Gun Control Means *Two* Hands...

What a great day today.  Beautiful gameday weather for the Duke game (a 27-0 win by the Jackets, more on that tomorrow), got to hang out with the parents all day (whom, by the way, I am incredibly thankful for), and saw Vandy pull off the upset against the Tigers of Auburn University.  

This past Friday's Technique (Tech's weekly student newspaper) had a pretty good article about the issue of guns and their role(s) in the upcoming election.  Contained in this article was a simple chart explaining the recent gun-related bills in the GA Congress, including the recently-passed House Bill 89.  The chart presented three arguments in favor of "gun control", which I will breakdown here:

Argument #1: "Georgians have the right to be safe from gun violence in their homes and in public, including schools, churches and places of work"

Fundamentally, this argument sounds legit.  I mean, who doesn't wanna be safe from gun violence?  But I'll take this argument further--who doesn't wanna be safe from any violence?  Take cars, for instance--personally, I'd like to be safe from automobile-related violence (such as hit-and-run and vehicular homicide), but does that mean that I shouldn't drive or I should want to restrict others from driving?  One may say that gun-related deaths are more common than vehicle-related ones, but the facts disagree.  In 2004, there were 42,636 deaths caused by car crashes in the US, compared to 30,694 deaths caused by firearms in the US in 2005.  Simply put, both vehicles and guns are tools whose purpose(s) are defined by the user.  In the wrong hands, both can be killing machines.  It is impossible for us as a people and as individuals to always be completely safe from any form of violence, but eliminating the respective tools from the picture is not only impractical, but only a solution for the symptoms, not the root problem.

Argument #2: "Only trained law enforcement should carry guns at certain public places like mental hospitals"

I'll agree with this one based on my limited (read: nonexistant) knowledge of the level of security at mental hospitals.  My guess is that there is always some form of armed law enforcement at these hospitals, and clearly this is not an environment conducive to individuals carrying concealed weapons (for the same reason said carrying should not be allowed for prisoners).  The respect and responsibility needed for a person to carry a fireman cannot be expected to come from the mentally-impaired.

Argument #3: "The availability of guns makes deaths or critical injury more likely in domestic violence, criminal activity, suicide attempts, and unintentional shootings"

First, let me make this clear--any unintentional shooting is a result of the respective gun owner exercising his or her irresponsibility.  Now for the meat of the argument--on the surface, this is also seems like a solid point.  But again, I'll counter with another example, that being arson.  I would argue that the availability of fire-causing tools makes arson more possible and more dangerous.  Any angsty teenager can go to Home Depot with a few bucks and come out with a propane torch, matches, and/or a stick lighter and start a forest fire or burn down someone's house.  Should we then ban all sales of matches, ligthers, and torches?  I imagine this would also be impractical and would not stop arsons from happening.  This goes back again to trying to fix the symptom rather than the cause...any one with the ill will to cause physical or proprietary harm will do so, regardless of the availability (or lack thereof) of materials.

Argument #4: "It is possible to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun violence with reasonable legislation"

This arguments brings two dangerous results.  First, how do we define "reasonable legislation"?  Is this possible?  Second, even if we are able to define "reasonable legislation", this legislation would only apply to the responsible and law-abiding gun owners (which makes up a huge majority of gun owners).  As the saying goes, "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".  It may be old-fashioned, but it still holds true.  

Conclusion

As these four arguments show, the backbone of gun control is either emotionally based or not looking at the big picture.  Sure, it's easy to look at one situation of a child being killed by use of a gun and say "guns are bad".  But too often we forget about the legal and responsible use of guns every day by law-abiding citizens.  Apologies for the cliche, but remember this--guns don't kill, people do.  The lack of presence of any type of firearm will not prevent people from hurting each other, as those intent on harming others will just find a way outside of just guns.