This is a challenge. I would suggest that the most passionate pro-gun advocate, if he were to make a sincere attempt at reading this report with an open mind, would have to ask himself a question:
Is the proliferation and availability of guns in America part of the problem?
I say yes. I say yes, after reading countless comments to the contrary, always with the open mind on my part. I understand the "gun is just like any tool" argument, and partially agree. I understand that free citizens are responsible for protecting that freedom in the event that the federal government oversteps its bounds, and I agree. I understand that responsible gun owners should not be penalized because of the criminal sub-culture, and agree wholeheartedly. I've heard all the snide remarks about gun control people simply suffering from a fear of guns, and reject that with a simple qualification. Some may be operating out of a type of fear, some even from a phobia, but many are sincerely trying to find a solution to a complicated and dangerous situation. I could easily turn it around and ask if the gun folks are not the ones suffering from fear. Yet, when reading the chronicle of what's happened in Los Angeles over these last weeks, I can understand that fear, or concern, if you prefer.
I say that although many of these crimes were committed by criminals who might have used other means to commit their respective crimes had no gun been available; in some cases the lethality of the gun which was readily available made the difference.
My questions are these: where did all those guns come from? What percentage came from the huge pool of legal weapons now in circulation? Were some of the guns used in LA this month legally owned? Is there a connection between the philosophy which preaches "meet potential violence with greater violence" contributing to the problem?
What's your opinion? Are you not moved by shock and horror to read what's happened in Los Angeles recently? Tell us in a comment.