Talking about guns and who should own them has become toxic. It wasn’t too many years ago that parents never had the thought that their children could be murdered while at school by a crazed person with a gun of any type.

It was all about grades, not getting in trouble at school, not getting pregnant, not getting drunk at parties, not doing drugs (a concern that began in the late 1960s and has escalated with the opioid crisis), and hoping your children had the right kind of friends.

When children learned to drive, the anxiety level increased for parents. More teenagers are killed in automobile accidents than have ever been killed from school shootings. But this is less than consoling for parents whose child was murdered while getting an education in a seemingly safe environment.

People talk about gun control. There are a lot of controls already placed on guns and gun ownership. Not even full gun confiscation will stop bad people from doing bad things, as Oklahoma City and 9-11 proved. The latest proposals for gun regulation won’t do anything to stop a crazed person from killing other people.

The Florida shooter should have been stopped long before his murder spree happened. How crazy does a person have to act before someone in law enforcement steps in, especially with dozens of tips from citizens and the killer’s postings on Facebook? Government officials did not do their job – from the local police to the FBI.

Zero tolerance was applied to a kid who made a  Pop-Tart look like a gun but didn’t do anything to a kid who actually threatened people with a real knife and gun numerous times.

Instead of taking responsibility for the missteps, the media, students, and politicians are blaming the National Rifle Association. Bizarre. But deflection is the name of the game in politics. It’s always someone else’s fault.

The sheriff is still in office and no one has been disciplined for the bumbling. I’m going to get political for a moment. If the sheriff was a Republican, we would be seeing and hearing a completely different narrative.

As a result, the gun debate continues. Many gun owners argue that it’s necessary to have a weapon like an AR-15 for protection against a tyrannical government. Personally, I think this is the wrong way to argue. If our government turned on us, there is no way that an armed citizenry could survive long with the full military force of the government. It would be a very messy war, far messier than the War for Independence or the Civil War. Citizens in those wars were nearly equally matched with weaponry. This is no longer the case.

I contend that a weapon like the AR-15 is needed if there is a political or social breakdown of society. The police can’t be everywhere. As we’ve seen in the Florida shooting case, there is a great deal of protected incompetence among government workers. This is the case for any large group. It should be expected.

There may come a time when social unrest breaks out in the United States because of an EMP attack or a natural disaster that affects shipping of goods in large parts of the country. Less than a week’s disruption in food delivery would be disastrous. Most people don’t have enough food or water stored to last them more than a week. We depend on the grocery store shelves to be stocked.

Consider what happens when there’s a snowstorm. Some commodities are bought up within hours.

I’m more worried about people close to home who are desperate enough to kill for food and water. In a large-scale emergency, there is no way the government could stop marauders going through neighborhoods attacking people and breaking into homes.

Some might say that it could never happen here. There’s a lot that’s happening right now that 20 years ago people said could never happen. School shootings is one of them.

Most people – 99.9 percent – who own an AR-15 have never used it in a malicious way. Weapons are like insurance. They are only needed if there is a crisis. Most people who purchase a weapon never fire it. It’s locked away for safekeeping for a time when it might be needed.

There are “no-go” zones in Great Britain, France, and Germany. In some of these zones, even the police will not enter.

[German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has admitted the existence of ‘no-go areas’, where outsiders are afraid to enter…. Just before the New Year, Breitbart London reported how London delivery drivers have described large parts of the capital as “no-go zones” in which they are too afraid to work as a result of rampant knife crime and acid attacks…. BOMBSHELL REPORT: Berlin ‘Lost To Arab Clans’ Now Recruiting ‘Strong Young Migrants.’

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been saying the same thing for years but “was attacked by figures and organisations including the BBC for daring [to] highlight the issue of ‘no-go’ areas.” (Breitbart)

What are innocent victims to do when they are defenseless and the government is reluctant to deal with the problem? What if these gangs wanted to expand their territory? A well-armed citizenry would not be held hostage by migrant gangs who have no regard for life or property. Just knowing that most people are armed in a neighborhood or county will act as a deterrent. No one needs to fire a shot.

During the riots following the Rodney King incident in April of 1992, Korean shop owners defended their property with rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

The nearly weeklong, widespread rioting killed more than 50 people, injured more than 1,000 people and caused approximately $1 billion in damage, about half of which was sustained by Korean-owned businesses.

Here’s the question Korean business owners were asking: “Where are the police? Where are the police?” They “would not see law enforcement for three days — only fellow Korean-Americans, who would be photographed by news agencies looking like armed militia in what appeared to be a guerrilla race war on the streets.” (CNN)

The conflict was temporary. In time, the warring factions decided to reconcile because they had common interests. But what stopped the violence and destruction was a small group of citizens who protected their lives and property with firearms. It’s unfortunate that the Korean population is leaning leftward politically. But that’s a story for another day.

Many argue that our founders never meant for the Second Amendment to apply to a weapon like an AR-15. It’s important to note that the Second Amendment does not specify what constitutes “arms” (armaments) in the same way that the First Amendment does not specify what constitutes a “press.” Can you imagine printing companies and newspapers restricted to using an actual press to print books, magazines, and newspapers? Should freedom of speech be prohibited if electronic means are used to broadcast that speech?

We live in a dangerous world. We always have. Today, however, because of numerous shifts in worldview thinking (see my article “The Trickle-Down Effect of Atheism, Irrationalism, Subjectivism, and Darwinism”), moral subjectivism reigns.

Better to be armed and never have to use a weapon than to need a weapon and not have one. If you’re going to purchase a gun of any kind, learn to use it and follow all safety procedures, including guarding your weapons so your children don’t have access to them unless they are well trained and very responsible. If your children have other children over at your home, place your guns under lock and key.