My response is:
Here we go again with trying to make a whole population feel guilty for someone that's either crazy or doesn't care about rules. True to form, Obama didn't even wait for the bodies to stiffen before rushing to the podium. What's wild is that he admitted that they don't yet know the motives of the shooter. If you don't yet know the important facts, why make a statement?
Do any of you feel guilty when a murder is committed and a gun WASN'T the murder weapon? Probably not. Why is this any different? Because a gun was used? It's not the gun that's the problem...it's the fact that people keep using the media as a tool to final fame in their end game. Also, this game of "its so commonplace that we've become numb to it" is ridiculous. Whenever I see something like this, I just shake my head, but I'm not going to give up my right because some fool murdered someone. That's why people who commit murders are tried in courts of law...they try the assailants, as they committed the crime. Not me or other law-abiding gun owners, but he assailants.
I'm not buying the excuse that it happens a lot, especially when the media hypes things up.
Tightening gun control will NOT help...if anyone can point to a place in the US (NOT any place OCONUS) that has seen a decline in murders because of tight gun control, share the data.
The bottom line is, I refuse to pay any price for someone who wants to go out with a large body count. Why should I feel guilty or wrong for a crime I did not commit? I refuse to be even remotely responsible for this act. Some dude killing several people and me using my guns for sport and self defense...two VERY different things. Again, why should I be morally responsible for a nut going on a killing spree?
I'm going to leave this here: Obama is really pushing for the Syrian refugees to be allowed in this country...he doesn't see a problem and has stated that these refugees are not terrorist, but he's pointing blame of hysteria to a certain group of Americans. Well, he's right...not every muslim is a terrorist, JUST LIKE EVERY GUN OWNER IS NOT A CRIMINAL. He's giving leeway to the refugees by refusing to believe that terrorists might slip into America, but he's believing that every gun owner is responsible for the relatively few nutjobs that commit murder. That doesn't make sense. The difference is that he wants to control one situation (guns in the US) but not another (refugees that might be criminals). He ignores that they might be criminals in the refugee ranks but won't acknowledge that there are criminals in the gun owner ranks. He really doesn't have control of either group of people, because criminals will be criminals. Again, it doesn't make sense.On a slight tangent, I saw someone state that using social media as a debating tool doesn't help a cause. Actually, for people that are on the fence about political matters, it just might help to open a dialogue with them. Many times, such discussion spills over into real life discussions (example, you visit a relative that might support tighter gun restrictions and he'd read your view on the 2nd Amendment). As well, many of my FB posts are copied to either my Google account or my blogs. Blogs are definitely powerful as a social media tool. Also, sometimes I make videos to spur discussion. Really...if politicians use FB or any other social medium, regular folk can too.