People with guns kill people.
Depending on your point of view, that's either a pro-gun or anti-gun statement.
And it may color your view on how we should deal with the problem
of gun violence and killing in general in our country.
The entire debate seems to be about which way we can feel the most safe.
Some people say that if guns aren't allowed at all,
then we can feel safer because no one will have a gun.
Of course, there are illegal guns everywhere, and so the
"bad guys" end up with them whether they are legal or not.
Other people say that when everyone has a gun, we can feel safer
because the "good guys" will be able to stop the "bad guys"
because he (not she so much) won't be as invincible.
And finally, some people say that only Law enforcement should have guns,
which is a kind of half-measure because it obviously makes guns more available,
but only for people who are sworn to be "good guys".
This makes them feel safer.
Whichever way makes you feel safest is the way you might look at a solution.
But let me question that assumption.
That assumption that your feelings about safety are the goal.
Maybe your feelings about which is safest shouldn't be what we create our laws around.
Maybe instead of looking at things in a "good" and "bad" or
"right" and "wrong" way, we can look at them in a
"Which way Works best, depending on what we're trying to accomplish" way.
You see, if what you're trying to accomplish is a "feeling of safety",
then any or all of these sound like good solutions.
But if instead of relying on your "feelings of safety",
maybe we should be trying to accomplish something else.
The anti-gun people feel safer because they think that less guns
means it's less likely that they'll be shot by one, and yet,
one madman with some armor and a few guns can kill an entire school
full of children without anyone to stop him.
The pro-gun people feel safer with a gun on their hip because they know
that if someone enters a theatre to do harm, that they can stand their ground,
and shoot first. But of course with guns on everyone's hips, someone's fears
can turn a child with skittles and a hoodie into a dangerous thug who must be shot.
So, if we're trying to accomplish a "feeling of safety", we can see that both sides
of the argument are totally "right". They both accomplish their objectives
(feeling safer) with their solution.
So, what about if our goal- that thing we're trying to accomplish- isn't a "feeling" at all?
What if instead what we chose to accomplish with our laws was...
LESS GUN-RELATED DEATHS.
Less by "bad guys", less by "good guys", less by "accident".
How could we accomplish LESS GUN-RELATED DEATHS?
Can we look at an analogy to find our solution?
What if we wanted to accomplish LESS ABORTIONS.
That's right- I'm going there.
If what we wanted to accomplish were LESS ABORTIONS,
what would be the best way to accomplish that?
Would it be to outlaw it?
Would it be to kill any woman who tried?
Would it be to hand out contraception everywhere and anywhere?
Would it be "morning after" pills for every woman every morning?
Actually, no.
The best way to achieve LESS ABORTIONS would be to have ZERO PREGNANCIES.
Right?
You can't have an abortion without a pregnancy!
So- if what we're trying to accomplish is LESS GUN-RELATED DEATHS,
it seems that the only logical, unemotional, conclusion would be.
NO GUNS.
Can we ensure guns aren't made? Nope.
Can we ensure that the "bad guys" wouldn't get one? Nope.
Can we ensure that a madman wouldn't get illegal guns and kill a school full of kids?
Nope- just like we didn't before.
But- would disallowing them altogether make those things much harder?
Yes.
Would the economy around guns take a nose-dive?
Yes.
Would we accomplish LESS GUN-RELATED DEATHS?
Yes.
Is there proof? Yes- look at the countries that have outlawed them.
Don't wait for me to tell you- look it up yourself.
I started this by saying that "People with guns kill people."
So, who's to blame? The guns? The People?
And what should we do about it?
Ask another question:
What are you trying to accomplish with your answer?
