Okay, I had some thoughts sprang from the posts I’ve seen regarding gun control that I wanted to field. I hate the fact that I see posts and memes with really good points, only to end very belligerently towards those who think otherwise. I understand people have emotional responses, but, yea, we’re not getting a conversation or moving forward that way. So my thoughts:
I noted that people’s responses to calls for gun control include why it is bad or just unnecessary for the government to “take our guns.” The idea is that advocates are asking for there to be no more guns. However, what I see advocates asking for (myself included, I will admit) is simply checks and restrictions that shouldn’t keep those who say they are responsible from having a gun.
And my questions:
People say that they can get it illegally, but a lot of these people got it legally. If it impedes a person from killing someone, why not make it harder, possibly make it possible to stop?
People say that some of these people make pass background, but if it could stop someone who wouldn’t pass background, why not pose that impediment?
People say that it is a people problem, but not a gun problem, and they have issues that should be dealt with that make them responsible. But they used a gun in their compromised state. If the restrictions could stop them, why not use these?
People say that we instead need to deal with mental health, discipline, etc. Why can’t we address these, but still recognize that while it’s getting addressed, there is still a risk of gun violence, and we could deter it by these restrictions?
People say that if they didn’t have guns, they would use something else, but since guns are far more efficient and effective tools to exact injury and kill, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to make it more difficult to harm another person by someone who would not pass these background and restrictions?
I’m not even thinking just of school shootings, but of the high incidence of gun violence against domestic partners, who have endured domestic violence in fear of their lives and still lost their lives.
Can’t we have thoughtful, effective gun control and those who would use guns responsibly could be but, perhaps, inconvenienced, but still carry, knowing that it could impede and would someone from using gun to enact violence with a gun? I can think of some concerns being that someone who fears for their life (domestic Violence issue) may have a reason that they may not pass, but couldn’t those things be brought up in creating laws so that the baby isn’t thrown out with the bath water? Couldn’t we have people who are looking at reasonable rules and restrictions, so it’s like, as people have mentioned, the process of getting and keeping a driver’s license? I know it’s not the same thing, but can we figure out what would be reasonable?
Couldn’t it not be an “either/or” issues, but something more like this?