Roseburg, Oregon. Yet another shooter, yet another mass of victims. The bodies have not even been counted yet, but POTUS was on TV, calling for, what else, more gun control — by what else, but his favorite method, executive orders. The usual suspects are joining the chorus, as if this had been a pre-planned event, or as if they are just salivating for yet another excuse to push the same old agenda. Saul Alinsky would be so proud…

You would think that at some point, even if this bunch’s collective intellect is warped and thwarted by loony-left ideology, at some point someone among them would stop and think, what is the one outstanding common factor that hits you in the face (but apparently not hard enough) in all these cases of mass shootings?

Is it, lone gunman, the usual self-perceived social outcast, looking for fame? No, hardly relevant. Every loner is not a nut case, every loner nut case is not looking for fame, and every loner nut case looking for fame is not a mass murderer.

Is it, armed to the teeth with guns and more ammo then you could shoot in a month? No, again hardly relevant, because there are many examples in this country and elsewhere where the weapon was something much less convenient (and more gruesome) than a gun, and still there were many victims.

The one common factor that they never want to admit into evidence is that ALL these cases in the US and elsewhere took place in a GUN-FREE ZONE. That is, in a safe-for-the-shooter free-fire zone — the one place where the shooter is guaranteed that HE is not at risk, while he is guaranteed that his victims are defenseless simply because they obey the law. And WE conspire in the murder spree by actually putting up signs to advertise this insane fact

So what is the solution? Very simple. So simple that the high brow “liberals” in academia, the media and politics can’t be expected to think of it, let alone adopt it.

1. Allow everyone the free exercise of their Constitutional, Second Amendment right of self-defense; that is, to carry a weapon. I would stop right here — NO gun registration, NO permits to carry either open or concealed. But …

2. If obeying the Constitution is “too extreme,” then allow everyone who wishes to carry to get a permit to carry with as few hassles as possible. People who pass background checks do not end up as mass murderers.

3. If that is still “too extreme,” then make the “gun-free zone” signs mean what they say. Enforce it vigorously, aggressively, by

(a) ARMED guards or police at entry points challenging anyone and everyone who enters the “gun-free zone,” and

(b) roaming ARMED patrols randomly challenging, spot-checking anyone within the zone.

But, as the college administration in Roseburg has so tragically demonstrated, of course the believers and practitioners of that idiotic dictum, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of feeble minds,” can’t allow the police or security guards to have guns, either, because,… it’s supposed to be… a gun-free zone…

4. At this point, we might still manage to inject a last bit of common sense. Since it is impossible to have 100% tight security anywhere, and since the very idea of tightly enforced security is anathema to the high brow academics who don’t want to live in a “police state,” and since the one thing no one can contradict and disprove is that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” and therefore potential victims must never be deprived of their natural, god-given right of self-defense when the need arises, then the next best thing that the guards or police could do, as they are enforcing a “gun-free zone,” is to allow people with a permit to pass freely.

5. At this point, I would make sure that permit holders have demonstrated

(a) competence and good judgement, for example by attending regular refresher courses, and of course

(b) the willingness to intervene if the need arises.

(I also advocate everyone without exception to go through the same basic training as the military, right after high school, so they’ll learn how to defend themselves both with and without weapons.)

Please do note that I am NOT calling for registering guns. A permit to carry does not necessarily mean that you would actually buy and carry a gun, let alone register it at the time of purchase or at the time of applying for a permit, and I would most certainly change current law on permits so as to remove any requirement for such declarations that may currently exist. The exercise of our Second Amendment rights must never be bastardized to result in gun registration and therefore the inevitable next step, confiscation. (Yes, historically registration has always resulted in confiscation.)

The other thing I would never do is declare anything to be a “gun-free zone” and post signs advertising it to be so. As a wise man on the radio said recently, no mass shooter was ever deterred by a “gun-free zone” sign. I am greatly bothered by such signs on the doors of doctor’s offices, clinics and hospitals, for example. (Stores with that sign are easy. I don’t have to shop where the owner is that stupid.) What an obscene contradiction — the very place where you go to repair your health is the very place where you are more likely to lose your life, precisely because of that sign… I’d expect anyone who values life would be prepared to defend it, not surrender it to some opportunistic shooter. As the Roseburg incident showed, helpless cooperative victims get shot, not spared.

The deterrence, resulting from any of the five levels of my proposal, comes from the uncertainty in the potential criminal or mass killer’s mind that ANYONE around him may be is a position to take timely and effective countermeasures. Yes, he might get off a shot and maybe even kill someone at the start of the incident, but that will be the end of him — no mass kill, no fame, no infamy; live like a loser, die like a loser, be remembered, if at all, as a pathetic loser. This is possible, and it is possible only if, we respect the wisdom of our Founders and their masterpiece creation, the Constitution of the Unites States.