Do we care enough about each other to change?

I understand Allison's emotional response, but I do not agree with most of her proposed solutions.

She did not state the solution was to stop selling assault rifles, she said there should be no gun ownership (not even responsible gun ownership). She said anyone who thinks they need a gun needs to rethink their lives and what they do for fun. This includes hunters like me. She doesn't think expanded mental health services or tighter gun control restrictions will work -- only the banning of gun ownership. She can have this belief because she sees not personal utility in guns - therefore, she gives up nothing if her proposed action came to fruition.

I am not a gun fanatic but I own multiple pistols, rifles and shotguns. I grew up around guns, and served in the military. Guns are not a fetish for me, they are tools. Some of my guns were inherited and some were purchased. I own a 100 year old Winchester with a well worn saddle ring that once put meat on my great grandparents table. It has history - it tells a story not just of my family, but of the settling of the West. It had utility and purpose. My guns reside in a safe when they are not on my person. After UCC shooting, I got my concealed carry license and I carry a concealed weapon. I am unashamed of exercising my right to defend myself and my family. My guns have utility and purpose.

Allison is quick to dismiss solution that have not been tried - universal comprehensive mental health screenings and easier access to mental health services - national legislation for comprehensive screenings for gun purchasing - and federal funding for school security upgrades. Proposing the banning of responsible gun ownership is an extreme position that is a nonstarter for any effective change.

Where I agree with Allison is the virtual world we have allowed our youth to live in unchecked. Its the same story over and over again. Disenfranchised young male, obsessed with guns, outsider at school, poor social skills, angry about their life and finds an internet community that tells them their problems are caused by someone else. That is the profile. That is who pulls the trigger. Do we stop this very small group of people, by banning guns for everyone? Isn't there a more targeted approach we could use?

Our government monitors intel for terrorists threats in a very sophisticated manner. We know what internet sites to monitor, suspicious activities to track, and individuals to watch. We don't have a national ban on air travel or purchasing fertilizer. The Patriot Act already put us in a surveillance society, maybe more resources should be dedicated to threats from within out borders.

Lastly, we are a country that has a lot of freedoms. Maybe the most important is freedom of speech. However, hate speech, speech that instigates violence, and creates irrational fear always seems to be at the center of these violent acts. People, even emotionally damaged ones, don't just wake up one day and decide to kill -- they seek out a place to make sense of a world they perceive to be cruel - and they get their answers in the form of chat rooms and conspiracy theories. Limiting free speech is a slippery slope - but maybe someone smarter than me can find a way to make hate speech less mainstream than it has become.