There is no simple solution, primarily because we cannot agree on a cause and we cannot agree on a cure. One side blames it on guns, while the other blames it on mental health and other issues. If the availability of firearms is not the cause of gun violence, then crippling prohibitions of ownership of firearms is meaningless. If there is no practical means to identify and predict the actions of a potential homicidal maniac, enhanced background checks are unlikely to reduce the violence. The problem is immensely complex, and there are no simple answers.
May 25, 2018
Guest Column: The Gun Debate—Part I: Gun Control Laws
[While this doesn’t completely describe either side it’s a fair start.
He goes on to say something that has been rolling around in my head for a while:
Why should we believe that passing a law against possessing a firearm would result in a significant number of guns being taken off the street?
Actually, such a law might cause a large number of people to give up their guns. Those who are inclined to be law-abiding citizens might grit their teeth and take their guns down to the police station. However, no criminally-inclined individual is going to give up the tool by which he commits his crimes. Then, the only people possessing guns would be the criminals, who know that their intended victims are unlikely to be armed for self-defense.
The way I have been thinking about it is slight different but along the same path. My phrasing would be something like this:
Every incremental increase in the difficult of obtaining and/or use of firearms for self defense is also an incremental increase in the value of firearms and other weapons to the criminal who preys upon the innocent. The complete removal of firearms from those who would use them for the defense of innocent life makes the criminal with a gun immensely powerful. Those who would ban guns are seeking to disempower good people. They therefore will empower, and even create, a multitude of violent criminals.
All in all it is a good article explaining the complexity of the issue without taking a strong position on either side.—Joe]