Not always, but when there’s a shooting I often get a few emails asking what we should do about mass shootings (or school shootings, or any shooting).

In modern vernacular, this would labeled as micro-aggression because I know 1) no one expects me to provide an answer and, 2) it’s just a way to remind me that — by virtue of liking guns — I’m at fault.

The more charitable (if annoying) interpretation is they want to enjoy my reaction.

My immediate answer is “I don’t know” but that’s not the whole of it. I think we should discuss and make realistic proposals. I think discussion is the only chance we have at doing something about any problem we face, including gun violence.

Unfortunately, most discussions start like this: we should ban guns and if you don’t agree, let the blood of innocent victims be on your head.

Call me ignorant but that’s not what I would classify as a good start to a discussion. Especially since “ban guns” is the totality of what they propose. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but that suggestion shows a level of ignorance about the topic of gun control that I can only understand (and partially excuse) in the context of emotion-fueled thinking devoid of any actual thinking.

I’ve dropped blogs for unreasonableness on matters of not only guns, but also health care, climate, religion and/or other supernatural beliefs.  I define unreasonableness as holding absolute positions with no room for differing opinions or willingness to compromise.  Lost me some friends, too, but I’m sure they were glad to see me go.

THIS is a link to most of what I wrote about gun control. If one is interested in engaging me in a discussion, I think people should read all the posts (including the comments) but I want to highlight three posts (for them who only have time for three posts) that encapsulate where I stand on the issue and, again, the comments sections of these posts are worth reading.