Gun Control or not?

Every time there is a mass shooting people come out of the woodwork demanding gun control and weapons bans and an equal amount of people are there to shoot them down and claim their 2nd amendment rights. 

So, should there be some form of gun control or not?

I read stories about people being murdered and gun lobyists claiming that if they had had a gun they could have defended themselves but then I think of my dear old father, laying in his bed one night, suffering from the cancer that eventually killed him and my mother, asleep in bedroom one night when two teenagers broke into their apartment. 

It wasn't an apartment like people would normally think of but it was actually the fellowship hall at the church my father was pastor of.  There was a small den and a bedroom/bathroom built at the back of the fellowship hall that my parents stayed in.  The intent was to let visiting pastors use the bedroom/den instead of having to stay in a motel. 

My dad slept on a cot in the fellowship area because of the pain of the cancer.  The two boys discovered my father's gun and held in on my dad in case he awoke.  He later stated if my father had woken up he would have killed him.  Of course, if my father did not have the gun the burglar could just as easily gone to the kitchen and retrieved a knife. 

One of the most commonly stolen items in breakins are guns, especailly in homes where the owner has a large gun collection.  I wonder sometimes if having guns is an encouragement  to thieves to break into a particular house. 

I understand the fasination with weapons.  Some people just like the power, some like the history, while others like the financial rewards of buying and selling things.  Most people, however, just like the feeling of protection having a weapon affords them. 

I will admit there are many people that should not have access to guns.  They can be mentailly unstable, just plain mean, irresponsible, or immature. 

Granted, it is a lot easier to kill many people at once with a firearm than it is by most other means but in the over all scheme of things mass murder represents a small fraction of murders. 

In order for gun laws to work, they must keep guns from being stolen and prevented from ending up in the hands of people that should not have access to firearms.  No set of laws can be prefect so there will always be people with weapons that should not have them.  Outright gun bans is not the answer, or I don't believe it is. 

People do stupid things all the time and we cannot make enough laws to prevent people from doing stupid things.  We can, and have, done things to make the stupid things people do less harmful to themselves and others and we will continue to do so. 

But along with that we have to take upon ourselves a degree of responsibility.  People sued the theater because they banned handguns so victims felt the theater owned them a greater degree of protection.  But the victims forgot personal responsibility.  If they felt unconfortable about the gun bans they should have not gone to the theater or they could have demanded the theater provide them with the level of security they felt they deserved.  But to claim the theater was at fault after the incident is too late and benefits no one and is not going to fix or solve any problems. 

No one wants to live in an environment of security cameras, metal detectors, and body searches.  If we give up our freedoms for safety then we have neither safety nor freedom.  There are risks in being free and there are costs in maintaining that freedom. 

Responsible people thinks of all the consequences before deciding on a course of action.  I believe a well thought out response is due this matter as well.