When St. Edward’s University Police Department sent out a response e-mail regarding the “anonymous threat,” they were responding to the 4chan post that copied the anonymous threat suspected to be connected to the recent Oregon shooting.

Luckily, everyone knows that dank memes such as murder, spread like wildfire even if they have the grossest implications due to the anonymity of the internet.

It is too bad we are opting out guns on campus for that alleged shooter. We could have seen a true American hero take up arms, just like the woman who shot at a non-violent shoplifter on Oct. 8.

Thank God for concealed carry as well as Campus Carry Laws so that civilians, whose training only consists of a psychological test and the occasional target practice, can face intense situations.

Situations in which even the sanest soldiers and officers need hundreds of simulations to even be adjusted enough to function rationally.

Surely that is unnecessary when determining when to open fire recklessly. Surely that is unnecessary when determining that the non-uniformed officer apprehending that shoplifter is not a threat to existence. Surely these new gun restrictions ask nothing but the best of people to be the norm and the worse of people to cease to exist.

Perhaps the greater thanks should be to Hollywood whose necessity to get to the action prompts them to skip the years of training each of the action heroes go through to become Jason Bourne, John McClane, Rambo or Kyle Reese. Such action movie heroes romanticize rugged individualism when the reality is much more grim.

Easily our honorable friends in the NRA forget that the thought experiment romanticizing rugged individualism loses easily to the hard statistics or even the personal anecdotes like the one before.

A significant number of shooters involved in the recent shootings may have had mental illnesses, according to The New York Times’s article which went into heavy detail on the last 14 cases of mass shootings.

However, most of the mental illnesses are normally considered non-violent such as depression and anxiety, which affects more than 40 million people or 18 percent of the population, and the two cases that were not related to mental illness were cases in which the offender was shown to listen to “aggressive music.”

To imply that everyone on that list has the potential to be mass murderers gives a wide range of people, which can barely be covered, even by expanding a background check, even though a significant number of cases were caused by faulty checks. Policy makers might as well ban them outright and prevent the trouble in the first place.

While there is more where that came from, this is not meant to be a completely one sided rant about the foolishness of current gun control measures.

As foolish as it is, the Supreme Court has already ruled, in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, that gun owners have “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

In other words, there is no way to outright ban guns. Laws that try are dead on arrival.

The solution to this conundrum? Ammo limitations: individuals can have one clip of ammo for their gun for protection and the rest need to be in the hands of certified and professional organizations for gun shows and hunting.

It is the best of both worlds. Mass shooters, if there are any, will have to go through massive barriers in order to kill a significant amount of people.

It also does not disrupt gun related recreation and pastimes such as target practice and hunting, which when done responsibly can also have positive ecological effects on the food chain in certain areas.

Of course, if things get even more out of hand, you could further limit ammo distribution, and if a person is assaulted on their property, a gun owner could receive some type of police warrant to refill the ammo they used in their alleged “self-defense.”