and donating more money (which I never do) to mental health care, there would be a LOT less suffering, and possibly, some shootings wouldn't happen.  Whenever there is a mass shooting, we as a country ALWAYS focus on the WRONG issues to solve a problem.  When we pass some more useless legislation, we gain a false sense of security, and then BAM.  It happens again.  Then we sit and wonder why it didn't work.  

Gun control is just too polarizing of a subject.  we need to compromise with each other to find a solution.  We both want a common goal, but have wildly differing ways to get there.  Our dialogue is spent defending our interests and pushing back the other group.  Its too confromntational to get ANYthing done.

Since this is all I've been hearing lately, I'm tired of debating people on facebook and whatnot, so I want to lay it out here

I am Pro-Gun.  All guns.  'assault rifles' high-powered bolt guns, pistols, you name it.  The 'assault rifles' that are sold off of the shelf now are no different than any other semi automatic hunting rifle.   This part cannot be said enough.  Civilian manufacture of REAL assault and full auto stopped in 1986.  the assault rifles we have now, including the ones used in mass shootings, are nothing more than a standard hunting semi-auto with a body kit of sorts.  They are not deadlier, they do not shoot faster, they just look different.
They are not 'high'powered' like the media would have you believe. A bit of history first:
During WWII, many standard battle rifles were in the .30 caliber.  .308, 30-06, .30-30 etc.  those are the standard hunting rounds you find today for deer, elk and other mid sized game.  the AR-15 shoots a .223.
The reason the military went this route, is mainly due to the FACT that most engagements and skirmishes during war happened WITHIN 400 yards.  a .30 caliber full power hunting round is much too powerful for that range.  it is essentially a waste.  They moved to the smaller .223(or 5.56 NATO, they are the same size) because a soldier could carry more, and still be able to fight within that 400 yard range.

An AR-15 round (smallest, far left) next to some standard game rounds)

(.223, .308, .30-06, .375Ruger, .458 WinMag)

If you tried to go deer hunting with an AR-15, you would get in trouble.  not because of the reason many would think, but because the round is TOO UNDERPOWERED to humanely drop a deer or an elk.  In short, an AR-15 is too damn small.  its really good for paper, and squirrels.  yes, they can kill humans, and they do, but lets face it.  Humans are somewhat weak compared to everything else in the animal kingdom.  it doesn't take much to take us out.

Why are we always focusing on the firearm during a mass shooting.  Why not the shooter's state of mind? What about better mental health, a better buying process for guns?  The form in California actually asks you if you: are addicted to illegal drugs, have been comitted/mental health issues, are not allowed to own a gun, etc.  Just check the 'NO' box and you're good to go.  THAT needs to be changed.  Also, wishful thinking I know, but to have background/mental health checks on ALL household members would be nice, but I know thats not going to happen, with HIPPA, privacy laws and all.

The Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun group needs to stop bickering with each other and find a common solution.  Each side will only deal with their own extreme.  All guns, or no guns.  What about in between? There's got to be a way to make mostly everybody happy.

Which one is scarier to you?

 Why an AR-15 is called a 'high-powered assault rifle' is beyond me

 no comment